PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore a miserable failure?



Ironduke
29 Dec 03,, 09:21
I've read some of Michael Moore's stuff, and I think he is a big fat liar (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

His book, Stupid White Men, shows he is another big fat liar (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Bowling for Columbine, shows he is another big fat liar (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Dude Where's My Country shows he's another big fat liar (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Gio
29 Dec 03,, 09:23
Yeah, i know all about that miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

Ironduke
29 Dec 03,, 09:26
Originally posted by Gio
Yeah, i know all about that miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

I've read some of Michael Moore's stuff, and I think he is a miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

His book, Stupid White Men, is another miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Bowling for Columbine, is another miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Dude Where's My Country is another miserable failure (http://www.michaelmoore.com/).

Stinger
29 Dec 03,, 12:54
:ermm

Lunatock
29 Dec 03,, 17:35
Micheal Moore is a big fat idiot (http://www.michealmoore.com/)

bigross86
29 Dec 03,, 17:41
I'm taking it we don't like Michael Moore, I mean, Big Fat Idiot (http://www.michealmoore.com/) too much around here?

Ironduke
29 Dec 03,, 21:30
Originally posted by Stinger
:ermm

Google bombing, lol. :D

Trooth
29 Dec 03,, 21:38
Interesting. For those that don't know Google bombing (or whacking apparently) is causing the Google engine to retrieve one particular site when searching for two words.

"miserable failure" used to get you George Bush's site in isolation.

However, just run a search and it now has (in order)
Dubya
Jimmy Carter
Michael Moore
Dick Gephardt (ironically a page on his site calling Dubya a miserable failure)
Hillary Clinton

as well as a few commentary pages.

I guess it is just hurling mud around in this context. Why else would anyone ever search for that phrase?

Bill
29 Dec 03,, 21:42
miserable failure?

That's being generous.

WT is another site..... :)

Stinger
30 Dec 03,, 14:01
and here I thought Christmas shopping had just givin you guys post tramatic stress syndrome... thus sending you off to the looney bin.

seekerof
01 Jan 04,, 04:43
Yeah, lol, good ole' Michael Moore....
How this for a description?

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/3904.jpg


Found this revealing article on him also:
"Michael Moore: Class Clown"
Link:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11470

Excerpts:

"Those willing to call themselves "liberals" in these 2002 exit polls shrank to only 17 percent – roughly one voter in six – while conservatives increased to include more than one voter in three.

Moore’s self-deluded book has spent the past 10 weeks on the liberal New York Times Nonfiction Bestseller List (bumped down to #4 this week by fellow Lefty Al Franken’s competing anti-American screed). But, truth be told, a Politically Correct author can climb this list with only a few thousand book sales in the right (that is, the Left) bookstores. The larger question with this, as with all of Michael Moore’s books and film "documentaries," is whether they should be listed as Nonfiction or as fiction.

Moore faces what Karl Marx called internal contradictions. If the nation were as Leftist as he claims, his book would be nothing more than a simpleton repetition of common beliefs......

But Moore knows that his fellow Americans elected Republicans to run the Senate, House and White House and are likely to do so again in 2004. The aim of his latest propaganda polemic is to rationalize and then reverse this, to achieve "regime change" in the United States.

Americans vote Republican, contrary to their own self-interest, writes Moore, because wealthy capitalist oil men have hypnotized them with an illegitimate war in Iraq, fear of terrorists, and a few crumbs from a tax cut (given mostly to the wealthy) that feeds the American Horatio Alger myth that we all can succeed.

"Horatio Alger Must Die," writes Moore. Americans should stop trying to become rich. Instead they should desert the War on Terror and enlist in the Class War. Our best chance for a halfway pleasant life, he argues, is to tax all wealth away from the rich and redistribute it to ourselves in the form of welfare, government healthcare and other benefits.

"You are never going to be rich" like Horatio Alger, writes Moore. "The chance of that happening is about one in a million." (This means that in our nation of 293 million people, we have only 293 millionaires.…when in fact we have literally millions of citizens with a net worth in excess of a million dollars – and would have millions more if government greed and excessive taxation could be ended…but is it fair to apply logic to an utterly irrational hyper-Leftist ideologue like Moore?)

The problem with this pudgy messenger born 49 years ago into a working class family in Flint, Michigan, is that Michael Moore IS that one in a million who, in the jargon of Leftspeak, "won life’s lottery."......

But Michael Moore is very secretive about his own private life and how many dollars he makes. The amount of his income might be embarrassing to this foe of capitalism. Somebody might ask how this self-proclaimed champion of the proletariat justifies keeping, after taxes, millions and millions of dollars for himself instead of giving it all to the poor. Or some fellow socialist might ask why Moore takes this tax cut at all instead of telling the big government he loves so much to keep the money, government being so much better at spending our money than we are.

"Michael Moore would never withstand the scrutiny he lays on other people," says his former manager Douglas Urbanski. "You would think that he’s the ultimate common man. But he’s money-obsessed."...."


Yes sir...good ole' Michael Moore....continuing to make that 'buck' off the youth world-wide.....never giving a crap about nothing but spouting his same old rhetoric and agendas.......


regards
seekerof

Lunatock
01 Jan 04,, 05:31
"Americans should ditch the War On Terror and focus on the Class War. It's our best chance for a halfway pleasant life."

Had to re-read that. After reading about "ditching the way on terror". Which sounded a lot like Surrendering I might add.

It registered in my brain as "Our best chance for a healthy peasent life". I speak truth, thats how it appeared.

Speaking more truth: Fuck that!

Trooth
01 Jan 04,, 20:00
I must admit to only have read a small amount of Moore's stuff. In fact I want to see "Roger and Me" purely because the jacket notes make me think of a man raging against GM making a commercial decision against Flint, the very same type of decision that caused GM to go to Flint in the first place!

But isn't Moore's principle "rant" that whilst it is acceptable under US culture to rage against Marxist ideologies and big government, it is seems to not be acceptable to rage against big corporate? After all the US gained independance from the unrepresentative lobbying of unaccountable "barons". Now, accordng to Moore, there is a danger that the unacountable corporate barons are removing democracy from the people?

Leader
01 Jan 04,, 20:41
Originally posted by Trooth
But isn't Moore's principle "rant" that whilst it is acceptable under US culture to rage against Marxist ideologies and big government, it is seems to not be acceptable to rage against big corporate?

His kind of nonsense might go over well in Europe but the American people are allot more conservative then the Europeans. This guy peaches a "hate America" leftism that is more suited to the French. The vast majority of Americans are against big government and see Marxist for what it is, crap.


After all the US gained independance from the unrepresentative lobbying of unaccountable "barons". Now, accordng to Moore, there is a danger that the unacountable corporate barons are removing democracy from the people?

That's nonsense. American is a democracy, and will continue to be one. Rich people have all ways had a say in politics, but the pols still do what the people want in the end because if they don't, they will have to find a new job.

Trooth
01 Jan 04,, 20:52
Isn't Moore's point that the choice the US citizen's are getting are distorted in favour of the big corporate? I.e. One gets to choose A or B, but as the big corporates are lobbying both A an B it isn't much of a choice?

As i said i have only read a small amount of his stuff, but he strikes me as wanting more, not less, democracy.

Trooth
01 Jan 04,, 21:05
Below is an article that was originally published in the Independent. However it has now receeded into the paper's online pay article. Fortunately i found it on several websites.

---------

All the President's Votes?
A Quiet Revolution is Taking Place in US Politics. By the Time It's Over, the Integrity of Elections Will be in the Unchallenged, Unscrutinized Control of a Few Large - and Pro-Republican - Corporations. Andrew Gumbel wonders if democracy in America can survive

by Andrew Gumbel

Something very odd happened in the mid-term elections in Georgia last November. On the eve of the vote, opinion polls showed Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic governor, leading by between nine and 11 points. In a somewhat closer, keenly watched Senate race, polls indicated that Max Cleland, the popular Democrat up for re-election, was ahead by two to five points against his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss.

