Michael Moore accused of vote bribery (hilarious!)

Michael Moore accused of vote bribery (hilarious!) - Printable Version

+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Michael Moore accused of vote bribery (hilarious!) (/showthread.php?tid=3865)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

- sherpahigh - 10-06-2004

cferneyh Wrote:I'd argue that the proportion of Canadians who criticize Bush is probably consistent with the proportion of Americans who criticize Bush.

Not that anyone asked, but here's my opinion: why would anyone care what that knob Ben Affleck has to say? Can you imagine making your voting decision based on what that pinhead says?

I don't think that the proportion of Canadians against Bush is consistent with the proportions of Americans against him. I recall seeing a recent poll where if Canadians were to vote Kerry would win with approx 68% or something like that. Can't recall where I saw that though. Doesn't really matter I suppose.

Mostly I just wanted to comment on the second part there. I totally agree with you, why should anyone care what Ben Affleck says about politics? Same goes for any entertainer, Pearl Jam, Springsteen, Toby Keith... The Hip..., etc. etc.

It's fine if they feel it necessary to voice their opinions on the matter and lend support to the parties they support, but why should their opinion be any more important than the dude who runs the coffee shop down the street or some guy working in Wal-Mart. Just because they have a built in audience that will listen to them does not make their opinions any more educated than the next guys. Personally I'd rather take my cues from people with more qualifications than "rock band singer" or "actor", or even better, do some thinking of my own and form my own opinions.

It scares me to think that eligible voters out there are basing their vote on what their favorite actor says about it.

- VioletlightHeron - 10-06-2004

Michael Moore, as an artist, is a provacative and interesting director. As a "truth-sayer" he is guilty of twisting facts to suit his own agenda. two examples of this: Bowling for Columbine, he makes it seem like the NRA had its convention right after the shootings and refused to leave out of arrogance and stubborness. He even has Charlton Heston saying over our dead body will we leave this city or something to that effect when the facts were: the convention took place 10 months after the shootings, the NRA not only reduced its meetings and other activities to only do its necessary business according to NY state law and Heston was talking about the anti-gun groups enacting laws that would restrict the right to bear arms, it was not a refusal to leave the city. In Farenheit 9/11, he implies that the Bush administration let the families and relatives of Osama Bin Laden refuse to be interviewed by the FBI and hustled them out of the country when all other airline traffic was grounded. The facts there was Richard Clarke signed off on letting the families leave the country after they had been interviewed for a day by the FBI. The relatives of Osama who were in the country when 9/11 happened were legitimate business owners and had nothing to do with Osama and Al-Queda.

It's also amazing how angry the rest of the world can treat the United States like a spoiled bully that doesn't do anything useful and peaceful, even under the leadership of President Bush. So I guess you all dont mind us stopping foreign aid to Africa, Russia and not sending any humanitarian supplies to the countries that got hit by the hurricanes this season. My point is, you can't dictate to the US when you want our aid and money and expect our government to not act/intervene when it thinks our national security interests are threatened.

- cferneyh - 10-06-2004

sherpahigh Wrote:
cferneyh Wrote:I'd argue that the proportion of Canadians who criticize Bush is probably consistent with the proportion of Americans who criticize Bush.

Not that anyone asked, but here's my opinion: why would anyone care what that knob Ben Affleck has to say? Can you imagine making your voting decision based on what that pinhead says?

I don't think that the proportion of Canadians against Bush is consistent with the proportions of Americans against him. I recall seeing a recent poll where if Canadians were to vote Kerry would win with approx 68% or something like that. Can't recall where I saw that though. Doesn't really matter I suppose.

Mostly I just wanted to comment on the second part there. I totally agree with you, why should anyone care what Ben Affleck says about politics? Same goes for any entertainer, Pearl Jam, Springsteen, Toby Keith... The Hip..., etc. etc.

It's fine if they feel it necessary to voice their opinions on the matter and lend support to the parties they support, but why should their opinion be any more important than the dude who runs the coffee shop down the street or some guy working in Wal-Mart. Just because they have a built in audience that will listen to them does not make their opinions any more educated than the next guys. Personally I'd rather take my cues from people with more qualifications than "rock band singer" or "actor", or even better, do some thinking of my own and form my own opinions.

It scares me to think that eligible voters out there are basing their vote on what their favorite actor says about it.

