#6: Global Test? > Moore?

THREAD BEGAN: October 4th, 2004

BOB: Well, I think we have exhausted the ‘Saddam since the Gulf War’ topic.
I'd like to move on to the topic of the UN. In the debates Kerry said something about passing a 'Global Test' and the Bush camp went crazy. Now they are both running ads to address this situation.
---Did Kerry say something damaging?
---Should US foreign policy have to stand up to a 'global test?'
---Has the UN become irrelevant?
---If so, should it be abandoned or reformed?
---Do you think that this type of Global body can work?
Post your thoughts on the UN.
PS Dan is right, my boycott has been lifted and I encourage all others to do the same (chuck) Also I'd like to thank Jay for admitting his mistake (I only wish Bush was so forthright)

JAY: a new movis is coming out soon. some of you may be interested. you can watch the trailer at http://www.celsius4111 it is the truth about the lies of farenheit 911. you left wingers have constantly been saying how horrible post-war iraq is going. here are some "fun facts." Within two months, all major Iraqi cities and most towns had municipal councils; something that took eight months in postwar Germany. Within four months the Iraqi Governing Council had appointed a cabinet; something that took 14 months in Germany. An independent Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency announced in just two months; accomplishments that took three years in postwar Germany. Within two months a new Iraqi police force was conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. Within three months, we had begun training a new Iraqi army; and today some 56,000 are participating in the defense of their country. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army.” I bet you leftys would have been making the same arguments for hitler as you are for saddam.

ZELIN: Jay, did you see Fahrenheit 9/11?

KYLE: Jay, Your fun facts set up a completely false analogy. The list of accomplishments that you regergitated as "fun facts" have been administration talking points for months and have gone nowhere because they are known to be absurd by anyone who has picked up a history book.
Here is how the Gaurdian details why your argument is "transparently ridiculous." You can click on the text to read the full article:
"The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparallelled in human history."
"Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam."
"Hitler analogies have long been the stock-in-trade of Anglo-American war propaganda - perhaps not surprisingly, since the second world war still retains near-universal legitimacy, just as Nazi Germany remains the archetype of an aggressive, genocidal state."
Hitler was found dead in a bunker that was part of an military complex. We found Saddam under a rug in a hut.

CHUCK: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
Here is factual support for EVERY LINE IN THE MOVIE. He just draws inferences based on facts. MOST DEATHS LAST MONTH THEN ANY OTHER MONTH. But you're right, its going great because we are building things faster then we did in the 1940's
Boy that movie was such smash hit. "Coming to theatres in September" according to the website. Gosh, i couldnt even get a ticket to see it. (maybe that's because it was never in one theatre.....what does that say, supply and demanders)
http://www.celsius4111.com/4111/c4111%5Fcontents/about/

JAY: chuck, are you saying moore did not misrepresent anything? you are even directing me towards moore's own site to review his facts. you don't think he is extremely biases. yes zelin, i have seen the movie. i downlaoded it on bearshare. another issue we can talk about is illegally downloading. i had a conversation w/ zelin once and he seemed to think it wasn't wrong. if anyone agrees w/ him, we can discuss. anyway, here are some of the misrepresentations. if you ant me to explain more in depth i can:
Rep. Porter Goss does have a toll-free number
Moore claims Saudis have $100 billion more invested in America than is believed they have invested in the entire world
Fox called Florida for Gore first; CBS was the first network to retract the Gore result
Privacy laws force White House to black out Bath's name
Gore didn't win "every recount scenario"
Bush was raising money for charity during "have mores" quote
Condi doesn't think Iraq was involved in 9/11
Unger questions Bush/bin Laden relationship
Bush isn't the only one in Carlyle
75-80% of "$1.4 billion" Saudi connection false
All embassies have Secret Service protection
Happy and healthy in Iraq?
Legislative sons in active service
Bush's Air National Guard service misrepresented
Moore's congressmen have ties to terrorists and the U.N. "oil for food" scandal
"House of Bush, House of Saud" not publishable in the UK for legal reasons
Unocal gave up pipeline project 3 years before Afghan war
Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 commission applauds Bush for the infamous "7 minutes"
Disney told Moore over a year ago that they would not distribute
Moore is preparing to sue critics of his film
Moore distorts Bush "vacation days"
Michael Moore had abuse footage months beforehand; did not notify DOD
Three members of the 2004 Cannes jury have ties to Miramax
Michael Moore has called civilian contractors in Iraq "War Profiteers"
On 9/11, George W. Bush did not sign the order for Saudis to leave the U.S.
Groups affiliated with Hezbollah have offered to help distribute Fahrenheit 9/11
Moore's misleading Oregon assertion
Moore misrepresents newspaper headlines, dates
the 8/06/01 PDB
The Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
20 Counties ignored voter removal list
Large number of Congresspeople are veterans
Moore's military double-think
Watch this drive, Yassir!
Bush policies regarding military pay misrepresented
Saddam has murdered Americans

