CNN's Brook Mouthpiece - 'technically it wasn't Gore who won the Oscar'.

[Rex]

Yeah well technically he won the 2000 election so why don't you shut the fuck up? The M$M must be shitting all over itself after a Gore 'win'. Hear that assholes? He won!

[trumad]

1. And technically you're not a journalist.

[Rex]

12. But but but, she is pretty and bubbly and can smile after a double

homicide story without a hint of remorse! Is the head dead yet?

[NYCGirl]

2. Of course, technically, if he wasn't in it, there wouldn't be a movie. NT

[helderheid]

3. Technically Bush didn't win the Presidency.

[Rex]

5. Thank you!

M$M only likes to talk about Dem technicalities.

[ChenZhen]

15. No...technically Bush did win the election outright.

It really doesn't matter what any vote count is (other than the electoral college vote) and the entire premise of cheating is irrelevant...the Supereme Court did their job and upheld the law accordingly as it is written.

The bottom line is that you do not have a constitutional right to vote for president and essentially, a state can choose its electors any damn way they want, no matter how you have voted. This system of democracy is a complete illusion.

It was never about the vote count, the voting machines, etc....From Bush vs Gore:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College....The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."

Sad but true.

[Horse with no Name]

22. It isn't the JOB of the SCOTUS to appoint the President

Sad...but true. Enjoy your stay.

[ChenZhen]

52. I know it isn't.

Its the electoral college's job to appoint a president, which is appointed by the State, as they choose.


Being so, it therefore isn't the job of the country's citizens to appoint the president. Thats all Im saying here...

[helderheid]

54. The SUPREME COURT (not the State) stopped the count in Florida - that is not their job!

[ChenZhen]

58. Have you read the text of the actual decision?

Just curious if youve seen the complete reasoning regarding this issue. Do you disagree with the premises put forth by the SCOTUS? Which ones?

I think that no matter what the decision, it was a catch-22. No matter what happens at any time, the people's votes would never have been counted.

The options were really to allow the state to choose their electors off the crappy results, to attempt continue to quickly/arbitrarily certify another set of crappy results in the next 9 days that they could ignore, disregard, etc, to choose their electors, or to allow the state to choose their own electors regardless of everything if nothing panned out 9 days later.

[WinkyDink]

74. How about that FOLLOWING THE LAW about recounts would "damage

Bush's chances"??
No kidding. Only BREAKING the law could help Bush.

Get it? Your psycho is a recipient of stolen goods, i.e., a felon.

[ChenZhen]

79. huh?

'My psycho'? ug....

Either youre with us or against us...who's following that philosophy now?

If I oppose the Iraq war, is Saddam my psycho and chosen leader then? Gosh...

[spanone]

29. Really? hmmmm

:hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts::hurts: :hurts:

[tabasco]

30. Shouldn't you be at your infantry post in Iraq right now?

www.goarmy.com

[helderheid]

31. WRONG!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChenZhen]

50. You are wrong...

This is ridiculous. Im pointing at a decision based on the constitution and I am being labeled a troll, told to goto Iraq, ridiculed....come on now.


It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count because the vote count doesn't matter. Of course Gore had a majority of the votes in this nation and in Florida but that DOESN'T MATTER.

The point is the constitution doesn't give us a right to vote for president. The states do. They can take that back if they choose to. Im not saying this is "right". This is the way it is. The state has a right to use crappy voting machines and decide they mean whatever they want it to because the bottom line is the state has the right to choose the electors. If they choose by election, they have a right to take that privilege back.


If you want to make a difference, complaining about cheating, vote counts, etc, isn't very effective. Instead, inform people they are really living in a non-democracy and it will stay this way until they press the government to amend the constitution (and in such an amendment, fair voting standards should be put forth to ensure a fair election). Until that is done, you are really not living in anything even resembling a democracy. In such a state, complaining about votes being counted is humorous because technically, your votes do not count or mean a damn unless they want them to.

[WinkyDink]

77. You contradict yourself. Why did the Supreme Court step in, if, indeed,

"The state has a right to use crappy voting machines and decide they mean whatever they want it to because the bottom line is the state has the right to choose the electors"?