Yeah, I think I framed my first point incorrectly. I was trying to make the point that there is a lot of Bush bashing going on on this board, but it seems to me that there is a lot of Bush bashing in the US as well. I don't think that we Canadians bash Bush any more or any less than any other nation out there (including the US), but it is NO QUESTION that he'd never win an election in Canada.

I can already feel the upcoming attack on MY opinion from the all knowing Horrible Esthete.

- VioletlightHeron - 10-06-2004

cferneyh Wrote:Yeah, I think I framed my first point incorrectly. I was trying to make the point that there is a lot of Bush bashing going on on this board, but it seems to me that there is a lot of Bush bashing in the US as well. I don't think that we Canadians bash Bush any more or any less than any other nation out there (including the US), but it is NO QUESTION that he'd never win an election in Canada.

I can already feel the upcoming attack on MY opinion from the all knowing Horrible Esthete.

From what a Canadian classmate said to me over the summer, not even John Kerry could get elected PM in Canada :lol: Kerry would be slightly to the right of Jack Layton, which would get him a seat in Parliament. It's kind of funny how alike and dissonant Canada and the US are; the provinces out west are conservative, but less so than the American West, Vancouver is the liberal bastion out on the west coast, same with San Francisco. Bush I think could win a seat in Parliament in Alberta and Manitoba. Bashing the president has always been a popular past time of the opposition party; when the Boy President was in office, us Republicans loved tearing his ass to shreds. The difference is, liberals in the US dominate the entertainment industry and the Washington beltway, those two great dissemenators of American popular culture and have the influence and ability to make Bush bashing seem acceptable and mainstream.

- AmbitionlessHipster - 10-06-2004

VioletlightHeron Wrote:It's also amazing how angry the rest of the world can treat the United States like a spoiled bully that doesn't do anything useful and peaceful, even under the leadership of President Bush. So I guess you all dont mind us stopping foreign aid to Africa, Russia and not sending any humanitarian supplies to the countries that got hit by the hurricanes this season. My point is, you can't dictate to the US when you want our aid and money and expect our government to not act/intervene when it thinks our national security interests are threatened.

I guess you don't mind the stipulations "YOU GUYS" put on this supposed foreign aid... do you really think it goes where it should and for the right reasons?? Not to mention foreign "aid" (for selfish reasons) one day and sanctions the next... :roll:

- vicariousmartyr - 10-07-2004

VioletlightHeron Wrote:the provinces out west are conservative, but less so than the American West,

Is that what you meant to say? Because that kinda contradicts this:

Quote:Vancouver is the liberal bastion out on the west coast, same with San Francisco

Just curious.

- opiated - 10-07-2004

[quote="The Horrible Esthete
Yes, I know we are not well-liked, but this hate (which is founded upon jealousy, more than anything) can be traced back to days long before Bush ever took office.....[/quote]

JEALOUSY??? no..for ignorant comments like that...assuming we SHOULD be jealous of you...believe me...there's not hate, and i'm not bashing americans, but i'm proud to be a canadian, and would NEVER want to be an american...especially with Bush running things

- CanuckCourage - 10-07-2004

First off I want to get this out , I am not anti American , I am anti US policies in general, I am anti US Administration. I have friends who are Americans, people are people whether your from Canada, the US, Iraq, Europe, Africa or anywhere, were all human. I use the word US frequently in my rant , i do not apply it to all citizens , mostly to the Administration, but there is no way i'm typing administration 30 times. I do not know everything, but if there is one thing I do know, it's that opinion can change over time, at this moment this is how I feel and how I see things shaping up. Please forgive any spelling mistakes and bad grammer.

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:
CanuckCourage Wrote:You know there's a world outside of the US and your interests, Americans got killed on their own soil ??? Well what the f**k do you think your country does ? It doesn't have blood on it's hands ? What about all the atrocities your country has carried out directly and indirectly by propping up dictators etc for "ideology" , maybe your ideology would change , or maybe that is your ideology.. 13,000 plus civillians have died in Iraq because of the invasion, ( <a class="postlink" href="http://iraqbodycount.net/">http://iraqbodycount.net/</a> )the terrorists did not come from Iraq. Does this make the US a terrorist nation, knowingly dropping dropping bombs on a civillian population ? Insert rhetoric of "that's the price of freedom"

Well, let's see:

Between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 100,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War. Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths. Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

13,000 lives sacrificed to remove a dictator who killed millions and who knows how many in the future? Not what you'd hope would occur, but yes, that is the reality of war, Canuck.

I suppose you have a problem with the scores of civilians that died when the Allies removed Hitler from power, too?