KYLE: Did you write those bullet points or did you get them from another source?

JAY: of course i got them from another source, but does that matter? are we going to address where i got them or discuss the substance?
Bob, where can I learn the stances on this issue. I'm unsure what you want. However, I do have a response to, "Post your thoughts on the u.n.
Quite frankly, and realistically, the UN couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. Furthermore, the UN organization is notorious for its lack of peace-keeping capability and inability to take control of crisis situations when needed. Were it not for the ongoing military, political, and financial support of the United States, the UN would have crumbled into non-existence decades ago. Shit, we even provide its headquarters, right here in the good ole USA. Ever wonder why we still do that? The fact of the matter is, most Mid-East countries despise the US, yet that doesn't stop them from accepting endless streams of American taxpayer and corporate contributions, provided via our monetary foreign aid, products, and services. The UN Mid-East countries veto US proposals and resolutions 70 to 80 percent of the time. Why do we continue to support the governments of the Mid-East? Why does the US remain a large supporter of the United Nations? Why hasn't the Bush administration pursued punishment for Saudi Arabia, since most of those terrorists involved in the 9/11 activities were citizens or held ties to that nation? Why does the US continue to send millions of American dollars to the very same Mid-East countries that hate us so much and continue to harm us by using our own money, products, and services to defeat and annihilate us? These are some very good questions that require some very good responses from the Bush administration. In essence we are killing ourselves, and we need to consider changing the dynamics of this reality. A first step toward that goal is to provide a tangible and responsible plan and timeline to turnover the governing of Iraq to its people, and to return American soldiers without further incident.

BOB: Jay, did you even read the 'misrepresentations' in your email.
Here are some of my favorites:
· Rep. Porter Goss DOES have a toll-free number
· Gore didn't win "EVERY recount scenario"
· Bush isn't the ONLY one in Carlyle
· Moore distorts Bush "vacation days"
· Three members of the 2004 Cannes jury have ties to Miramax
So let me get this right...Moore makes a film claiming that Bush stole the election, dragged the nation into a war for oil, and lied to the American people about the WMDs...and this is the Right's response:
Moore lied about Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number?!?
That's the best they could come up with?
What an unbelievable admission of guilt!!!
These ridiculous lists only go to show that Bush can’t dispute the devastating allegations in this film.

JAY: bob, why don't you address the other points? what seems to happen over and over is that you address the weakest parts of my arguments and fail to respond to my arguments with the most substance. read the blog. i apologozed to you for the blog, and asked a specific question; you failed to reply. just answer one thing. it's from an e-mail a posted earlier where i stated, "the fact is he looked at the same intelligence as bush and made the same decision as bush. now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. i know you say he approved of the war, but not in the way bush went about it. how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?" Do I quote myself? Seems weird. One more thing, what's this global test thing? Don't forget i still love you. I may seem hostile at times, but this is just politics. I'm a fire starter