[ChenZhen]

84. They stepped in because...

Constitutionally speaking, the vote count is irrellevant, the recount is irrelevant, the 'election' was irrelevant and flawed in the first place, and any "recount" of the flawed election (without county wide standards of having humans examine and determine a voter's will) is irrelevant (and lastly, the voter's will is irrelevant and just as valid as what the state determined it to be in the original count, being that its up to them).

Truthfully speaking, the only way to represent 'the people' which isn't a constitutional requirement in an election anyway, was to have a revote. Without being able to finish that by the 20th, the legislature would of just picked Bush anyway. The SCOTUS said that essentially the people's right to vote isn't guarenteed and can be suspended by the state, and there was no way the state could have accurately recounted without any sort of standards in place.

[Sapere aude]

41. I'm so glad you have that straight in your mind.

Al Gore won the popular vote, he would have had enough votes to win the FL electoral votes if the vote count hadn't been stopped by the SCOTUS. Now that is how it is straight in my mind.

[originalpckelly]

48. Yes, I agree. If this system is so inaccurate that over 1/2 million people...

can have their will turned against them, this system is unjust.

[ChenZhen]

51. To be honest...

Im not sure how you ever could have reflected upon "justice" and this nation at the same concurrent moment in time.

[originalpckelly]

43. Yes, but wouldn't they have to pass a law amending the previous one?

Was that done in Florida?

[WinkyDink]

65. The SCOTUS totally usurped the STATE RIGHT of FLORIDA.

[sendero]

87. There is the law..

... and then there is 200 years of precedent practice. The SCOTUS did not need to do what they did, and you only have to look at the party affiliations of the majority to see why they did it.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Ok, I admit I don't know much about how films work

But if Gore didn't win, who did? Um...let me think here...Oh yeah, I guess maybe it was AL friggin' GORE you CNN dumbass! You are correct, the msm probably just can't handle the fact that Gore won. Again.

[bigwillq]

6. The producer of the movie

actually wins the Oscar and gets to take it home with him.

Gore did not produce the movie.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

81. I believe the Oscar for "best documentary" goes to the Director

not the producer of the film. Sometimes they are the same person, however, in the case of documentaries and sometimes they are a group, for example, when more than one individual contributes to the directing activities. Gore didn't direct or produce the film, but he probably had a major role in inspiring it as the writer and narrator, so I think it's fair to see him as somewhat of an unofficial co-producer, co-director. If the Director himself acknowledges Gore's role then I don't see how we can question it, especially since the term "director" is somewhat nebulous when it comes to a documentary, as often there are no actors being directed and the "director" like Michael Moore appears in the film, writes the film, and contributes to the editing of the film etc. Gore engaged in some of the activities that are often the province of the director in many documentaries.

The producer is usually the one who wins the Oscar for "best picture" but it's often a group award, involving the several producers of the movie and sometimes has been just won by a production company. In the collaborative art that is film, the individual(s) who has the vision to put the project together and who brings the various craftspersons and talents and the money together is usually the one who wins for "best picture".

[WI_DEM]

7. While it's true the fact that the winners had him up on stage is an acknowledgement of

the debt they owe him, after all they pretty much just recorded the lectures he has given for many years on global warming and the research he had done.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So DiCaprio won best picture?

Arkin won best screenplay?

[Rex]

10. Technically they are not Al Gore; only Gore gets a backhanded compliment.

I hate the M$M.

[Dawgs]

18. Huh?

Yes. Al Gore did not "technically" win, but why the fuck point it out.

And, as someone else pointed out, if Gore was not in the movie then it would have never existed. And, "The Departed" would have still been a great movie, even without Dicaprio. Maybe not as good, but still a great movie-maybe even one that would have won best picture. That's not the case with AIT.

[Goblinmonger]

86. Why point it out?

Because it is not correct to say that Gore won an oscar. He didn't. Saying he did is either spin, lying, propoganda, or some combination of the above. Was the movie about his presentation? Yes. Would the movie have existed without him? No. Did he win an award for that film? No. So if the winning documentary was about Bin Laden, would you be expecting everyone to say that Bin Laden won an Oscar? No.