"Between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War" Here is where the problem lies, this is reality. The US is not in Iraq because Saddam is responsible for killing millions, I mean come on, they supported and supplied him weapons in his fight against Iran..The U.S. has blood on their hands from that. Not to mention the Sanctions which were UN imposed but US lead, and it was the US who refused to lift them.

Here is why the present invasion on Iraq is unjustified. First of all, yes, Saddam was being uncooperative with weapons inspectors, he hates the US , he hates the western world, of course he's defiant, he wants to show strength, maybe because he's an egomaniac or maybe because his power has dwindled. But he had no arsenal of weapons, he made no threats, he was not on the doorstep of another country ready to to invade. The propaganda machine in the US created a conflict that didn't exist. The UN called for a peacefull settlement to the Sanction controversy, Saddam was allowing the inspectors to go where they chose..This wasn't enough for the U.S. Administration, the Iraqi threat was imminent and had to be crushed. . In early March this year the UN came out with a report that said they now believed there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994. This is the same conclusion made by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. Yet the rhetoric of WMD continues , nothing was prevented. Here is an exerpt from USA Today;

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

There was no immenent threat to the US, hell they couldn't even attack Israel. The US has lost more soldiers since the conflict was supposedly over than the entire offensive, you guys rolled over the Iraqi Army like it was the Salvation Army, and this was the threat to America ???? Saddam does not have close to the capabilities Hitler had, correct me if i'm wrong , but Hitler had rolled over a few countries before the US stepped in to lend it's support. Hitler had a massive army that intelligence agencies knew about in the 30's and 40's. The US has satellite capabilities to pinpoint trucks in a desert, intelligence that makes the 40's era look like a joke , and yet with all this technology they thought Saddam was armed to the teeth ? This war was pushed not out of a threat to security, it was not for the people ,and it was not in the name of liberation. Common sense and logic point these rhetoric tactics as the falseness they are.

Bush and company are not stupid, they have control in Iraq. Ideology played a role alright, and their ideology is not that of a liberation, it is that of political and capitalist interest. Logic in it's simplist form says this invasion is unjust, I already explained why the whole WMD doesn't jive. Liberation and Democracy were nothing but catch phrases for the administration to gain support from the American people.This invasion and enforced democracy will be no better, and the reason for this is simple .The US never planned on commiting to Iraq, other than the control of it's oil and contracts and big business. Had the US truly meant to free the Iraqi people from their oppressors, they would have had a solid contingency plan in place, relief efforts would have been co-ordinated, Baghdad wouldn't have been with out clean water/food/medicine not to mention law/order and police services to prevent looting ETC.... These are the simplist things the common man can figure out are necessities. To say the US hadn't calculated these needs would be preposterous, to even consider that the US was unprepared for this is ridiculous. They knew the consequences of bombing Baghdad and what the aftermath would look like. Nothing was done in preperation for this because it was never their intention to come in as saviours of the Iraqi people. Iraq has a puppet government installed by the US , controlled by the US. The US WILL pull out of Iraq, I imagine an American friendly regime will be implemented, they will not relinquish the hold on oil, order will be restored, but the poeple will be suppressed as they always have. Look at the various factions fighting for control of Iraq now, it is obvious the American people are gonna get sick sick of Americans coming home in body bags. So the US pulls out yet relinquishes control by supporting whatever government they choose to instill, call it what you want, the Iraqi people are still dying, but this time it's in a different name and by a different hand. You can argue the number of casualties is different, but time will tell. What will happen when Iraq runs out of oil ? They will be nothing but a 3rd world country with a brutal regime.

Obviously I believe in freedom, I do not wish to see a people oppressed and terrorised, but when the motives of this invasion are so obviously false, there is no room for succuss since the intention was never aimed at freedom or liberation or democracy, those are just fortunate bi products of spin. Saddam is a monster, it's easy to say that Iraq is better without him, but maybe something should have been done before the millions died and for the right reason.

Logic says that if this was a mission to rid the world of tyranny, then why not start in any number of African countries with significantly higher populations not only suffereing from brutal regimes, but from utter poverty, disease AIDS etc... The US could work out the bugs then, help millions...All this points to this invasion having nothing to do with WMD or Liberation or Democracy.

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:13,000 lives sacrificed to remove a dictator who killed millions and who knows how many in the future? Not what you'd hope would occur, but yes, that is the reality of war, Canuck.

I suppose you have a problem with the scores of civilians that died when the Allies removed Hitler from power, too?

