Forum Search
Member Spotlight
SovereignGrace
SovereignGrace
Crum, WVa, USA
Posts: 117
Joined: July 2025
Forum Statistics
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,543
Members992
Most Online2,383
Jan 12th, 2026
Top Posters
Pilgrim 15,025
Tom 4,892
chestnutmare 3,463
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,904
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
Robin 1,079
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 35
Tom 3
Robin 1
Recent Posts
"If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."
by Pilgrim - Thu May 21, 2026 5:30 AM
"Marvellous lovingkindness."
by Pilgrim - Wed May 20, 2026 9:09 AM
King of Kings
by Anthony C. - Mon May 18, 2026 2:22 PM
"So to walk even as He walked."
by Pilgrim - Sun May 17, 2026 6:42 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#18949 Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 227
Likes: 1
Enthusiast
OP Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 227
Likes: 1
www.moorelies.com

This is good and Democrats would do well to take his advice.

America has spoken.

And Michael Moore's mentality, his movement, his message, and his movie have all been soundly, embarrassingly, decisively defeated. Remember this day folks: He lost, and he lost real bad.

Stepping back for a second: My sincere congratulations go out to Senator John Kerry for fighting his way through to the end of a difficult, perpetually intense campaign. I wish the Kerrys and the Edwards' all the best in their respective future efforts. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing either one or both of them serve in the Bush administration in some capacity. After all, it is finally over, and I honestly believe it's now time for people of character to come together and prove yet again that those of the angry lunatic fringe movement have no place whatsoever when people of meaningful purpose-- from both sides of the aisle-- are working to ensure the safety and future of our nation.

While Kerry flirted at times with the end of the lunatic fringe that Moore so proudly represents, you'll notice one significant difference between the two men today. I believe that difference will materialize-- even through all the passionate rhetoric of this campaign season-- as Kerry officially and gracefully concedes the election and then quickly gets back to the business of actually working on the future of our country, whether you agree with his ideas or not.

Michael Moore, in contrast, will not concede an inch today. He will not concede tomorrow, nor the next day. If history is any guide, (and with Moore, it's nearly clairvoyant), he will only become angrier, more distant, and further marginalized in the views of a majority of Americans.

So, while I agree for the most part with Jeff Jarvis' pledge, I also believe that with all due graciousness towards Senators Kerry and Edwards comes a measure of equally due gloating towards Michael Moore.

To that end, it's worth taking just a few minutes to compare and contrast Michael Moore's vision of America as he's laid it out over the past year with what the American people said last night:

The popular vote and legitimacy
Moore said: Throughout the past few years, and on several occasions during this campaign, Michael Moore claimed that a "majority" of Americans disagree with President Bush's policies and beliefs. Last night's vote proved Moore wrong in a big, big way:

America voted: President Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote. In fact, he won more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. He also garnered increased support from African American and Latino voters and several other voting blocs, according to exit polling.

The electoral college and voter fraud
Moore said: Throughout the fall, Michael Moore threatened to land in Florida to heroically document incidents of voter fraud. Further, he tried to marshall an army of videographers to monitor (or disrupt?) polling places nationwide. How did Moore's scare tactics over the electoral vote affect the election?

America voted: President Bush won a clear majority of the electoral college vote. He also came away successful in several other telling statistical areas. While sporadic problems were reported, sanity was, by and large, returned to the voting process this time around, seriously damaging any credence given to Moore's planned claims of a "stolen" election. In fact, things went so smoothly in Florida, Michael Moore packed up his intimidation crew early and went elsewhere hoping trouble would brew.

Vote or Die? and the 'Slacker Uprising'
Moore said: Michael Moore's 'Slacker Uprising' tour -- really a promotional jaunt designed to sell Moore's DVD, two books, and two soundtracks -- was one of a few left-leaning voter outreach initiatives driving the mainstream media's endless predictions of a huge increase in young (18-29) voter turnout. While some groups used scare tactics to turn the youth vote towards Kerry, Moore accepted an almost $2 million dollar payday from America's colleges and college students, and then returned the favor by handing out free underwear, endorsing a candidate he said he wouldn't endorse, and rankling quite a few feathers with his highly questionable, potentially-illegal activities.