CHUCK: jay, i do think moore is very slanted, and sometimes just overly conspiracy theoryish. Anyways, most of you the claims are just irrelevant. for example: FOX news called it for Gore originally.....what does that have to do w/ anything....all Moore does is say that Fox was first to change.....that is true. he makes no other claims. i am not going to fight/defend this movie. it speaks for itself. everything he says if factually correct. and some of the statements are kinda of misleading. its kinda like most campaign ads. By the way, the fact that you cut and paste it IS relevant. Here are a few more claims that are wrong: Moore says "Gore won every state recount" and that is true. Gore won every statewide recount. Gore did not win the recount of the counties that Gore requested, BUT Moore didnt sa that. I can go on, but Jay I would appreciate you make one exact assertion that Moore makes that is a LIE. SHOW ME A LIE Jay, I was thinking about something. Bush must really really suck, because you continue to bash Kerry and everything left-wing.......BUT then you said you are not sure if you are going to vote for Bush. You may never admit it in such words, but I am glad that part of you knows Bush Sucks

JAY: that's exactly what i said. one of my first e-mails in the blog. i don't really like bush, but kerry sucks

BOB: OK Jay, I will honest-to-God, try to respond as directly as I know how...
First, I already conceded that Kerry's authorization to use force vote is unforgivable. I used that exact word: “unforgivable.” And I have voiced my deep disappointment in his inability to stick to a point-a-view during the last 2 years in regards to Iraq.
Bush likes to talk about 'evil' well here's how I see it: There are two types of evil in this world: Those who harm others for their own benefit and those who watch and do nothing to stop it.
Kerry might have been weak when we needed him, but this failure, as disappointing as it is, is nothing compared to what I see as blatant manipulation/lying by the Bush camp. Kerry isn't perfect, but it's still an easy choice for me.
In regards to building a coalition: I think Kerry does have a better chance than Bush. The world hates Bush. Let me repeat that ...the world hates Bush. The more time I spend living outside the U.S. the more I realize it. Call me naïve, but I truly believe that if a fresh face approaches these world leaders with respect and acknowledges that we screwed up, he might be able to hold their attention long enough to demonstrate why it is in their best interest to join us in Iraq. Maybe Kerry will never get France to send troops, but anybody has a better chance than Bush does. Can it get any worse that it is right now?
About the GLOBAL TEST thing: My question was pretty open-ended. I know that usually liberals tend to say that the UN is a global body that provides peace and stability in the world and should be respected by all. While the conservatives tend to say that the UN is irrelevant because when it comes to enforcing its own resolutions it is at best: slow and at worst: impotent.
My only strong opinion in regards to the UN is this: We need to pick a side. We say that Saddam needed to be removed because he was breaking resolutions. But we continue to give Israel un-Godly amounts of support as they break resolutions and we even side-step the Security Council vote on Invading Iraq when it looked like we were going to lose. It is this hypocrisy that bothers me because I think it breeds the anti-Americanism that these terrorist networks are feeding on. PS I love you too, Jay. Peace.

CHUCK: jay, i know you think kerry is so bad, and base his imminent failure on his image that has been jammed down your throat from a a bunch of sound clips in the news and in the bush ads. but think about this: there has been 2 times that america got to see John Kerry, and only John Kerry....the convention speech and the debates. the convention he was okay. the debates he was great. so then you point to his horrible senate record. he was weak. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE. It is a great example of John Kerry's Senate History. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html he led a charge to cut off terrorist funding, all the way back in the 1980's. That's not too bad.