First of all it's an invasion, not a war. Actually I have have problem with that comparison, from 1938 to 1940 Hitler had invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands,Belgium and France (and that's to say nothing of Africa). The US did not declare war on Germany until the Japanese attacked their military installment in Pearl Harbour in 1941 and did not participate in battle until July 4th 1942. To compare or make the insinuation of comparison between Saddam and Hitler is silly, other than they are mass murderers. Saddam had not invaded a minimum of 8 countries, Saddam did not have Russia, Italy and Japan as his allies. Saddam had not threatened any country since his foray into Kuwait , Saddam has NEVER had an army that could even come close comparing to Hitlers. The civillian casualties in WW2 were unavoidable due to the German advances, the Iraqi Casualties were.

Mark

- VioletlightHeron - 10-07-2004

vicariousmartyr Wrote:
VioletlightHeron Wrote:the provinces out west are conservative, but less so than the American West,

Is that what you meant to say? Because that kinda contradicts this:

Quote:Vancouver is the liberal bastion out on the west coast, same with San Francisco

Just curious.

I was referring to the fact that Western states like Utah, Montana, hell practically every state west of the Mississippi except for California, Oregon and Washington are pretty conservative. I see alot of similarities between Vancouver and San Francisco, both of which are pretty liberal.

- vicariousmartyr - 10-07-2004

Ok, gotcha.

I guess I didnt think beyond the Pacific coast when referring to 'western'. Its easy to forget what the East considers West, out here.

- highlander - 10-07-2004

*passes a joint around* Everyone have a puff. 8)

- CanuckCourage - 10-07-2004

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Michael Moore, as an artist, is a provacative and interesting director. As a "truth-sayer" he is guilty of twisting facts to suit his own agenda. two examples of this: Bowling for Columbine, he makes it seem like the NRA had its convention right after the shootings and refused to leave out of arrogance and stubborness. He even has Charlton Heston saying over our dead body will we leave this city or something to that effect when the facts were: the convention took place 10 months after the shootings, the NRA not only reduced its meetings and other activities to only do its necessary business according to NY state law and Heston was talking about the anti-gun groups enacting laws that would restrict the right to bear arms, it was not a refusal to leave the city. In Farenheit 9/11, he implies that the Bush administration let the families and relatives of Osama Bin Laden refuse to be interviewed by the FBI and hustled them out of the country when all other airline traffic was grounded. The facts there was Richard Clarke signed off on letting the families leave the country after they had been interviewed for a day by the FBI. The relatives of Osama who were in the country when 9/11 happened were legitimate business owners and had nothing to do with Osama and Al-Queda..

I agree Michael Moore manipulates facts to suit his cause , and it undermines his credibility.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:It's also amazing how angry the rest of the world can treat the United States like a spoiled bully that doesn't do anything useful and peaceful, even under the leadership of President Bush. So I guess you all dont mind us stopping foreign aid to Africa, Russia and not sending any humanitarian supplies to the countries that got hit by the hurricanes this season. My point is, you can't dictate to the US when you want our aid and money and expect our government to not act/intervene when it thinks our national security interests are threatened.

It's not that it doesnt do anything usefull and peacefull Chris, it's that the US justified it's actions in Iraq through propaganda. What do you want ? Let's talk about about all the foreign aid the US doles out after you just invaded a country, bypassed the UN, and all under false pretenses ? Do you honestly think that because you dole out foreign aid you can do what you please ? Invade whom you choose ? In what was clearly based on nothing but propaganda ? You think your country is the only one who doles out foreign aid ? Doling out foreign aid gives you the right to silence criticism, you rub someone elses back so they should follow your invasion ? Silence opinion ? Your security was threatened ? Either your in a state of denial, have completely bought the propaganda served up by your Gov, or are just towing the line. I know you love your country, and believe in freedom, but how can you seriously defend your governments advances ?

- tigerthelion - 10-07-2004

highlander Wrote:*passes a joint around* Everyone have a puff. 8)

Thanks, man! It's time to relax, relax, relax. 8)

- The Horrible Esthete - 10-08-2004

highlander Wrote:*passes a joint around* Everyone have a puff. 8)

I think you all...*fffffffffffpppppphhhhh*.......need to ease up...*ffffffpphhhhh* *fffpphh*....on the President....*ffffffffffppppphhhhhh* *cough* *cough*

Uhhmmm....what were we talking about?

:thumb:

- The Horrible Esthete - 10-08-2004

highlander Wrote:*passes a joint around* Everyone have a puff. 8)