America voted: The massive youth turnout expected simply did not happen. Although voter turnout on the whole was gratefully larger than 2000, the percentage of youth who voted remained the same as last time: around 17% of all eligble voters age 18-29 cast ballots, or about 6.8 million of the estimated 40 million that P. Diddy hoped would kick "Bush's ass out of office." In that respect, Michael Moore's "Slacker Uprising Tour" was a complete and utter failure. Or was it all just 'fictition' to begin with?

The resounding failure of Moore's tour doesn't mean that youth weren't motivated though-- far from it. The real story is how college-age voters organized and rallied again and again and again (and again) against Moore's message throughout his 60-city promotional tour.

And finally: The 'Fahrenheit 911' factor
Moore said: While Moore bragged that a mysterious, unnamed pollster reported to him that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was changing the hearts and minds of Bush supporters, much of the mainstream media followed in lockstep, with the Austin Chronicle breathlessly declaring that "Moore's film could actually prove to be the first in history to help unseat a sitting American president." Moore himself even declared as much to the International Herald Tribune, which reported that "[Moore] wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president."

America voted: In the end, we'll never know exactly how many Americans were impacted by Fahrenheit 9/11, which, despite all the evidence to the contrary is still technically considered a "documentary" - and, to Moore's credit, the highest-grossing one of all time. We can do better than Moore though-- we can produce the results of a very public survey which showed that "...Moore's movie is mainly reaching - and reinforcing the views of - people who already dislike President Bush and his policies," and further that "While 41 percent of all respondents said the movie made them think worse of Bush, the researchers said that 60 percent of that group were already Democrats and therefore likely to vote against the president anyway."

To recap: only "41% of all respondents said the movie made them think worse of Bush..."? That's the best you got? Less than half of the folks who watched two hours of slanderous, deceitful connections and suggestions, and you still can't convince more than half of them?

And hey, we can debate the finer points of the film's impact all day long. But in the end, perhaps the only statistic the skeptic needs to raise is the one that shows George W. Bush carrying the largest count of popular votes in the history of the country.

Now that we've examined Moore's biggest losses, it's worth examining the hopeful trends emerging from his hearty rebuke:

Most Americans, despite Moore's best efforts, support President Bush's War on Terror and believe that the best way to defeat those who wish to kill us is to take the fight to them, not to espouse anger-fueled rants comparing the savage terrorists in Iraq to our own Minutemen.

Most Americans, despite Moore's best efforts, believe in coming together at the end of the day, and at the end of the election cycle, and aligning behind the President who earned a legitimate victory.

Most American youth, like every other demographic segment, are turning further and further away from Michael Moore's message of revenge, condescension, destruction, hatred, dissembling, and deceit. This trend has to be the hardest to swallow for Moore, because it, above all the others, threatens his bottom line the most. An idealogical mercinary to the end, the threats to his balance sheet at the least give even a slight hope that Moore may revise his own pitch black outlook on the future of America and our fellow citizens.

So, the four key tenets of Michael Moore's message-- and his very core-- all turned against him. Though each of the four major failures described above began several months ago, yesterday provided the final, tangible clincher. All these data points add up to one conclusion: After 15 years of consistently successful, consistently more outrageous enchroachment into the national debate, Moore has now suffered his most dramatic, most public, most humiliating defeat.

Don't cry for Mikey though. He's still got his millions and millions and millions of dollars. He's still got his massive, money-generating corporate entertainment machine, which will continue to churn profit, though it may begin a steady decline as the weeks and months wear on. He's still got his Palm d'Or, and I predict he'll have his Best Picture Oscar in a few months. It'll be Hollywood's concession to Moore, and to themselves. Let him keep it: I hear statue tastes good with crow.

In the end, Moore's still may have all of his worldly riches. But today, few can deny he's lost a considerable measure of respect and an overwhelming majority of his relevancy within the American political landscape.

The most pathetic part of this whole post-partum? Michael Moore will be return. At the latest, he'll be back in 2006, with his next crockumentary, Sicko, a look at America's health care industry. But of course we know from history that we can count on Moore to be back in America's face much sooner than that.

What else can we count on? That this site, and this one, and this one, and thousands -- millions -- of Americans will be right there, watching his every move every step of the way.

Before we carry on our collective efforts to subvert the mainstream media and present a vision of America and the world vastly different than Michael Moore's own imagination, it is worth our time to take a moment and reflect on the message that this year's presidential vote has delivered to Michael Moore: A 15-year-long free pass has been revoked today.

I am extraordinarily proud of our country for sending this message. Who knows, it may or may not be the end of an era. But one thing's for sure: Tonight, Michael Moore has to be asking himself a big question:

Dude, where's my country?


Σεσυς ις Λορδ
4Ever_Learning #18950 Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:54 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 360
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 360
Brother,

Thank you for this article--very well done, I thought. I have been dismayed at the following Michael Moore had gained within the Democratic Party--but hope and pray that this election will awaken them to the fact that he is indeed far outside the mainstream of American politics. If the Democrats don't do better in terms of an intellectual and philosophical argument, they may never regain the Presidency.

Theo

Theo #18951 Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:55 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
Theo said:

If the Democrats don't do better in terms of an intellectual and philosophical argument, they may never regain the Presidency.

Theo

This is so true! It seems the Democrats have focused their attention on the big cities and have lost touch with rural America. If you look at where the votes came from for Kerry you'll notice that he has a very limited appeal to the heartland of America.

It would be good it the Democratic party rethinks their position on moral issues. Unfortunately in the State of Illinios Senator Richard Durbin has announced today that he will seek a leadership position in the new Senate and fight against Republican efforts to seek a Constitutional Ammendment on limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He also said he would oppose any efforts to elect conservative judges to our court system who oppose abortions.

Thankfully the majority of votes have made it clear they oppose such views. In every state that had a referendum on the ballot limiting marriage to one man/one woman it passed. This should tell the Democrats what the people want... IF THEY'RE LISTENING.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Wes #18952 Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:08 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 360
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 360
Quote
Thankfully the majority of votes have made it clear they oppose such views. In every state that had a referendum on the ballot limiting marriage to one man/one woman it passed. This should tell the Democrats what the people want... IF THEY'RE LISTENING.

It would seem that the referendum of this type that passed in Oregon would have sent a message "loud and clear". If Oregon's voters do not agree with the Democrats on this issue, it is unlikely the voters anywhere agree with them.

Theo

Wes #18953 Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:14 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
Quote
Wes said:

Thankfully the majority of votes have made it clear they oppose such views. In every state that had a referendum on the ballot limiting marriage to one man/one woman it passed. This should tell the Democrats what the people want... IF THEY'RE LISTENING.

Wes

What it *does* tell Democrats (if they're listening) is that the majority of people who voted in those eleven states oppose such views. You can't extrapolate their votes to the entire country, much as you might want to. There are 39 other states plus territories who haven't had such a direct voice in these matters. Add to those the number of people in those states who didn't vote. My point is that it's no more plain today that this is "what the people" want than it was before the first vote was cast.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/einstein.gif" alt="" /> All fuzzy logic needs a shave.

Theo #18954 Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:16 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
Ditto my post to Theo

HCRigby #18955 Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:05 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
HCRigby said:

What it *does* tell Democrats (if they're listening) is that the majority of people who voted in those eleven states oppose such views. You can't extrapolate their votes to the entire country, much as you might want to. There are 39 other states plus territories who haven't had such a direct voice in these matters. Add to those the number of people in those states who didn't vote. My point is that it's no more plain today that this is "what the people" want than it was before the first vote was cast.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/einstein.gif" alt="" /> All fuzzy logic needs a shave.

Do I understand you correctly that in your opinion the states that voted against one man/one woman marriages are not representative of the rest of the country? Is it your opinion that the majority of people will vote for same sex marriages?


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
HCRigby #18956 Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:42 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 1
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 1
IMO, I don't think any State would vote for Homosexual marriages, including the most liberal ones like Massachusetts. What we have here is individual judges making law by fiat.

If a judge in a southern state would have made a ruling supporting only traditional marriage, there would be an outcry in the media and the liberal elite that the judge should not be making law for the rest of the country. However, since the judges have ruled basically what the media and liberals support, they claim it is the law of the country.

Last edited by John_C; Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:43 PM.

John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Wes #18957 Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
It's a fact that those who voted did so to state *their* preference, not mine. I have not had a chance to so state my preference. Their votes do not represent me. Mine does.

Is it *not* my opinion that the majority of people will vote for same sex marriages. I wouldn't either, if given the chance.

My point was and is that many people seem to believe the way they vote speaks for me, and that will never be the case. I SPEAK FOR ME. I hope that ends your bout of head-scratching!


Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (NetChaplain), 162 guests, and 54 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Bosco, Mike, Puritan Steve, NSH123, Church44
992 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
May
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,877,684 Gospel truth