JAY: i think he was great in the debates as well, i just can't see past the contradiction i mentioned earlier today to bob (i should have directed it to all of you). he uses wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and 40 other countries that we should have gone after 1st to attack bush, however at crunch time he voted for the war. the manner in which bush went about the war is irrelevant. kerry sucks for using that against bush when he voted for it as well. if it is wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and there are 40 other countries that we should have gone after 1st shouldn't he have not voted for the war and brought up the other countries at crunch time instead of using it for his political gain now. don't worry bob, i am done with this issue and i still feel it hasn't been justified

CHUCK: Jay, I have been wanting to respond to your claims that Kerry's plan is horrible for the world because it hurts globalization. I have a 2 part answer: First, Kerry's Plan: - He just wants US corporations to quit going into tax shelters overseas. He wants them to pay taxes on their profits. That will in fact (a) make other smaller businesses more competitive w/ the big businesses, (c) increase incentives to invest in american employment, and (c) increase American tax revenue. Additionally, Kerry wants to lower the corporate tax rate, which increases help to small business. Second, Free Market Globalization: - Free trade has positive and negative effects. There is no doubting that. Deference to total trade is a horrible idea. If supply and demand controlled our lives, we would not have a minimum wage. We would have child labor. We would have no right to organize. We would not have free speech at our job. And the horrors would continue. Bottom line: There would be child labor, and women getting paid $3/hr for certain jobs. Do you want to be China, or the United States? - Yes there is demand for us to go to these nations, but we have to show some restraint. There is a fine line between exploitation and progress. The conditions in Mexico are such that the jobs we provide are the best they have. And that is good. But if you try to file a complaint for getting hurt on the job, you get fired and blacklisted. And that is bad. So you requested to "direct stupid arguments to economics"Well, in my opinion you cannot separate the economics and the exploitatoin. We don't separate the 2 in our country. We dont allow our own to be exploited. And for a nation that feels the best way to cure the world (and fight terrorism) is to spread liberty, we better spread the same liberty that we value here in america. Finally, there is no definitive policy. There basically just has to be a lot of pushing and pulling, until a middle ground is found. Kind of like it is right now. But there is still too much exploitation right now. And that is why a great plan like John Kerry's to lower the incentive to go overseas would probably help. Kerry's plan would strengthen America, while still providing overseas jobs to desperate nations. And hopefully then these nations with the infusion of some employment can build a side economy, and not just fully depend on america (that is where aid and other issues come up). There are no easy answers. It is very gray, not black and white. And who would you want to handle a gray area? "With us or against us W" or John "Mr. Nuance" Kerry. Help is on the wayWell, we should really quit the iraq debate cause we go in circles. but i'll just say: Kerry voted for the authority because sadaam was a threat. there was a right way and a wrong way to handle the threat, and bush did it wrong. Kerry said, while casting his vote, that he wanted to exhaust the UN inspections and work to get a coalition. Bush did not. That is where Kerry finds his reasoning to be mad at this war. And, to me, there is not much doubting that it was the "wrong time" for the war because we obviously rushed to war. (i really wish kerry lost the debate, because now i am excited for kerry, but its ruining my life. my head hurts. and sorry for all the emails, i'll try to slow them down)

SAMMY: Jay, you may need to check your sources. Let me go down the list. Fox was the first to change Gore. Gore did win in every state recount. Legis;ative sons in active duty. Show one congressmans kid over in Iraq actually fighting and using a gun. Bush's National Guard involvement. Yes he was in the national guard, but you and me know both their was pereferal treatment. Moore's congressmen have ties to terrorists and the U.N. "oil for foor" scandel. I'm not sure about that yet and so what he is not a congressman and can't vote and congressional levels. 7 minutes. 7 MINUTES!!!!! What more needs to be said about that. The vacation days. It is a known fact that this president has taken the most vacation days out of any president. Camp David is a fun place and I am sure he is doing work their, but he should be at the White House where most of the other employees are. So Moore got the abuse tapes before the DOD let them out. Anyone could have downloaded them from the Internet. I got the new Radiohead album a month before it was released to the public. Am I to blame becuase I wanted them before I could buy it. By the way I did buy it when it came out, because I support the musicians I download. The 2004 Cannes Jury had ties to Miramax. Who better to judge movies than a sucessful movie company that prides themselves in independent films. And the movie obviously deservered awards when it did so well in the theaters. Civilian contractors are "War Profitteers". They are working over their for money. They are not volenteering over their. Did you know the average laborer is making upwards to $100,000 a yr, when the average laborer in the states makes 40 to 50 a yr. Thats what I call profit. Watch this drive, Yessir. Did that not happen? Did they do that with a stunt double, or maybe it was computer generated. Wonders what they can do with computers now a days. Now, to comment on your connections of Iraq and post war Germany. We are in a far more technology based world. We have computers that can do amazing things. So maybe that is why things are moving so much faster along over there. Did you ever stop to think that that was the 1940's and this is 2004. We have super computers, humanitarian aid, jets, a far more technologically advanced army, and a enormous demand from the public to get something done over there. The president is hard pressed to make some advances over there before the election, becuase we can already see that alot of the people of the world are not satisfied with what is going on over there. I also saw your trailer to celius 41.11 and I would like to see based of the last clip of the trailor. A man so eliqueitely put "I would vote for a single celled organism before I would vote for Bush" That guy deserves a plaque.
Regarding your comment on if illegal downloading is wrong, I would have to disagree. Personally I support almost all of the bands I have downloaded, and about half of the porn. But really, for someone that listens to my genre of music it is very hard to find out about bands and get the feel for this type of music. I think Bob will back me up on this. Most radio stations only play hip-hop, rock or country. Jay I know you listen to some smaller named indepedent bands. For me this is the independent radio, where I can pick and choose what I like. Now for the smaller bands you can't find the whole album, so if I like what I hear I go buy the CD or buy it from I tunes. Now I know the big hip hop bands lose out on CD sales from this becuase everyone has the new Jessica Simpson album and has placed it on the internet. But really is Jessica hurting from this, NO! I have seen her house on MTV, Jessica and Nick seem well off. The only people that are hurting are the record executives at major label companies. And they are still doing well. Better than me or you. But have you noticed the smaller bands showing up on MTV lately. I definetly have. Years ago I never tought I would here Modest Mouse on the radio. It seems good to me that small bands are showing up in the mainstream. Jesus Christ, Maney is listening to Snow Patrol and Keane. Great bands, but you won't hear them on Cleveland radio, for sure. Maybe on other markets such as the real major metropolitian areas such as New York, San Diego and Chicago. Where their is enough people to support a small fan base. But Maney would never had heard these bands if not for the internet. And I know he stole them. Yes He stole them. But I on the other hand, did buy their CD, and bought tickets to their concert. Concert! Yes this is where bands make their most money. Performing, what they do best. So as long as you have people like me and people still going to the concerts, bands will do just well and the record exects will do just fine. The music industry has been exploiting us to long, now it is our turn to discover bands not fed to us by record labels and the radio. It is time for people to find their genre via the internet and support those bands.

BEN: sammartano, you need to get your facts straight: Fox News WAS NOT the first to change Florida back to uncalled in 2000 - it was NBC News (also the first to call the state for Bush at 7:49) However, FOX was the first to call Florida for Bush at 2:16 AM, followed next by NBC News and then CNN and ABC. At 2:37 the AP put out an urgent bulletin that said FL was too close to call still, and the networks then followed suit, leaving the totals at 267 Gore-254 Bush. all of this available with a quick search on the internetGore DID NOT win in every state recount. Many after the fact recounts took place, and some showed Bush won, and some showed Kerry won. However, EVERY study I have ever seen showed that using the standards and specific counties that Gore cherry picked and requested the Florida Supreme Court to let him have recounts in he would have lost. gores appeal was the basis of the Supreme Court decsion of Bush V. GoreBottom line on that is no matter what side you were on, is if you lost you would have some legitimate reasons to be mad, but just to claim it is all FOX's fault is untrue

CHUCK: Sammartano said Fox was the "first to change Gore". Technically wrong. I am sure he meant "first to call for Bush"......WHICH IS TRUE. You sound like Bush pointing out "what about Poland?"....you are pulling at any word omission or anything, but the premise is still unchanged, Fox pounced on the chance to call Florida for Bush, before anyone else. Also, Gore DID WIN EVERY COMPLETE STATEWIDE RECOUNT. and here is a source, fucking Drudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm (show me another comprehensive recount....and not to fucking mention all the uncounted voters and votes) And everyone wants to bicker of minor details. Here was the main premise: Florida was Stolen. Simply no question. Maybe the word 'stolen' seems harsh, but what is when more florida voters wanted you to win and voted for you (or tried but were barred) but you lose? Stolen, robbed, what? And that is what makes Bush's presidency more sick. Even if Florida was legit, he did not have a majority of the vote. But he acted like he won in a landslide and led the most partisan presidency in our nations history.