Look, I get it. I like Al Gore. I think global warming is a huge problem that needs global attention. I'm pissed that Gore "lost" the election. But saying that Gore won an Oscar is completely factually incorrect. He. Didn't. Win. It. The award is for film makers and he was not one on this film. If this were a movie centered around Bush in a positive light, would you be pissed if people were saying Bush won an Oscar? That's why you shouldn't be saying it. And it's also not true.

[DUgosh]

9. And if the movie had lost he would say

Gore looses Oscar bid.

[Kber]

11. Jimmy Kimble said that winning things, but not actually getting them

seems to be a thing with Gore.

and Jon Steward called "An Inconvienent Truth" the largest grossing power point presentation ever.

Just to lighten the mood a bit.

[Rex]

13. But those are comedians doing comedy shows. CNN is supposed to

be a major outlet of news. Now the story is NOT, Gore won an Oscar. Now it will be technically he didn't. Followed along by the snickering RW hatemongers.

[blm]

14. Just say Gore's FILM won an Oscar. And fock the idiots who want to nitpick that, too.

.

[Rex]

16. I'm tired of the nitpickers, you would think their noses would be clean by now.

After 7 years I'm sooooooo fucking sick and tired of it.

[NYCGirl]

25. And if they want to get REALLY technical, say "The film about Al Gore won an Oscar."

:evilgrin:

[Rex]

32. Now they said he won two oscars!

That dam 'liberal hollywood'! At least that is what the CNN news anchor called it. :eyes:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

36. At Least That Makes Sense

The movie about Al Gore's Global Warming theories, "An Inconvenient Truth," won the Oscar for Best Documentary.

This is a whole lot more impossible to attack than "Al Gore Won The Oscar."

If it were the other way around, you all know you would be criticizing the other side for making statements not factually correct. But I guess it's ok for you to do it, huh?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

17. The Posters Here At DU Are Always In Attack Mode

Sometimes I think that there are plenty of folks here who are just as stupid and myopic as those who frequent right wing message boards.

You get something in your head, and won't let go of it, and instantly it's ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, without even bothering to understand or listen to reason or explanation.

I've said the same exact thing about 3 times in the past 24 hours, and each time I've gotten flamed, criticized, argued with, over something which is just plain FACT!

I really don't care to hear all your Bullshit about how Gore was the movie, or without Gore there would be no movie, or how Gore this and Gore that. I am an Al Gore fan, and I support him completely, and hope he runs for President. Got that? I know, not good enough, I must have an ulterior motive. I must want to rain on his parade. I must not want to give him any recognition. WHAT FUCKING EVER!!

Pure and simple, this is the way the Academy operates. AL GORE DID NOT WIN THE OSCAR!! The MOVIE called "An Inconvenient Truth" won the award for Best Documentary, and according to Academy procedure, the Oscar itself goes to Davis Guggenheim, the film's Director. If it had been a documentary about the life of Bill Clinton, staring Bill Clinton, and it won the award, the award would not go to Bill Clinton! Same theory.

So, the film was about Al Gore's slide show. About Al Gore's theory. It starred Al Gore. But the film was nominated, not Al Gore.

When the Academy engraves the award, which it does for every Oscar, it will have Davis Guggenheim's name on it. If you have a problem with that, you should complain to the Academy. So, the longer you continue making statements like Al Gore won the Oscar, the more you allow the other side to show you that you're wrong. And face it, if you believe that statement to be true, you are wrong!!

Pure and simple, regardless of how responsible he was for the film, regardless of whether it would have been possible without him, the Oscar did NOT go to Mr. Gore, it went to the film's director. Stating your facts differently does not diminish Mr. Gore's association with the project, nor does it diminish his contributions. It merely demonstrates that you understand the difference and how the Oscar process works. And all your wishing and complaining in the world won't change their procedure. So quit attacking the messenger!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawgs]

20. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

The only reason to point out that Al Gore did not "technically" win the Oscar is to attack him. Otherwise, why point it out?

Everyone knows that Al Gore WON an Oscar last night. They may not specifically know that he didn't get to take one home, but they do know that "An Inconvienent Truth" was a movie about him and his presentation, and it looked good for him. They know that if he lost, it would have been Al Gore losing - not the producers of the movie.

When someone on DU points out the Al Gore won an Oscar, they are pointing out that Al Gore's movie won last night. It's symantics, but in this case symantics really don't matter.