Those figures were more or less what political experts would have expected in state with a long tradition of electing Democrats to statewide office. But then the results came in, and all of Georgia appeared to have been turned upside down. Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Perdue, 46 per cent to 51 per cent, a swing of as much as 16 percentage points from the last opinion polls. Cleland lost to Chambliss 46 per cent to 53, a last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points.


Red-faced opinion pollsters suddenly had a lot of explaining to do and launched internal investigations. Political analysts credited the upset - part of a pattern of Republican successes around the country - to a huge campaigning push by President Bush in the final days of the race. They also said that Roy Barnes had lost because of a surge of "angry white men" punishing him for eradicating all but a vestige of the old confederate symbol from the state flag.

But something about these explanations did not make sense, and they have made even less sense over time. When the Georgia secretary of state's office published its demographic breakdown of the election earlier this year, it turned out there was no surge of angry white men; in fact, the only subgroup showing even a modest increase in turnout was black women.

There were also big, puzzling swings in partisan loyalties in different parts of the state. In 58 counties, the vote was broadly in line with the primary election. In 27 counties in Republican-dominated north Georgia, however, Max Cleland unaccountably scored 14 percentage points higher than he had in the primaries. And in 74 counties in the Democrat south, Saxby Chambliss garnered a whopping 22 points more for the Republicans than the party as a whole had won less than three months earlier.

Now, weird things like this do occasionally occur in elections, and the figures, on their own, are not proof of anything except statistical anomalies worthy of further study. But in Georgia there was an extra reason to be suspicious. Last November, the state became the first in the country to conduct an election entirely with touchscreen voting machines, after lavishing $54m (£33m) on a new system that promised to deliver the securest, most up-to-date, most voter-friendly election in the history of the republic. The machines, however, turned out to be anything but reliable. With academic studies showing the Georgia touchscreens to be poorly programmed, full of security holes and prone to tampering, and with thousands of similar machines from different companies being introduced at high speed across the country, computer voting may, in fact, be US democracy's own 21st-century nightmare.

In many Georgia counties last November, the machines froze up, causing long delays as technicians tried to reboot them. In heavily Democratic Fulton County, in downtown Atlanta, 67 memory cards from the voting machines went missing, delaying certification of the results there for 10 days. In neighboring DeKalb County, 10 memory cards were unaccounted for; they were later recovered from terminals that had supposedly broken down and been taken out of service.

It is still unclear exactly how results from these missing cards were tabulated, or if they were counted at all. And we will probably never know, for a highly disturbing reason. The vote count was not conducted by state elections officials, but by the private company that sold Georgia the voting machines in the first place, under a strict trade-secrecy contract that made it not only difficult but actually illegal - on pain of stiff criminal penalties - for the state to touch the equipment or examine the proprietary software to ensure the machines worked properly. There was not even a paper trail to follow up. The machines were fitted with thermal printing devices that could theoretically provide a written record of voters' choices, but these were not activated. Consequently, recounts were impossible. Had Diebold Inc, the manufacturer, been asked to review the votes, all it could have done was program the computers to spit out the same data as before, flawed or not.

Astonishingly, these are the terms under which America's top three computer voting machine manufacturers - Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software (ES&S) - have sold their products to election officials around the country. Far from questioning the need for rigid trade secrecy and the absence of a paper record, secretaries of state and their technical advisers - anxious to banish memories of the hanging chad fiasco and other associated disasters in the 2000 presidential recount in Florida - have, for the most part, welcomed the touchscreen voting machines as a technological miracle solution.

Georgia was not the only state last November to see big last-minute swings in voting patterns. There were others in Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois and New Hampshire - all in races that had been flagged as key partisan battlegrounds, and all won by the Republican Party. Again, this was widely attributed to the campaigning efforts of President Bush and the demoralization of a Democratic Party too timid to speak out against the looming war in Iraq.

Strangely, however, the pollsters made no comparable howlers in lower-key races whose outcome was not seriously contested. Another anomaly, perhaps. What, then, is one to make of the fact that the owners of the three major computer voting machines are all prominent Republican Party donors? Or of a recent political fund-raising letter written to Ohio Republicans by Walden O'Dell, Diebold's chief executive, in which he said he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" - even as his company was bidding for the contract on the state's new voting machinery?


Alarmed and suspicious, a group of Georgia citizens began to look into last November's election to see whether there was any chance the results might have been deliberately or accidentally manipulated. Their research proved unexpectedly, and disturbingly, fruitful.

First, they wanted to know if the software had undergone adequate checking. Under state and federal law, all voting machinery and component parts must be certified before use in an election. So an Atlanta graphic designer called Denis Wright wrote to the secretary of state's office for a copy of the certification letter. Clifford Tatum, assistant director of legal affairs for the election division, wrote back: "We have determined that no records exist in the Secretary of State's office regarding a certification letter from the lab certifying the version of software used on Election Day." Mr Tatum said it was possible the relevant documents were with Gary Powell, an official at the Georgia Technology Authority, so campaigners wrote to him as well. Mr Powell responded he was "not sure what you mean by the words 'please provide written certification documents' ".

"If the machines were not certified, then right there the election was illegal," Mr Wright says. The secretary of state's office has yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. The investigating citizens then considered the nature of the software itself. Shortly after the election, a Diebold technician called Rob Behler came forward and reported that, when the machines were about to be shipped to Georgia polling stations in the summer of 2002, they performed so erratically that their software had to be amended with a last-minute "patch". Instead of being transmitted via disk - a potentially time-consuming process, especially since its author was in Canada, not Georgia - the patch was posted, along with the entire election software package, on an open-access FTP, or file transfer protocol site, on the internet.

That, according to computer experts, was a violation of the most basic of security precautions, opening all sorts of possibilities for the introduction of rogue or malicious code. At the same time, however, it gave campaigners a golden opportunity to circumvent Diebold's own secrecy demands and see exactly how the system worked. Roxanne Jekot, a computer programmer with 20 years' experience, and an occasional teacher at Lanier Technical College northeast of Atlanta, did a line-by-line review and found "enough to stand your hair on end".

"There were security holes all over it," she says, "from the most basic display of the ballot on the screen all the way through the operating system." Although the program was designed to be run on the Windows 2000 NT operating system, which has numerous safeguards to keep out intruders, Ms Jekot found it worked just fine on the much less secure Windows 98; the 2000 NT security features were, as she put it, "nullified".

Also embedded in the software were the comments of the programmers working on it. One described what he and his colleagues had just done as "a gross hack". Elsewhere was the remark: "This doesn't really work." "Not a confidence builder, would you say?" Ms Jekot says. "They were operating in panic mode, cobbling together something that would work for the moment, knowing that at some point they would have to go back to figure out how to make it work more permanently." She found some of the code downright suspect - for example, an overtly meaningless instruction to divide the number of write-in votes by 1. "From a logical standpoint there is absolutely no reason to do that," she says. "It raises an immediate red flag."

Mostly, though, she was struck by the shoddiness of much of the programming. "I really expected to have some difficulty reviewing the source code because it would be at a higher level than I am accustomed to," she says. "In fact, a lot of this stuff looked like the homework my first-year students might have turned in." Diebold had no specific comment on Ms Jekot's interpretations, offering only a blanket caution about the complexity of election systems "often not well understood by individuals with little real-world experience".

But Ms Jekot was not the only one to examine the Diebold software and find it lacking. In July, a group of researchers from the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore discovered what they called "stunning flaws". These included putting the password in the source code, a basic security no-no; manipulating the voter smart-card function so one person could cast more than one vote; and other loopholes that could theoretically allow voters' ballot choices to be altered without their knowledge, either on the spot or by remote access.

Diebold issued a detailed response, saying that the Johns Hopkins report was riddled with false assumptions, inadequate information and "a multitude of false conclusions". Substantially similar findings, however, were made in a follow-up study on behalf of the state of Maryland, in which a group of computer security experts catalogued 328 software flaws, 26 of them critical, putting the whole system "at high risk of compromise". "If these vulnerabilities are exploited, significant impact could occur on the accuracy, integrity, and availability of election results," their report says.