JAY: after reading these e-mails from john and chuck, i understand what their problem is. they are believing everything that moore says. you have to admit that moore's movie is extremely bias and misrepresenting (at least slightly misrepresenting, although i believe otherwise). even liberal democrats understand this. read this article, Michael Moore's Truth Problem; Is Michael Moore a courageous political documentarist who unmasks the chicanery all around us -- or just a charlatan in a clown suit? Is he an entertainment genius or a dangerous ideologue? The answer, of course, is all of the above. The problem is that you never know which of the four is doing the talking in Moore's movies and books. The end result is that the writer-filmmaker spreads a fog of misbegotten notions about America, politics, business, and international affairs among his youthful, left-leaning following at home and, indeed, around the world. Uninformed readers and viewers tend to believe everything he says. The website is http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=252483 . This is from the NEW DEMOCRATS ONLINEim done w/ moore. it's a waste of my time

CHUCK: Jay, as a final shot on Michael Moore, I agree w/ all four statements about him (but i obviously think he is more good then bad). And I also know he slightly misleads in this movie. That said, my main anger about Moore bashing is that he made a very popular movie with an important theme, and it was discredited because of a few statements that were true but misleading. I feel the same way about The Passion, which many on the left bashed for a few things perceived as slightly unfair. They are both good and popular movies. And should not be discredited because of a minor details.

ZELIN: Jay, I agree with you that Moore's points are biased. Shit, he even admits that. Even though pointing out some interesting things, it is for entertainment value and I really don't think most democrats (at least sane ones) are not counting on this movie to sway votes. Try reading this article from NY Times from respected columnust Paul Krugman. Interesteing what he points out regarding Bush's spending: But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't. Take from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ex=1097978047&ei=1&en=5c575b663c1ce318

SAMMY: I would contend my arguement but it seems chuck has done me pretty well. And who really care which network said what at what time. Chuck has given a legitimate resource for the statewide recount. Anyways, this was just a propaganda movie to get people thinking. When that movie came out it was highly criticized and everyone (at least eveyone I knew) knew it was going to be a one sided arguement against Bush. Yes, Moore takes things to the extreme, but it got people thinking. That's what counts for me, not the network that said what at what time. The fact is the movie didn't really bring any thing new to the table, as far as I can remember. Their was no astonishing new revelation about Bush. All that information was out their, you just had to watch the news over the past years. And that is all have to say about a movie that I pretty much forgot about. I'm also sorry for making the fox statement unclear, I was just trying to keep it short. Bob's blogspot is getting pretty big and I was trying to keep things short.

BEN: well john you obvioulsy did care what network called it at what time because you made a point to say talk about it in your email.......but i am sure you made a mistake (for real),. the AP was the one that released the bulletin first showing Bush had won Florida, not FOX News....and still they werent the first to take florida from gore originally.
chuck you citing one study does not mean that every other study agrees with it. here is a link to the miami herald / usatoday study from may 2001. it has some different results. how do you define statewide recount.....there are many ways to do it.....with the undervotes, overvotes, chads, optical scanners, there was more than 1 way to count. i have never disagreed that more people that went to the polls that day inteded to vote for Gore. it is likely true.....but i belive the bush still won legally. just intending to vote for gore, but punchng the ballot for buchanan doesnt mean it is a vote for gore.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/recountindex.htm

SAMMY: Actually I didn't care, the only reason I commented on it was becuase it was on Jay's list.