[WI_DEM]

47. of course you are correct, but you have to admit it is a moral victory for Al Gore that the movie

won the Oscar since he was the influence behind it.

[Horse with no Name]

21. Yeah well one of our "own" DU'ers came up with that little nugget last night

They were dealt with accordingly.:popcorn:

[Rex]

23. Did they work for CNN?

I'd expect to see it here on DU. Okay, maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm NOT a rabid Gore fan...just thought it was wrong on the M$Ms part. That is all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yet technially they were right

and lord I am amazed at how long it took them to catch it. They must be slow

That said, the HONOR was his and the people who technically won it, recognized Al on the stage and in front of the nation

[Rex]

26. Evidently DU caught it first.

The M$M always plays catch-up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. There you go

[Greybnk48]

27. it must be KILLING them that AIT won

if they are bothering to make comments such as this. Makes me even happier.

[Rex]

28. She had a really big smile on her face after saying it.

I know they have their entire franchise riding on the BFEE but sheesh! Gore just can't get a break with the media, even after making an awesome movie!

What do they want from the man? What is enough?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

33. Understanding Her Point Enables Us To Respond Better

Instead of arguing something which you are wrong about, we could certainly serve ourselves, and Mr. Gore, better by having a sound comeback, instead of arguing the point of whether he himself won the award.

That's all I'm saying here. When you argue about something which you're factually wrong about, it diminishes your strength. If you want to argue about how vital Mr. Gore was to the film, or how it would not have been possible without him, that's fine.

But stating that the award belongs to Mr. Gore is not correct, and saying it is opens us up to the r/w argument, which enables them to look smart, and us to look like a bunch of cheerleaders.

I'm wasting my time here. I'm just going to let y'all claim victory and say whatever you want.

[Rex]

35. Oh gee thanks for that honor, from you! We are all now in awe.

Thanks now, bu-bye. :eyes:

[judaspriestess]

37. is this the chick from their entertainment show?

She said something that disturbed me a bit when she was interviewing JLo. She said (paraphrase) Jennifer this year at the Oscars there are 8 minorities in the running for an the award. 4 African Americans, 2 Asians and 2 MEXICANS. Why was it Mexicans? I know they are from Mexico but she couldn't use the general term, Latino or Hispanic?

[Rex]

40. Same one.

She was all happy after saying it.

[judaspriestess]

46. well I just emailed CNN

and voiced my concern. I am just so sick of people generalizing all Latinos as Mexican. That is wrong and this coming from a person of Mexican descent so its got nothing to do with the Mexican aspect, its got everything to do with being fair. Even Jennifer Lopez looked at her oddly.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Huh?

Is it now wrong to refer to somebody from Mexico as "Mexican"?

[judaspriestess]

49. thats not the issue at hand

the issue, generalizing Asian as Asian and African Americans as just that. She should have used Latino or Hispanic. Why didn't she say, we have eight minorities, 4 Somalians, 1 Chinese and 1 Japanese and 2 Mexicans. Its offensive, if you are not Hispanic maybe you would not understand.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. well you edited your earlier post

but I'm still unclear as to why you think she was assuming all latinos are Mexican.

The four nominees she referred to ARE Mexican. It was a fantastic year for Mexican filmmakers.

[onenote]

57. i see your point, but also see another way of looking at it

If in fact the nominees she referred to as Mexicans were all from Mexico -- and there were no other Latino or Hispanic nominees, but the nominees referred to as "Asian" were from different countries (e.g., China and Japan), then lumping the latter nominees together as "Asian" while being more precise about the nationality of the Mexican nominees makes some sense.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. ah, I do see ONE possible objection...

now that I think about it. If she was including Penelope Cruz, then it was indeed an error. Cruz is Spanish.

I was thinking of the Mexican directors and Adriana Barazza - were there any other Mexican nominees? If not, then it WAS wrong, but I'd attribute it to an error of fact, not some sort of racism.

[judaspriestess]

85. my gripe is the underlying tone of lumping all Latinos

as Mexican. yes indeed the nominees were Mexican that is a fact but its like calling all illegals Mexican. Not all illegals are Mexican. I suspect even if one of the nominees was lets say, Puerto Rican, she stil would have probably said Mexican cause its a stereotype we are seeing more and more. I did not attribute it to racism more ignorance on her part but unacceptable because she is a 'journalist'. She should know better than that.