Ever since the Johns Hopkins study, Diebold has sought to explain away the open FTP file as an old, incomplete version of its election package. The claim cannot be independently verified, because of the trade-secrecy agreement, and not everyone is buying it. "It is documented throughout the code who changed what and when. We have the history of this program from 1996 to 2002," Ms Jekot says. "I have no doubt this is the software used in the elections." Diebold now says it has upgraded its encryption and password features - but only on its Maryland machines.

A key security question concerned compatibility with Microsoft Windows, and Ms Jekot says just three programmers, all of them senior Diebold executives, were involved in this aspect of the system. One of these, Diebold's vice-president of research and development, Talbot Iredale, wrote an e-mail in April 2002 - later obtained by the campaigners - making it clear that he wanted to shield the operating system from Wylie Labs, an independent testing agency involved in the early certification process.

The reason that emerges from the e-mail is that he wanted to make the software compatible with WinCE 3.0, an operating system used for handhelds and PDAs; in other words, a system that could be manipulated from a remote location. "We do not want Wyle [sic] reviewing and certifying the operating systems," the e-mail reads. "Therefore can we keep to a minimum the references to the WinCE 3.0 operating system."

In an earlier intercepted e-mail, this one from Ken Clark in Diebold's research and development department, the company explained upfront to another independent testing lab that the supposedly secure software system could be accessed without a password, and its contents easily changed using the Microsoft Access program Mr Clark says he had considered putting in a password requirement to stop dealers and customers doing "stupid things", but that the easy access had often "got people out of a bind". Astonishingly, the representative from the independent testing lab did not see anything wrong with this and granted certification to the part of the software program she was inspecting - a pattern of lackadaisical oversight that was replicated all the way to the top of the political chain of command in Georgia, and in many other parts of the country.

Diebold has not contested the authenticity of the e-mails, now openly accessible on the internet. However, Diebold did caution that, as the e-mails were taken from a Diebold Election systems website in March 2003 by an illegal hack, the nature of the information stolen could have been revised or manipulated.

There are two reasons why the United States is rushing to overhaul its voting systems. The first is the Florida débâcle in the Bush-Gore election; no state wants to be the center of that kind of attention again. And the second is the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), signed by President Bush last October, which promises an unprecedented $3.9bn (£2.3bn) to the states to replace their old punchcard-and-lever machines. However, enthusiasm for the new technology seems to be motivated as much by a bureaucratic love of spending as by a love of democratic accountability. According to Rebecca Mercuri, a research fellow at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government and a specialist in voting systems, the shockingly high error rate of punchcard machines (3-5 per cent in Florida in 2000) has been known to people in the elections business for years. It was only after it became public knowledge in the last presidential election that anybody felt moved to do anything about it.

The problem is, computer touchscreen machines and other so-called DRE (direct recording electronic) systems are significantly less reliable than punchcards, irrespective of their vulnerability to interference. In a series of research papers for the Voting Technology Project, a joint venture of the prestigious Massachusetts and California Institutes of Technology, DREs were found to be among the worst performing systems. No method, the MIT/CalTech study conceded, worked more reliably than hand-counting paper ballots - an option that US electoral officials seem to consider hopelessly antiquated, or at least impractical in elections combining multiple local, state and national races for offices from President down to dogcatcher.

The clear disadvantages and dangers associated with DREs have not deterred state and county authorities from throwing themselves headlong into touchscreen technology. More than 40,000 machines made by Diebold alone are already in use in 37 states, and most are touchscreens. County after county is poised to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on computer voting before next spring's presidential primaries. "They say this is the direction they have to go in to have fair elections, but the rush to go towards computerization is very dubious," Dr Mercuri says. "One has to wonder why this is going on, because the way it is set up it takes away the checks and balances we have in a democratic society. That's the whole point of paper trails and recounts."

Anyone who has struggled with an interactive display in a museum knows how dodgy touchscreens can be. If they don't freeze, they easily become misaligned, which means they can record the wrong data. In Dallas, during early voting before last November's election, people found that no matter how often they tried to press a Democrat button, the Republican candidate's name would light up. After a court hearing, Diebold agreed to take down 18 machines with apparent misalignment problems. "And those were the ones where you could visually spot a problem," Dr Mercuri says. "What about what you don't see? Just because your vote shows up on the screen for the Democrats, how do you know it is registering inside the machine for the Democrats?"

Other problems have shown up periodically: machines that register zero votes, or machines that indicate voters coming to the polling station but not voting, even when a single race with just two candidates was on the ballot. Dr Mercuri was part of a lawsuit in Palm Beach County in which she and other plaintiffs tried to have a suspect Sequoia machine examined, only to run up against the brick wall of the trade-secret agreement. "It makes it really hard to show their product has been tampered with," she says, "if it's a felony to inspect it."

As for the possibilities of foul play, Dr Mercuri says they are virtually limitless. "There are literally hundreds of ways to do this," she says. "There are hundreds of ways to embed a rogue series of commands into the code and nobody would ever know because the nature of programming is so complex. The numbers would all tally perfectly." Tampering with an election could be something as simple as a "denial-of-service" attack, in which the machines simply stop working for an extended period, deterring voters faced with the prospect of long lines. Or it could be done with invasive computer codes known in the trade by such nicknames as "Trojan horses" or "Easter eggs". Detecting one of these, Dr Mercuri says, would be almost impossible unless the investigator knew in advance it was there and how to trigger it. Computer researcher Theresa Hommel, who is alarmed by touchscreen systems, has constructed a simulated voting machine in which the same candidate always wins, no matter what data you put in. She calls her model the Fraud-o-matic, and it is available online at www.wheresthepaper.org.

It is not just touchscreens which are at risk from error or malicious intrusion. Any computer system used to tabulate votes is vulnerable. An optical scan of ballots in Scurry County, Texas, last November erroneously declared a landslide victory for the Republican candidate for county commissioner; a subsequent hand recount showed that the Democrat had in fact won. In Comal County, Texas, a computerized optical scan found that three different candidates had won their races with exactly 18,181 votes. There was no recount or investigation, even though the coincidence, with those recurring 1s and 8s, looked highly suspicious. In heavily Democrat Broward County, Florida - which had switched to touchscreens in the wake of the hanging chad furore - more than 100,000 votes were found to have gone "missing" on election day. The votes were reinstated, but the glitch was not adequately explained. One local official blamed it on a "minor software thing".

Most suspect of all was the governor's race in Alabama, where the incumbent Democrat, Don Siegelman, was initially declared the winner. Sometime after midnight, when polling station observers and most staff had gone home, the probate judge responsible for elections in rural Baldwin County suddenly "discovered" that Mr Siegelman had been awarded 7,000 votes too many. In a tight election, the change was enough to hand victory to his Republican challenger, Bob Riley. County officials talked vaguely of a computer tabulation error, or a lightning strike messing up the machines, but the real reason was never ascertained because the state's Republican attorney general refused to authorize a recount or any independent ballot inspection.

According to an analysis by James Gundlach, a sociology professor at Auburn University in Alabama, the result in Baldwin County was full of wild deviations from the statistical norms established both by this and preceding elections. And he adds: "There is simply no way that electronic vote counting can produce two sets of results without someone using computer programs in ways that were not intended. In other words, the fact that two sets of results were reported is sufficient evidence in and of itself that the vote tabulation process was compromised." Although talk of voting fraud quickly subsided, Alabama has now amended its election laws to make recounts mandatory in close races.

The possibility of flaws in the electoral process is not something that gets discussed much in the United States. The attitude seems to be: we are the greatest democracy in the world, so the system must be fair. That has certainly been the prevailing view in Georgia, where even leading Democrats - their prestige on the line for introducing touchscreen voting in the first place - have fought tooth-and-nail to defend the integrity of the system. In a phone interview, the head of the Georgia Technology Authority who brought Diebold machines to the state, Larry Singer, blamed the growing chorus of criticism on "fear of technology", despite the fact that many prominent critics are themselves computer scientists. He says: "Are these machines flawless? No. Would you have more confidence if they were completely flawless? Yes. Is there such a thing as a flawless system? No." Mr Singer, who left the GTA straight after the election and took a 50 per cent pay cut to work for Sun Microsystems, insists that voters are more likely to have their credit card information stolen by a busboy in a restaurant than to have their vote compromised by touchscreen technology.

Voting machines are sold in the United States in much the same way as other government contracts: through intensive lobbying, wining and dining. At a recent national conference of clerks, election officials and treasurers in Denver, attendees were treated to black-tie dinners and other perks, including free expensive briefcases stamped with Sequoia's company logo alongside the association's own symbol. Nobody in power seems to find this worrying, any more than they worried when Sequoia's southern regional sales manager, Phil Foster, was indicted in Louisiana a couple of years ago for "conspiracy to commit money laundering and malfeasance". The charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Louisiana's state commissioner of elections. Similarly, last year, the Arkansas secretary of state, Bill McCuen, pleaded guilty to taking bribes and kickbacks involving a precursor company to ES&S; the voting machine company executive who testified against him in exchange for immunity is now an ES&S vice-president.

If much of the worry about vote-tampering is directed at the Republicans, it is largely because the big three touchscreen companies are all big Republican donors, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into party coffers in the past few years. The ownership issue is, of course, compounded by the lack of transparency. Or, as Dr Mercuri puts it: "If the machines were independently verifiable, who would give a crap who owns them?" As it is, fears that US democracy is being hijacked by corporate interests are being fueled by links between the big three and broader business interests, as well as extremist organizations. Two of the early backers of American Information Systems, a company later merged into ES&S, are also prominent supporters of the Chalcedon Foundation, an organization that espouses theocratic governance according to a literal reading of the Bible and advocates capital punishment for blasphemy and homosexuality.

The chief executive of American Information Systems in the early Nineties was Chuck Hagel, who went on to run for elective office and became the first Republican in 24 years to be elected to the Senate from Nebraska, cheered on by the Omaha World-Herald newspaper which also happens to be a big investor in ES&S. In yet another clamorous conflict of interest, 80 per cent of Mr Hagel's winning votes - both in 1996 and again in 2002 - were counted, under the usual terms of confidentiality, by his own company.

In theory, the federal government should be monitoring the transition to computer technology and rooting out abuses. Under the Help America Vote Act, the Bush administration is supposed to establish a sizeable oversight committee, headed by two Democrats and two Republicans, as well as a technical panel to determine standards for new voting machinery. The four commission heads were supposed to have been in place by last February, but so far just one has been appointed. The technical panel also remains unconstituted, even though the new machines it is supposed to vet are already being sold in large quantities - a state of affairs Dr Mercuri denounces as "an abomination".

One of the conditions states have to fulfil to receive federal funding for the new voting machines, meanwhile, is a consolidation of voter rolls at state rather than county level. This provision sends a chill down the spine of anyone who has studied how Florida consolidated its own voter rolls just before the 2000 election, purging the names of tens of thousands of eligible voters, most of them African Americans and most of them Democrats, through misuse of an erroneous list of convicted felons commissioned by Katherine Harris, the secretary of state doubling as George Bush's Florida campaign manager. Despite a volley of lawsuits, the incorrect list was still in operation in last November's mid-terms, raising all sorts of questions about what other states might now do with their own voter rolls. It is not that the Act's consolidation provision is in itself evidence of a conspiracy to throw elections, but it does leave open that possibility.

Meanwhile, the administration has been pushing new voting technology of its own to help overseas citizens and military personnel, both natural Republican Party constituencies, to vote more easily over the internet. Internet voting is notoriously insecure and open to abuse by just about anyone with rudimentary hacking skills; just last January, an experiment in internet voting in Toronto was scuppered by a Slammer worm attack. Undeterred, the administration has gone ahead with its so-called SERVE project for overseas voting, via a private consortium made up of major defense contractors and a Saudi investment group. The contract for overseeing internet voting in the 2004 presidential election was recently awarded to Accenture, formerly part of the Arthur Andersen group (whose accountancy branch, a major campaign contributor to President Bush, imploded as a result of the Enron bankruptcy scandal).

Not everyone in the United States has fallen under the spell of the big computer voting companies, and there are signs of growing wariness. Oregon decided even before HAVA to conduct all its voting by mail. Wisconsin has decided it wants nothing to do with touchscreen machines without a verifiable paper trail, and New York is considering a similar injunction, at least for its state assembly races. In California, a Stanford computer science professor called David Dill is screaming from the rooftops on the need for a paper trail in his state, so far without result. And a New Jersey Congressman called Rush Holt has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, asking for much the same thing. Not everyone is heeding the warnings, though. In Ohio, publication of the letter from Diebold's chief executive promising to deliver the state to President Bush in 2004 has not deterred the secretary of state - a Republican - from putting Diebold on a list of preferred voting-machine vendors. Similarly, in Maryland, officials have not taken the recent state-sponsored study identifying hundreds of flaws in the Diebold software as any reason to change their plans to use Diebold machines in March's presidential primary.

The question is whether the country will come to its senses before elections start getting distorted or tampered with on such a scale that the system becomes unmanageable. The sheer volume of money offered under HAVA is unlikely to be forthcoming again in a hurry, so if things aren't done right now it is doubtful the system can be fixed again for a long time. "This is frightening, really frightening," says Dr Mercuri, and a growing number of reasonable people are starting to agree with her. One such is John Zogby, arguably the most reliable pollster in the United States, who has freely admitted he "blew" last November's elections and does not exclude the possibility that foul play was one of the factors knocking his calculations off course. "We're plowing into a brave new world here," he says, "where there are so many variables aside from out-and-out corruption that can change elections, especially in situations where the races are close. We have machines that break down, or are tampered with, or are simply misunderstood. It's a cause for great concern."

Roxanne Jekot, who has put much of her professional and personal life on hold to work on the issue full time, puts it even more strongly. "Corporate America is very close to running this country. The only thing that is stopping them from taking total control are the pesky voters. That's why there's such a drive to control the vote. What we're seeing is the corporatization of the last shred of democracy.

"I feel that unless we stop it here and stop it now," she says, "my kids won't grow up to have a right to vote at all."

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

Also See:
Diebold Voting Machine Owner Committed To Give Votes To Bush in 2004
Cleveland Plain Dealer 8/28/2003

Will Bush Backers Manipulate Votes to Deliver GW Another Election?
Democracy Now! 9/4/2003

www.blackboxvoting.com

Orignal Artcle ;- http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=452972

above "reprint"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm

Leader
01 Jan 04,, 21:15
Originally posted by Trooth
Isn't Moore's point that the choice the US citizen's are getting are distorted in favour of the big corporate? I.e. One gets to choose A or B, but as the big corporates are lobbying both A an B it isn't much of a choice?

Corporations can lobbies the pols all they want, but a pols is going to, in the end, do what the people want because they voted them into office. The pols might drop these corporations a bone every once in a while, but what they are giving them is money or tax breaks. They are not changing their core policies because of the lobbyists. Those who think that the Iraq war, for example, was some corporate conspiracy over estimate the power of corporations.



As i said i have only read a small amount of his stuff, but he strikes me as wanting more, not less, democracy.

Who had a more liberal constitution the US or the USSR? Who had the one protecting the more freedoms? Answer: the USSR. The point is that it is not the words that Moore says. Its the consequence of his policies. Marxism has killing millions of people. It gave birth to Stalinism which allied itself with fascism. Marxism is proven by history to fail again and again, yet people like Moore continue to try to spread it. The American people understand that. He get little traction here.

Leader
01 Jan 04,, 22:02
The above article is a grand conspiracy theory that I have heard before. All though the concerns about digital voting may or may not be valid, this proves nothing in Georgia.


On the eve of the vote, opinion polls showed Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic governor, leading by between nine and 11 points.

One point outside the margin of error.


Max Cleland, the popular Democrat up for re-election,

Not so popular after he sided with unions over the security of the United States.


Those figures were more or less what political experts would have expected in state with a long tradition of electing Democrats to statewide office.

This statement is misleading, and borders on being an out right lie. Georgia is a Republican state and has been so for many years, since the '60. It is amazing how the Dems managed to hold on the the governorship and the senate seats so long. The Southern US is VERY conservative. Even when they elect dems, they and conservatives dems not the Moores of the world. If fact I believe Georgia's other senator is the dem the supports President Bush in the next election.


But something about these explanations did not make sense, and they have made even less sense over time.

This election was held in 2002, a mere 1 year after 9/11. People in Europe don't get what 9/11 did to America. Bush approval rating a month after September 11 was 90%. I believe it was in the 60's if not 70's at the time of the election. Most American were enraged by 9/11 and wanted to enable the President to do what he wanted to do in the War on Terrorism. A poll of base indicators came out right before the election show the republicans would win big. The media of course down played it. In the end the key issue in Georgia wasn't turn out or the confederate flag, it was the vote on the department of homeland security. The Dems voted against it because the department wasn't going to recognize some unions and that killed them in the south.

Georgia also fits the pattern across the country. The Republicans won the majority of seats in the state legislators for the first time in 80 years. The Republicans controlled the majority of governorships, and gained 3 senate seats and 7, or there about, house seats. The Dems just got killed. Its as simple as that. They took policy counter to those of a popular president and the paid for it. The was no grand conspiracy.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 19:09
I thought this quote was pretty telling about what Moore stands for:


"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" --Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12

This guy is one very F'ed up person.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 19:32
His sentiment in that quote seems to be that if Al-qaeda had managed to build a "Repulican Bomb" that leaves others unharmed it would have been OK.

But perhaps he was simply saying how random the attack was, that it killed people who had no way of influencing US policy, or indeed had tried to influence US policy by voting for someone else?

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 19:58
Originally posted by Trooth
But perhaps he was simply saying how random the attack was, that it killed people who had no way of influencing US policy, or indeed had tried to influence US policy by voting for someone else?

I don't think so. He was stating that it is only wrong to kill people that didn't vote for Bush. There is more to that statement in which he wonders why the terrorists didn’t attack Texas, which is Bush’s home state.

If you wish to keep defending him, I a sure you that there are many more such quotes

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 20:08
I am not defending. I merely provided two interpretations of his words, one damning, one supporting.

Which article do these quotes come from?

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 20:23
Originally posted by Trooth
I am not defending. I merely provided two interpretations of his words, one damning, one supporting.

Which article do these quotes come from?

That quote come from his web site. As to where I found it:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/left.php
It is the last quote in the misc. sub-title. I heard about it before. So, I know they didn't make it up.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 20:50
Here are three links to three versions of the same article (all dated 12/09/01) and attributed to Michael Moore.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11486

http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/091401moore.html

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2001-09-12

Interestingly the quote above doesn't appear on his own site, but does on the others. I don't know if this is because they are effectively three different articles or perhaps the one on his website has been amended either after publication on it, or after distribution to other sources.

Couldn't find the Texas bit though and need to go to the pub now :)

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 20:57
Originally posted by Trooth
Here are three links to three versions of the same article (all dated 12/09/01) and attributed to Michael Moore.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11486

http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/091401moore.html

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2001-09-12

Interestingly the quote above doesn't appear on his own site, but does on the others. I don't know if this is because they are effectively three different articles or perhaps the one on his website has been amended either after publication on it, or after distribution to other sources.

Couldn't find the Texas bit though and need to go to the pub now :)

The quote wasn't part of an article on his web site. It was just posted there. Like a statement. He probably deleted it after he realized that he'd stuck his foot in his mouth.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 14:42
"(T)he passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes." -- Michael Moore on Flight 93

I thought this was equality disgraceful and racist.

Note: Fight 93 was the flight on which passengers bravely stormed the hijackers which prevented them from taking out hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground.

Moore is a sick fuck.:flamemad

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 16:07
No doubt he was pandering to his immediate audience.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 16:22
Originally posted by Trooth
No doubt he was pandering to his immediate audience.

Which changes nothing.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 18:02
Didn't say it did.

Bill
03 Jan 04,, 18:28
SO help me god if that fat pussy is ever in my presence the whole lot of you will cheer on the nightly news as i BEAT HIS MOTHERLOVING ASS into a bloody mess.

Fucking cockroach.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 18:30
Originally posted by M21Sniper
SO help me god if that fat pussy is ever in my presence the whole lot of you will cheer on the nightly news as i BEAT HIS MOTHERLOVING ASS into a bloody mess.

Fucking cockroach.

:LOL :LOL :LOL You go get him Sniper :sniper

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 18:33
Originally posted by M21Sniper
SO help me god if that fat pussy is ever in my presence the whole lot of you will cheer on the nightly news as i BEAT HIS MOTHERLOVING ASS into a bloody mess.

Fucking cockroach.

If i read between the lines, i get the impression you are not his biggest fan then :)

Bill
04 Jan 04,, 00:45
That would be correct. ;)

naocman
04 Jan 04,, 07:43
You and me both, Sniper. People like him make me sick..if you want to disagree with the government in this country, feel free to do so...its the wonderful thing we have in this country called freedom. But at least have the decency, the honor, the RESPECT to do so in an honorable fashion...not by hurling insults and talking out of your ass about things that you have no knowledge about.

Trooth
04 Jan 04,, 15:30
One thing i hadn't realised about Michael Moore is that he is a member of the NRA.

Stinger
04 Jan 04,, 17:50
Originally posted by Trooth
One thing i hadn't realised about Michael Moore is that he is a member of the NRA. Your kidding right? where did you find that at?

Trooth
04 Jan 04,, 18:45
It is mentioned a few times in "Bowling For Columbine", along with photos of him winning some shooting awards or something, it is part of his "these are my people" bit in Michigan.

Here is MM's explanation :-

MM: "I was a junior member when I was in the boy scouts when I was a kid, but I became a lifetime member after the Columbine massacre because my first thought after Columbine was to run against Charlton Heston for the presidency of the NRA. You have to be a lifetime member to be able to do that, so I had to pay $750 (about £450) to join. My plan was to get 5m Americans to join for the lowest basic membership and vote for me so that I'd win and dismantle the organisation. Unfortunately, I figured that's just too much work for me so instead I made this movie. But I'm still a lifetime member, until they excommunicate me... which is not far off, from what I hear."

That quote is from a fairly long interview in The Guardian (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,841083,00.html) a couple of years ago.

naocman
04 Jan 04,, 19:14
Originally posted by Trooth
"I was a junior member when I was in the boy scouts when I was a kid,

How did this guy turn out so screwed up if he was a Boy Scout??

bigross86
04 Jan 04,, 19:35
Maybe something horrible happened in the woods one night...

Bill
05 Jan 04,, 02:19
Or many, many different nights.

Maybe he liked it?

The Chap
01 Sep 04,, 02:23
Mis. failure? Mis. success. More is the pity (no pun intended). Can't stand the fat shit.

List
01 Sep 04,, 08:40
How could anyone possibly describe Michael Moore as a miserable failure? He's rich, famous, seems to have a healthy personal/family life, and though he's angry about a lot of things(as are most people) he seems to be fairly happy overall. How does that make him a failure?


How did this guy turn out so screwed up if he was a Boy Scout??

How did that guy turn out so screwed up if he's a priest? How did that guy turn out so screwed up if he's a doctor? How did that guy turn out so screwed up if he's a policeman? How did that guy turn out so screwed up if he went to a religious school and attended mass every Sunday!!!

Show me the evidence that the boy scouts shouldn't be turning out "screwed up" people. Seems to me it's an outdated form of extended camp, which manages to be both extremely homophobic and strangely homoerotic at the same time.

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 02:21
How could anyone possibly describe Michael Moore as a miserable failure?
He can't make a documentary, he's failed at that quite a few times.

List
02 Sep 04,, 03:39
But he succeeded in getting lots of people to watch his movies and read his books. He got his message out.

Confed999
02 Sep 04,, 05:08
But he succeeded in getting lots of people to watch his movies and read his books. He got his message out.
But they weren't the documentaries he claimed they were, thus he is a miserable failure at making documentaries, which answered your question.

List
02 Sep 04,, 05:55
That doesn't make him a miserable failure as a whole. If it did, anyone who's ever failed at anything would be considered a miserable failure. In that case, the term loses all meaning.

Ray
02 Sep 04,, 20:26
Micheal Moore, who? ;)

Trooth
02 Sep 04,, 21:12
But they weren't the documentaries he claimed they were, thus he is a miserable failure at making documentaries, which answered your question.

Well, thats the free market for you, it puts him right up there with other esteemed documentary makers, like Disney, who make stuff up to sell tickets.

Unless youa re going to have classification bordering on censorship, youa re going to have to accept people are going to portay stuff about non-fictional events in a manner you find unappealing

Confed999
03 Sep 04,, 04:18
Well, thats the free market for you, it puts him right up there with other esteemed documentary makers, like Disney, who make stuff up to sell tickets.

Unless youa re going to have classification bordering on censorship, youa re going to have to accept people are going to portay stuff about non-fictional events in a manner you find unappealing
It's not censorship to requre something to be a documentary, before it can be labeled one. Remove the word documentary from the ads, and I'll call him a brilliant moviemaker, instead of a miserable failure as a documenter.

Praxus
03 Sep 04,, 04:22
I agree, he is essentially commiting fraud. He is claiming something is true which he knows to be false. The problem is you have to prove it.

The Chap
03 Sep 04,, 22:19
I wonder if ther is potential for a case of constructive misrepresentation/slander (or does libel apply to documentaries?/ some kind of malfeasance not covered by freedom of speech etc. Not knowing US law I'm curious if any one could advise.

Trooth
05 Sep 04,, 22:45
It's not censorship to requre something to be a documentary, before it can be labeled one. Remove the word documentary from the ads, and I'll call him a brilliant moviemaker, instead of a miserable failure as a documenter.

I think that if you took a literal definition of documentary, Moore's works wouldn't classify. I think the problem is that it does classify when you look at his style's peers. Therefore, perhaps the whoe category needs to be re-classified. But some notable houses are going to have their catalogue labelled fiction.

Confed999
05 Sep 04,, 23:53
But some notable houses are going to have their catalogue labelled fiction.
As it should be, I don't descriminate.

The Chap
06 Sep 04,, 00:14
As it should be, I don't descriminate.

In the actual, literal sense or the common indiscriminate usage? :tongue:

lulldapull
06 Sep 04,, 15:45
I finally afforded him the $4 that I believed his movie was worth at the corner lower income theatre, which was goddamn full of senior citizens annoyingly chompin on free popcorn throughout the duration! :mad:

Anyway the one thing I agreed with him and which btw is true for all countries is that the only poor or under-priveliged ppl tend to join the services and his assertion that once these "lower caste" ppl do put their pathetic lives on the line to go and kill some 2 cent A-raanb to "defend" our Go-damn lives, then we should at least have the wisdom and concience to not send them in harms way unless it directly threatens our way of life or our country.

you can't argue or reason with that notion of his because no matter which way you look at it, the iraq war was a total agenda. Its a disgrace for our nation now, just like Vietnam was, and we can't god-damn get out of it! I just hope that we start prosecuting these ex-government officials for formulating bullshit agenda driven policies and making our country into a 2 cent global cop God-damn UN lackey. I mean who the hell are they accountable to??? :mad:

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 17:35
btw is true for all countries is that the only poor or under-priveliged ppl tend to join the services
What? Many countries have a conscription policy, where even princes serve. Are you saying Bush and Kerry were "poor or under-priveliged"?

it directly threatens our way of life or our country.
Good, then you should have no problem with Iraq at all. Unless you can show where anyone who counts knew for sure he wasn't the threat most of the world percieved him to be for decades.

the iraq war was a total agenda.
Hmmm, I still fail to see a hidden agenda, no matter how I look at it.

Its a disgrace for our nation now
It was, and is, the most selfless act the United States has ever commited. It makes me proud to be an American, and I feel as Shakespeare wrote of the "gentlemen in England"...

"And gentlemen in England, now abed, shall think themselves accursed they were not there. And hold their manhood cheap, when any speaks who fought with us"

God-damn UN lackey.
Are we talking about Kerry now?

Trooth
06 Sep 04,, 18:11
Unless you can show where anyone who counts knew for sure he wasn't the threat most of the world percieved him to be for decades.

As we have discussed in another thread Saddam wasn't a problem in mid 2001, ask Mr Powell or Dr Rice. Unless they were wrong then. Which is good, because they were proved right a few months later, only to be proved wrong again now.

Or is it the other way around? Where they right when he wasn't a threat, wrong when he was, and right now that we know he wasn't?

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 18:18
As we have discussed in another thread Saddam wasn't a problem in mid 2001, ask Mr Powell or Dr Rice. Unless they were wrong then. Which is good, because they were proved right a few months later, only to be proved wrong again now.

Or is it the other way around? Where they right when he wasn't a threat, wrong when he was, and right now that we know he wasn't?
A contained threat is still a threat. North Korea is "contained" but do you believe they are no threat?

lulldapull
06 Sep 04,, 18:41
See the funny thing is that if north Korea was a threat then they'd have long taken em out! But they haven't since Russia collapsed. the real reason is that the Chinese Dragon wont allow them to fall. China is a gaurantor of that regime, and both Nortn Korea and Pakistan are its proxies. :)

Confed buddy the bottom line is the same for everyone, just as it is for this 2 cent lackey ass musharraf, that either fall in line or get it in the booty! :biggrin: .....or better as yet, no mater which way you turn, you are gonna get it in dee ass! :biggrin:

So when the U.S. itself sits on 5000 nuclear warheads and supprts an illegal entity like israel , but strongly opposes another illegal entity like North Korea then no one can trust them! Kinda like a smoking father tellin his retarded son to quit smokin.... :biggrin: First the U.S. and Russia should stand on a neutral/ moral or better yet a non hypocritical platform before preachin bullshit about WMD's.

In all honesty I don't think North Korea threatens anyone, as long as they are left alone to do their thing. They wont invade the South unless provoked. Like wise Pakistan, india, israel or Iran don't threaten anyone either. It is ludicrous for the successive Administrations to assume that everyone else is a neanderthal! :biggrin:

smilingassassin
06 Sep 04,, 18:42
Contained threats still need to be delt with, and yes Saddam WAS a threat. He did absolutely nothing to end terrorism and let them run around freely in his country. His own henchmen were terrorists loping off hands heads and anything else the saw fit as punishment for fantom crimes. He continueously called for the "distruction" of Israel and ploted to assassinate a former president.

As long as saddam was runnign Iraq, terrorism would have its propoganda machine intact.

Your either with the free world and condemn terrorist acts and do everything in your power to prevent them, hunt them down, prosicute them in a court of law....or your with the terrorists like Lull, aid them, feed them, fuel there philosophy, stoak their anger, lobby for their causes, give them weapons, fund them or even silently egnore them as they scurry past your house to murder an inocent human being.

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 18:53
See the funny thing is that if north Korea was a threat then they'd have long taken em out! But they haven't since Russia collapsed.
What?

that either fall in line or get it in the booty!
That's how life works. If I don't like the way you do things, I won't associate with you, or do business with you.

supprts an illegal entity like israel
What makes Israel an illegal entity?

Kinda like a smoking father tellin his retarded son to quit smokin.
So you support children smoking?

First the U.S. and Russia should stand on a neutral/ moral or better yet a non hypocritical platform before preachin bullshit about WMD's.
You're preaching about WMD and you aren't neutral, so why can't they?

In all honesty I don't think North Korea threatens anyone, as long as they are left alone to do their thing.
Then why do they threaten us with nuclear attack if they don't get their way? They're extortionists, criminals, and that's allways a threat.

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 18:55
Your either with the free world and condemn terrorist acts and do everything in your power to prevent them, hunt them down, prosicute them in a court of law....or your with the terrorists like Lull, aid them, feed them, fuel there philosophy, stoak their anger, lobby for their causes, give them weapons, fund them or even silently egnore them as they scurry past your house to murder an inocent human being.
"to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission." J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler

smilingassassin
06 Sep 04,, 19:00
"See the funny thing is that if north Korea was a threat then they'd have long taken em out! But they haven't since Russia collapsed. the real reason is that the Chinese Dragon wont allow them to fall. China is a gaurantor of that regime, and both Nortn Korea and Pakistan are its proxies."

The real reason is because the Chinese would like the North Koreans to remain peacefull, their just as concerned about nukes in thir backyard as the U.S. is.

"Confed buddy the bottom line is the same for everyone, just as it is for this 2 cent lackey ass musharraf, that either fall in line or get it in the booty! .....or better as yet, no mater which way you turn, you are gonna get it in dee ass!"

Wisely Musharraf is following the U.S. and not your lackys Lull, your right he is towing the line, the U.S. line...

"So when the U.S. itself sits on 5000 nuclear warheads and supprts an illegal entity like israel , but strongly opposes another illegal entity like North Korea then no one can trust them!"

You seem to leave quite a few point's out there Lull, Israel is not an elligal entity, its recognized as a nation by the U.N., yes your beloved U.N. Ifthe U.S. is so uncaring about the people in the korean penninsula why don't they just nuke Korea? They don't have missles that can reach the U.S. , so with your logic theres nothing to lose right?

"Kinda like a smoking father tellin his retarded son to quit smokin.... First the U.S. and Russia should stand on a neutral/ moral or better yet a non hypocritical platform before preachin bullshit about WMD's."

Father knows best, he knows just what kind of hell smoking has put him through, fighting lung cancer so its a good thing that he tells his kid to quit now and save himself.

"In all honesty I don't think North Korea threatens anyone, as long as they are left alone to do their thing."

You definately don't have a clue do you Lull, ever listen to ol Kim?

"They wont invade the South unless provoked."

They don't invade because they know they will be wiped off the face of the earth.

"Like wise Pakistan, india, israel or Iran don't threaten anyone either. It is ludicrous for the successive Administrations to assume that everyone else is a neanderthal!"

The left seem to think its not ludacrous to call Bush a neanderthal, my how hypocritical!

Pakistan dosn't invade because they have India to deal with, if they play their cards wrong the U.S. supports India and its game over....

India dosn't attack for the same reason as Pakistan, China might join Pakistan.

Israel doesn't invade because they are a civilized nation

Iran dosn't invade because they know they would give us the excuse we need to remove the mulahs from power and establish a free society in Iran, by not attacking they bide time to fight their little poxy wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

mostlymad
12 Sep 04,, 02:28
But he succeeded in getting lots of people to watch his movies and read his books. He got his message out.

That, in my opinion, makes him a successful con man. He blusters around, stages his own public appearances so that he becomes the news thus making him even more popular, uses deceptive methods that cannot even be considered reporting. He is the Jeraldo Rivera of documentaries. As for "his message"...he gets "a" message out, but I don't really believe it is his message. He loves the spotlight, and seems to grab onto, like any opportunist, whatever he thinks will draw people's attention.

I'm for offing him, too, but only if it never makes the news.

Yeah, I hate him.

Kieran Bennett
24 Sep 04,, 12:39
George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/)

:biggrin:

Trooth
24 Sep 04,, 23:12
Here we go again!

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 01:36
Here we go again!
It's ok, the "proof" he provided in the links isn't damning at all. ;)

Kieran Bennett
25 Sep 04,, 02:02
George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/) and lying bastard (http://www.pm.gov.au/) !

:biggrin:

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 02:22
George Bush is a miserable failure (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)

John Howard is a racist pig (http://www.pm.gov.au/) and lying bastard (http://www.pm.gov.au/) !

:biggrin:
Prove it. BTW, I don't particularly like either of them, I just like their courage to take on tyrants.

The Chap
25 Sep 04,, 06:32
Prove it. BTW, I don't particularly like either of them, I just like their courage to take on tyrants.

Stricktly speaking, other peoples courage, overwhelming numerical superiority and usually a definative tech. dominance. :)

Kieran Bennett
25 Sep 04,, 14:17
Prove it. BTW, I don't particularly like either of them, I just like their courage to take on tyrants.

Prove the validity of an attempt at google bombing?

Well we all know Bush is a miserable failure, just enter it into google and his bio pops up! :biggrin:

As for Howard being a lying bastard (http://www.pm.gov.au/), this site published by the ALP entitled "35 lies and counting" may be useful:
http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php

I think Howards record with regard to the treatment of asylum seekers speaks for itself, he is a racist pig who was only re-elected in 2001 due to a skillful appeal to racist prejudice.

As for courage, I suppose its courage to drag you country to war and send your nations young boys to kill some other nations young boys, in defiance of the wishes of 75% of the population and without the customry aproval of parliament.

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 21:56
Stricktly speaking, other peoples courage,
So the possable political suicide it took to do it isn't couragous?

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 21:58
Well we all know Bush is a miserable failure, just enter it into google and his bio pops up! :biggrin:
My search came up with http://www.michaelmoore.com/ as the #1... You're just being silly, like I thought.

ALP entitled "35 lies and counting" may be useful:
http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php
And I should believe them why? I don't see proof he lied on there, just accusations he lied. I thought you said the labor party was untrustworthy in another thread too? You on their side now? Strange... Really, the best thing not to do. is believe anything on any campaign website.

Trooth
26 Sep 04,, 00:07
So the possable political suicide it took to do it isn't couragous?

Given that things haven't panned out as they expected, you would expect them to fall on their swords. In reality only Aznar's party has been to the polls yet. Howard is first up on 9/10/04, then Bush on 2/11/04 and Blair considering the attractive date 05/05/05 .

Confed999
26 Sep 04,, 00:38
Given that things haven't panned out as they expected, you would expect them to fall on their swords.
Kill themselves just because no stockpiles of WMD were found? Seems extreme to me, but supporting an invasion for WMD seems extreme to me...

Trooth
26 Sep 04,, 03:28
Kill themselves just because no stockpiles of WMD were found? Seems extreme to me, but supporting an invasion for WMD seems extreme to me...

I meant metaphorically. If they had been the CEO of a company that had based its strategy on such false market analysis .... then they would have felt compelled to resign.

Ziska
28 Sep 04,, 04:55
yes, Howard is a racist pig who has increased the immigration intake from Asia every year he's been in office.

He also has, as his chief adviser, a greek-australian.

But of course, it's only racist if you're white eh?

Confed999
28 Sep 04,, 23:53
I meant metaphorically.
So did I. ;)

If they had been the CEO of a company that had based its strategy on such false market analysis .... then they would have felt compelled to resign.
Even if the stock had still gone up?

Recon_sgt
15 Oct 04,, 10:53
I wont get to invloved (given I know nothing and dont want to know anything about MM) but assassin I must disagree.

Contained threats still need to be delt with, and yes Saddam WAS a threat. He did absolutely nothing to end terrorism and let them run around freely in his country. His own henchmen were terrorists loping off hands heads and anything else the saw fit as punishment for fantom crimes. He continueously called for the "distruction" of Israel and ploted to assassinate a former president. .

Saddam may not have hunted them to extinction like we want to but he wasnt particullarly fond of them (Al Qaeda). He kept them under foot while in power because they were a threat to his power. They would have wanted to take over so to stop them he needed to keep them well trodden on (not trying to justify Saddam just saying he didnt get on to well with uncle Osama).

Oh btw has anyone here noticed how much Saddam looks like Stalin, its scary I tells ya. :biggrin:

lemontree
15 Oct 04,, 13:28
ARW_cpl

Me too, don't know who is this Michael Moore guy, that has got everyone pissed off.

Besides, Saddam did'nt have much to do with Al Qaida. He had no link with them, so where should he have gone hunting for Osama/Al Qaida? Lets not forget the underlying economic reasons for this war! Oil and the monopoly over it. (I wish we had a govt that would take bolder decisions).

It is the Syrian/Pakistanis and Iran (to some extent), that have more to do terror organisations. Saudis are just financers.

Saddam does'nt resemble Stalin, the difference is in the mushtash, and face too.

Lambert
14 Nov 04,, 04:46
Bowling for Columbine, shows he is another [URL=http://www.michaelmoore.com/]big fat liar.

unfortunately i have only been expossed to this movie of his, and quite agree...he is a big fat liar.
As for his newest one " farenheight 911 " I don't think i need to see it to figure out it is another sick peace of mind numbing, bias propoganda.

Ray
14 Nov 04,, 05:25
His film didn't run well in India.

I ahve just got the CDs and am keen to see it.

I believe he is to have a sequel!

Propoganda or not, its raked in the moolah.

Trooth
14 Nov 04,, 09:53
unfortunately i have only been expossed to this movie of his, and quite agree...he is a big fat liar.
As for his newest one " farenheight 911 " I don't think i need to see it to figure out it is another sick peace of mind numbing, bias propoganda.

You should like the style, given that you judge things of which you admit no knowledge.

Ray
14 Nov 04,, 11:18
Iran dosn't invade because they know they would give us the excuse we need to remove the mulahs from power and establish a free society in Iran,.

Good joke.

And which hat are you going to pull troops from to invade Iran. Mandrake?

Lambert
14 Nov 04,, 22:18
You should like the style, given that you judge things of which you admit no knowledge.

Knowledge on movies and knowledge on ppl are quite different.
Yes I agree I have no knowledge on Farenhite 911, but you don't tend to need knowledge to see the repitition in sick people. And judjing by mm's previous books and movies it's all the same ****, just a different pile stirred to his morbid perfection.

Confed999
15 Nov 04,, 02:40
And judjing by mm's previous books and movies it's all the same ****, just a different pile stirred to his morbid perfection.
Yep...

Trooth
15 Nov 04,, 17:44
Personally i like Moore. He may use dubious research, with biased interpretation and presentation of information but hey he isn't alone, as we have recently seen.

What i would like to see is people being held accountable for their failings. If as people insist Moore is flawed then i guess he will be held accountable due to the court of the box office. People will get bored. He will have a flop movie and disappear.

However i haven't seen the government agencies held accountable - has the axe been weilded yet within the halls of intelligence? All of us pay for these people to be wrong, only those that watch Moore's stuff pay for it.

Or is it a malaise of competance in the culture?

lulldapull
15 Nov 04,, 18:28
INMO M.M has basically shown what we already knew! But to the common white/ blue collar average Joe on the street ere in the U.S. this fact of life is none too apparent! or even if it is, then they wont admit to it, as it hurts ppl's ego's, and sensibilities. :biggrin: :biggrin:

The reality check that he gave us al in his movie was that there are millions of poor ppl in the U.S. and just like anyother country it is unfortunately they who either get drafted or join the military by default because they don't have a way out of their pathetic and miserable environments :)

While well off baastards like Kerry and Dubbya take the "easi-er" way out :biggrin: :biggrin:......

And ppl shouldn't be fooled by purple hearts or medals of honours!

In a lot of cases that I have personally witnessed, some of these cheese pumpers just got them medals for being in vietnam!

Anybody can get that 2 cent purple heart for showing his third world patriotism! Big deal!:biggrin:

what M.M. has shown in his movie is universally true. The U.S. aint any place God-damn special or exempt from social injustices based on the disproportionate distribution of wealth. :)

And with our economy down in the toilet these days, we all better get used to it.

Bill
15 Nov 04,, 20:37
"And with our economy down in the toilet these days, we all better get used to it."

The US economy is quite strong thank you.

And one other thing.......the VAST majority of people in the military are not poor democrats, but middle and upper middle class republicans.

Trooth
15 Nov 04,, 22:10
I am not sure i agree with your views on medals, and service. People earn their medals, yes there may be some more deserving than others, but at the end of the day those service men and women are doing stuff we civvies don't even want to think about.

Active service used to be described as long periods of utter boredom, punctuated by short periods of absolute horror. Since the application of the helicopter the periods of boredom have got shorter. As far as i am concerned anyone who enters a combat theatre deserves our respect and support. Its our job as civvies to make sure that they only enter the correct theatre.

However i'd like to see the stats on the breakdown of the western (non-conscript) militaries. I would be pre-desposed to agree that the troops predominantly come from poorer areas, or areas that may not be poor, but whose only real employment is the military. A bit like a lottery is often percevied as a tax on the poor, the military is often an escape for the poor. But, perhaps if someone has the stats my pre-conception can be disproved.

I disagree that conscription only drafts the poor. Mohammed Ali would be a prime example of a very wealthy person conscripted. Bush and Kerry would be others. But it is one of those facts of life, the wealthy have more tools to work the system, just like tax. Poor people pay "more" tax because they can't afford to pay someone to make them tax efficient.

Bill
15 Nov 04,, 22:16
The poor have a hard time even GETTING IN to the US military, they usually lack a HS diploma, and they score poorly on the ASVAB.

In my Bn of 800 men all but three that i know of were Republicans. There are VERY FEW dems in the US military.

BTW, my family is quite wealthy, and i am a fourth generation US soldier.

Donnie
15 Nov 04,, 22:26
The poor have a hard time even GETTING IN to the US military, they usually lack a HS diploma, and they score poorly on the ASVAB.

to add to this, poorer military personel are also over whelmingly more likely to end up in the back of the line, in support rolls, like mechanics, rather than in the infantry, or other positions in the front line. so its not like thier being used for cannon foder, they are actualy much less likely to be killed. poorer military personel are usualy looking for skills to use outside of the military, rather than the extra income some college student enrolled for, or as a career.

Bill
15 Nov 04,, 23:04
Yep. Most of the blacks and poor kids were in the REMF positions, the cooks, clerks, laundry service, etc, etc.

In my Infantry platoon of 36 men, there were 5 blacks, 2 hispanics, and a native Hawaiin. The rest of us(28), were white.

Trooth
15 Nov 04,, 23:28
I was referring to wealth not race or poltical persuasion.

What proportion of people come from low income families and are in the military? Does poor always mean poorly educated?

Bill
16 Nov 04,, 00:17
"I was referring to wealth not race or poltical persuasion."

Republicans tend to be more affluent, so in that respect so was i.

"What proportion of people come from low income families and are in the military?"

Probably 15-25%.

"Does poor always mean poorly educated?"

No, just usually.

Lambert
16 Nov 04,, 02:52
[QUOTE=M21Sniper"Does poor always mean poorly educated?"
No, just usually.[/QUOTE]

It depends on what part of the world you are looking at. in some countries brillance is more powerful than money, and gets you much further.

Julie
16 Nov 04,, 03:21
It depends on what part of the world you are looking at. in some countries brillance is more powerful than money, and gets you much further. :)

Bill
16 Nov 04,, 08:29
"It depends on what part of the world you are looking at. in some countries brillance is more powerful than money, and gets you much further."

Brother, in the US brilliance = money. :)

Julie
16 Nov 04,, 14:08
"It depends on what part of the world you are looking at. in some countries brillance is more powerful than money, and gets you much further."

Brother, in the US brilliance = money. :) If I were in the military in heavy combat, I would much rather have brilliance, than $100.00 in my pocket. :biggrin:

Bill
16 Nov 04,, 14:13
" If I were in the military in heavy combat, I would much rather have brilliance, than $100.00 in my pocket."

I'd trade both for a flak jacket. ;)

Julie
16 Nov 04,, 18:57
I'd trade both for a flak jacket. ;) Yeah. :cool:

Bill
16 Nov 04,, 22:58
I noticed that Mikey babey no longer leads the list of MISERABLE FAILURE on google.

That's not acceptable. ;)

Lambert
30 Nov 04,, 04:02
If I were in the military in heavy combat, I would much rather have brilliance, than $100.00 in my pocket. :biggrin:

Agreed