I edited my first post for clarification. :)

[Supersedeas]

38. folks in the News room do not have a running bet -- since there is no longer a News Room

[ContraBass Black]

42. Technically?

He wasn't up for the Oscar, the film was. The award goes to the director.

[Rex]

45. Yes!

That's what I said!

Now they say he won two Oscars!

:crazy:

[Forkboy]

53. But it's true

What is wrong with us? The truth is the truth.I can't speak for the talking heads on cable because I dont have (or want) cable,but if it's true it's true.I think Gore is great and I'm psyched he got the recognition he deserves for the movie,but TECHNICALLY he didn't win.Why are we so scared of a simple truth here?

[Rex]

55. The truth is his movie won an oscar. HIS movie.

So what was the point of bringing up a technicality that has nothing to do with the truth? It's called propaganda and no one should stand for it.

[onenote]

59. how does the "technicality" have nothing to do with the truth when it is the truth?

It may be a "technicality" -- but it doesn't make it untrue. Under the rules and practices of the Academy Awards, Al Gore did not win an Oscar, which as I read the OP, is what the reporter said.

[Rex]

62. Because it was unrelated to the fact that his movie won the Oscar.

Sound like his movie won two. Why bring up that he, Al Gore, did not win those Oscars? Everyone knows that. Backhanded complements are not needed in the M$M, at least I don't think so and that is why I started this thread.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. good luck with that

I can't believe how incensed people are over this. Gore did not win an Oscar. Big fucking deal? His movie won, and that's great, but why be so defensive over the fact that HE didn't win? It's not a slight or slur against him - it's just true.

[Rex]

66. Yeah that is exactly what I said, Gore didn't win an Oscar. Big deal.

Why bring up the fact? His movie won, so can't we focus on that? CNN sure can't.

[onenote]

70. self delete

[MonkeyFunk]

73. I know Rex

but you're fighting a lost cause, it seems.

Whether Al Gore won or not - in fact whether "An Inconvenient Truth" won or not - has no bearing whatsoever on the truth about Global Warming, or the importance of Gore's message.

[Rex]

80. No shit.

It still has nothing to do with what I originally posted. Losing cause? That sounds familiar.

[Forkboy]

60. "The truth never damages a cause that is just."

Some little peaceful guy said that.

[Rex]

64. A backhanded complement is still an insult.

So why do it?

[onenote]

67. and an "inconvenient truth" is still the truth

It seems that some find the fact that Gore did not personally win the Oscar (and that a reporter pointed that out) to be a bit inconvenient.

[Rex]

69. I thought it was insulting.

Inconvenient to me. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

82. I don't mean it as an insult

truth is truth :shrug:

Honestly,I can see why many here are sensitive of the fact,especially coming from the right-wing shills who I know are using it as a slight,but it is true.I hope people can see where I'm coming from as well though,and why this aversion to truth troubles me when I see anywhere,especially on the left,who I consider smart enough to handle it.

[Rex]

83. But that wasn't you on CNN.

Nor was it me. It was a mouthpiece that spends all day feeding the masses right wing propaganda.

[rock]

68. And bush* didn't invade Iraq

He did however have a bunch of soldiers sent over there to invade and die.

[Rex]

71. I can't believe how sensitive people are over the M$M.

The fawn-fest is revolting. No wonder they can say and do whatever they want to. :eyes:

[onenote]

75. yep, we should be pissed off when the media reports something factually accurate

that's the ticket....

[Rex]

78. Intent is the ticket.

But whatever.

[CBGLuthier]

72. I was going to stay out of this but

your complete disdain for accuracy and pissy nature when confronted with facts makes it impossible.

So to be blunt, Melissa Etheridge won for best song, from the movie An Inconvenient Truth.

The producers of that film won the Oscar for best feature length documentary.

Al Gore did not win anything.

Sorry if you feel this is propoganda. I guess you could say that these facts are also "an inconvenient truth".

[Rex]

76. Sure

Pissy eh? I tell you what, the M$M loves to insult the left at every turn. I could careless if you can't see it and it is propaganda. Stay blind, I really don't care.

I post what I see CNN do and people lose their minds. :eyes: