Moore clears $100,000,000+

[sameoldsht]

Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary. He said on O'Reilly that "rich" people should pay up to 70% of their income in taxes. I figure one hundred million dollars for just one movie qualifies him as "rich".

Think he'll actually write a check to the IRS for $70,000,000? As if. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[cardcounter0]

The film is owned by Disney. Two principles of a Disney company, Miramax Films, formed a company Fellowship Adventure Group with Moore. Lions Gate and IFC Films are distributing the movie in the U.S.

60% of the net goes back to Disney.

But don't let your rant get ruined with facts, flame on!

By the way, how much is Bush & Co., and the Carlye Group, going to kick back in taxes based on the high demand for their weapon systems?

[Philuva]

Not to mention, I thought the profits were going the Sept. 11th fund, right?

[Malarky]

Anyone who calls someone else "Anti-Capitalist" that isn't living in the 50s sounds like an idiot.

There's a fact for you.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who calls someone else "Anti-Capitalist" that isn't living in the 50s sounds like an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this in any detail? I think it's a great way to describe Moore. Maybe add on the word pompous. I guess his title could also be, "The Rush Limbaugh of Liberals."

[nothumb]

Moore expresses good, old-fashioned LIBERAL ideas about taxes and the role of government. Like: we should tax the very wealthy upwards of 70 percent. In the 50's the top marginal tax rate was in the 80's, so this is not some far-left socialist idea. Unless you think Eisenhower was a pinko.

Because Moore tends to vilify company after company, and always talk about the ills of corporate America, we assume he is against capitalism. He never says this. I think he favors better regulation of markets to ensure consumer safety and better union coverage to ensure work security.
He never said anything about forcibly distributing rations of rum and cigarettes in Havana.

Being against wanton exploitation of just about everyone by the obscenely wealthy is not what I would describe as 'anti-capitalist.' More like 'having a conscience.'

That said, I think Moore is a clown in a lot of ways. But calling him anti-capitalist is inaccurate.

NT

[brassnuts]

It's of my opinion that he's socialist, but that's not one of the reasons that I dislike him.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary. He said on O'Reilly that "rich" people should pay up to 70% of their income in taxes. I figure one hundred million dollars for just one movie qualifies him as "rich".

Think he'll actually write a check to the IRS for $70,000,000? As if. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a very fitting name in this forum. You always post the Same Old Sh*t.

First of all, your statement of "Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary" is a blatant falsehood. How do you know what he "cleared"? Are you his accountant? The term "anti-capitalist" as related to Moore has been discussed repeatedly in this forum with the accusers providing no proof or even a shred of proof that the statement is true. (Note: The mere fact that someone advocates a higher income tax, such as 70%, on the wealthy does NOT make them anti-capitalist.) You also state that his documentary is "fictitious." I have not yet seen the movie, but do you care to elaborate on why this movie is "fictitious"? Or does the mere fact that it is anti-Bush make it "fictitious"?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Moore expresses good, old-fashioned LIBERAL ideas about taxes and the role of government. Like: we should tax the very wealthy upwards of 70 percent.

Please explain how the redistribution of income from those who earned it to those who did not is *not* socialist.

Being against wanton exploitation

Neither "Farenheit 9/11" nor "Bowling for Columbine" is 100% factually accurate. Both are heavily slanted towards Moore's own world view. Both play on peoples' fears. I'd say that might qualify as wanton exploitation to a lot of people.

[adios]

Here's a repost of the breakdown of the profits from Moore's new movie. I'm fairly certain that Moore hasn't disclosed exactly what he's doing with his profits from the movie.

----------------------------------------------------------

I thought some may find this article interesting since this topic came up in another thread. Disney gets to designate the charities that the money goes to. Apparently the profits to contribute to charity are determined after Moore gets his cut. I don't know if Moore is planning to donate any of his cut to charity. Before anyone get's the wrong impression I'm neutral on what Moore does with his profits.

The Biggest Slice
Of 'Fahrenheit' Profit
Will Go to Charity

By BRUCE ORWALL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 2, 2004; Page B1

After Walt Disney Co. refused to allow its Miramax Films unit to distribute the controversial Michael Moore documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," Miramax co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein paid $6 million from their own pockets to acquire the film from the company.

Six weeks later, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a smash sensation, and the Weinsteins are widely assumed to be laughing all the way to the bank. If so, the laughter may be muted.

Despite their personal investment, the Weinstein brothers will not be the biggest financial beneficiaries of "Fahrenheit." The real winner: a charity, or charities, as yet unnamed, that will receive about 60% of the net profit ultimately generated by the film -- a tally that could be tens of millions of dollars. The Weinsteins, meanwhile, will pocket about 40% of the net, according to people familiar with the deal.

And who will pick the charities that get the money? Disney, the company that refused to release the movie, without having to consult either the Weinsteins or Mr. Moore. It's all the unexpected result of yet another strange tussle between Disney and the Weinsteins, the corporate odd couple that has had a tough time getting along since Disney's 1993 acquisition of Miramax.

Over the years, Disney and the Weinstein brothers have fought over issues of control, compensation and budgets. But their relationship was pushed to the brink in May, when a public spat broke out over Disney's refusal to allow Miramax to release "Fahrenheit." As Mr. Moore made the media rounds accusing Disney of censoring his movie, Disney executives were furious that the Weinsteins seemed to side with him.

Michael Moore's new documentary fared far better on opening weekend than the last two. Figures are in millions.

U.S. OPENING
WEEKEND TOTAL TOTAL
TO DATE
'Fahrenheit 9/11' $23.90 $35.50
June 2004 in 868 theaters
'Bowling for Columbine' 0.21 21.6
October 2002 in 8 theaters
'Roger & Me' 0.08 6.7

December 1989 in 4 theaters
*Through Wednesday, June 30
Source: Exhibitor Relations



So when negotiations began for the Weinsteins to buy the film back from Disney, the discussions quickly took on the stern parent/naughty child tone that has characterized many moments between the parties over the years. According to people familiar with the matter, the media company was determined to punish the brothers for their alleged bad behavior by limiting the extent to which the Weinsteins could benefit.

In essence, Disney refused to sell the film to the brothers unless they agreed that they would not benefit personally any more than they would have under their employment agreement. That is still a lot of money: Under that complex deal, the Weinsteins typically pocket about 40% of the net profit from any Miramax picture, after the costs of distribution, prints and advertising and talent participations are deducted. But people close to the deal say that Disney demanded that the remaining 60% go to a charity or charities of its choice.

The Weinsteins, these people say, had little choice but to agree because they wanted to get the movie out quickly. After agreeing to Disney's terms, they negotiated a deal to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" through Lions Gate Entertainment Co. and Cablevision Systems Corp.'s IFC Films.

A Disney spokeswoman says no charities have been approached, as it isn't yet clear how much money will be available. It's likely that Disney will try to steer the money toward noncontroversial organizations benefiting children, education and the like. The arrangement was referenced obliquely in a press release announcing the sale of the film to the Weinsteins that said, "Any monetary benefit to Miramax or its parent company, the Walt Disney Co., as a result of the film's distribution will be donated to charity."

How much money the charity and the Weinsteins stand to make depends on a variety of factors, first and foremost the performance of the movie. It has already sold more than $35 million of tickets in six days of release at 868 theaters. With plans to greatly expand the screen count this weekend, many in Hollywood believe the movie could take in $100 million in U.S. theaters alone.

When other tallies are later added in -- including foreign ticket revenue, DVD and video sales, and licensing the film to TV networks -- it is expected to be an impressive bounty. One wild card is how much Mr. Moore himself will make via his own profit participation in the movie, which people close to the matter describe as generous. That amount will be deducted from the take before the Weinsteins and the charities divvy up the rest. Mr. Moore's Los Angeles agent, Ari Emanuel, declined to discuss Mr. Moore's compensation but indicated it would be less than what the charities receive.

For Disney's critics, the charitable contributions will be a handy way to estimate how much profit the company missed out on by declining to release the movie. And few will shed a tear for the Weinsteins. The brothers have reaped an estimated $250 million in bonus compensation since joining Disney 11 years ago, not to mention a windfall from the "Lord of the Rings." When Disney and Miramax gave up the rights to make the movies, it wound up with a 5% profit participation in the films that were eventually made by Time Warner Inc.'s New Line Cinema. People familiar with the matter say Disney let the Weinsteins keep half of that amount, which has generated about $25 million for the brothers and $25 million for Disney.

[riverflush]

There is some solid humor in this post.

Moore is a socialist anti-capitalist, capitalist. He's the most ironic figure in America in the past 20 years.

Taxing someone at 70% is most definitely anti-capitalist, you guys trying to gloss over that are hilarious.

It doesn't matter anyway. No matter how hard socialists try to thwart the free market, they are bound to lose in the end. The market forces work above and despite government's meddling. If you make something illegal, a black market forms and the profits go up up up. The true capitalists still make $$$$. If you tax the "rich" at 70%, they just hide their money from the government. They show business losses, instead of gains. Yet they are still rich.
Today's communication advances (internet) have ensured that the market will always triumph over regulation in the end. You can't stop people from trading in their best interests if they're allowed to communicate world-wide. People can now keep track of prices and allocation in real-time, at home in their underwear (or naked).

You can't stop this. It's fun to watch people keep trying, however. People can dream of utopia. There's nothing wrong with that.

[nothumb]

Hi Kurn,

I think it's one thing to take $50,000 from Michael Moore or Rupert Murdoch and give it to a chump like me or Joe down at the gas station. It's another to put it into government coffers, which go to a variety of causes/projects, including welfare and health care initiatives. While Moore's rhetoric borders on socialist most of the time - i.e. they've got more than their share and you should go get some of it back - I have never heard him advocate a socialist policy. (Perhaps he has).

This is indeed why people think Michael Moore is a bit like the Ann Coulter of the left. Because he spends more time attacking the right than supporting the bedrock policies of his own party (if he has one), nne must infer his political leanings based on what he trashes rather than what he advocates. As I said before, I think Moore is a clown in many ways.

Just to extend the logic of your post, what do you think ammounts to 'redistributing' income? Having the government spend it? Having the government spend it on a particular program? I agree that the welfare system in this country is wildly unsuccessful, but I think has a lot to do with the fact that we don't have good jobs programs, good education initiatives or single payer health care. I guess my point is that spending money on programs that help the poor is something that 'capitalist' governments have done for a long time, as have socialists.

You could, if you insist, describe such elements in any state as 'socialist' and any forces that seek to completely deregulate the market and allow people to do what they please as 'capitalist.' But if that is your framework I shudder to imagine a purely capitalist state.

As for comparing Moore's innacuracies to 'wanton exploitation,' I think that is a bit of a stretch. I am talking about situations where millions of people are paid below a living wage, faced with aggressive and illegal harassment from employers if they attempt to unionize, cannot get decent health care coverage or proper treatment, and cannot afford to live in a decent space. What factual error or distortion that Moore has made is remotely equivalent to this?

I have yet to hear specific examples of 'errors' made in his film, BTW. I believe they probably exist but I'm not letting people refer to them anymore without citing them specifically.

NT

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think it's one thing to take $50,000 from Michael Moore or Rupert Murdoch and give it to a chump like me or Joe down at the gas station. It's another to put it into government coffers, which go to a variety of causes/projects, including welfare and health care initiatives.

I'd rather Michael Moore decide what's right to do with the money he earned. I may not agree with what he does with it, but it's not my place (or the place of the collective) to make that decision for him.

Let me put it this way. Say you just won $1,000,000 (after taxes) in the lottery, and you wanted to use half of it to help people. What would you do? You have 2 choices:

1) research different not-for-profit organizations that match your philosophy, verify that they do indeed make good use of the money they receive, and choose which of them get how much of your $500K

2) write a check to the U.S Government.

agree that the welfare system in this country is wildly unsuccessful, but I think has a lot to do with the fact that we don't have good jobs programs, good education initiatives or single payer health care.

First, you live in Massachusetts. If the US had a single-payer health care system your quality of health care would go down. But that's a different issue. Why isn't education that good in this country? It can't be because of money, because state an federal government pumps billions into the system already.

What's a "jobs program?" A job is the responsibility of the individual. Why do you think we can't have a better society without having Big Brother provide for us? I keep thinking of Homer Simpson's campaign slogan - "Why can't somebody else do it?"

Why do you think that making poor people dependent on the state is good for them? On a personal level, I have no issue with giving people a leg up and helping them out of tough situations, but where's the accountability? How can welfare be a good thing if there are families that have been dependent on it for generations?

Or are you saying that "those people" can't take care of themselves, so we have to?


what do you think ammounts to 'redistributing' income?

Taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did not. I can'rt be any clearer than that. And I don't just mean personal welfare, I mean all the corporate programs, too.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
There is some solid humor in this post.

Moore is a socialist anti-capitalist, capitalist. He's the most ironic figure in America in the past 20 years.

Taxing someone at 70% is most definitely anti-capitalist, you guys trying to gloss over that are hilarious.

It doesn't matter anyway. No matter how hard socialists try to thwart the free market, they are bound to lose in the end. The market forces work above and despite government's meddling. If you make something illegal, a black market forms and the profits go up up up. The true capitalists still make $$$$. If you tax the "rich" at 70%, they just hide their money from the government. They show business losses, instead of gains. Yet they are still rich.
Today's communication advances (internet) have ensured that the market will always triumph over regulation in the end. You can't stop people from trading in their best interests if they're allowed to communicate world-wide. People can now keep track of prices and allocation in real-time, at home in their underwear (or naked).

You can't stop this. It's fun to watch people keep trying, however. People can dream of utopia. There's nothing wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a well-studied college economics professor who *knows* how markets work, but has no real world knowledge.

[Utah]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[cardcounter0]

By the authors own admission:
Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.


Okay, but here is the BIG LIE: Remember all the stories about Bush reading the book "My Pet Goat" while we were under attack? Micheal Moore also says Bush continued to read "My Pet Goat" to the school children after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC. (He testified he knew of the first plane hitting the WTC, before he entered the classroom).

Okay, here is the real truth: Actually, the book was "Reading Mastery 2", it seems "My Pet Goat" is simply an exercise contained with the book.

WooooHoooooo! You really go him there! That is some big whopper! Instead of ordering fighter jets to scramble, or determining what immediate response the Federal government should be looking at, Bush read the exercise "My Pet Goat" contained in the book "Reading Mastery 2". There isn't a book called "My Pet Goat" -- it is all a big liberal Lie!

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Utah]

You are either: an idiot, someone so blinded by hate that you can't or wont look at the truth, or both.

You know the article says way more than that but you choose not to read it or believe. Too bad.

No point in debating with you. I'll save my energy for those on the left like Cyrus or Alger that use logic in their arguments.

Good luck

[Cptkernow]

Any one posting anything that sarcastic about Bush must be "blinded by hate." /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Anyone posting in defence of Bush must be blinded by irrational puppy man love. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[cardcounter0]

Okay. Okay. I forgot about the other big lie. He refers to the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris as "the vote count woman".

Big Lie. Katherine Harris doesn't actually count the votes, the election people of each county counts the votes. Katherine Harris merely certifies the election.

I remember her with her special big election-certifying Pen with the ridiculous feather on it, proclaiming that she was going to certify the election on the day it was supposed to be certified, whether the vote count was right or not.

Yep, big lie. Katerine Harris isn't "the vote count woman" she is "the vote count certifier woman". WooooooBoooooy!!!! Going to burn in hell for that whoppper!

AND ANOTHER BIG LIE! Moore says Katerine Harris, the election certifier, was also the Chair of Bush's election campaign. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE. She wasn't the Chair of the election campaign (an obvious conflict of interest), she was the Co-Chair.

How could such huge lies go undetected?

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is some solid humor in this post.

Moore is a socialist anti-capitalist, capitalist. He's the most ironic figure in America in the past 20 years.

Taxing someone at 70% is most definitely anti-capitalist, you guys trying to gloss over that are hilarious.

It doesn't matter anyway. No matter how hard socialists try to thwart the free market, they are bound to lose in the end. The market forces work above and despite government's meddling. If you make something illegal, a black market forms and the profits go up up up. The true capitalists still make $$$$. If you tax the "rich" at 70%, they just hide their money from the government. They show business losses, instead of gains. Yet they are still rich.
Today's communication advances (internet) have ensured that the market will always triumph over regulation in the end. You can't stop people from trading in their best interests if they're allowed to communicate world-wide. People can now keep track of prices and allocation in real-time, at home in their underwear (or naked).

You can't stop this. It's fun to watch people keep trying, however. People can dream of utopia. There's nothing wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a well-studied college economics professor who *knows* how markets work, but has no real world knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to pick up a WSJ once in a while to get some clairty on the world. I'm on my third company now. Sold the first, now running two at once. Doesn't matter, I don't know anything anyway...just a poker fan on a silly message board.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1498

Keep the utopian faith, bro!

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is some solid humor in this post.

Moore is a socialist anti-capitalist, capitalist. He's the most ironic figure in America in the past 20 years.

Taxing someone at 70% is most definitely anti-capitalist, you guys trying to gloss over that are hilarious.

It doesn't matter anyway. No matter how hard socialists try to thwart the free market, they are bound to lose in the end. The market forces work above and despite government's meddling. If you make something illegal, a black market forms and the profits go up up up. The true capitalists still make $$$$. If you tax the "rich" at 70%, they just hide their money from the government. They show business losses, instead of gains. Yet they are still rich.
Today's communication advances (internet) have ensured that the market will always triumph over regulation in the end. You can't stop people from trading in their best interests if they're allowed to communicate world-wide. People can now keep track of prices and allocation in real-time, at home in their underwear (or naked).

You can't stop this. It's fun to watch people keep trying, however. People can dream of utopia. There's nothing wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a well-studied college economics professor who *knows* how markets work, but has no real world knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to pick up a WSJ once in a while to get some clairty on the world. I'm on my third company now. Sold the first, now running two at once. Doesn't matter, I don't know anything anyway...just a poker fan on a silly message board.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1498

Keep the utopian faith, bro!

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? You still sound like a college economics professor. I actually have a degree in economics and have also owned two businesses, but that's not the point. We can compare penis sizes all day long, but that doesn't prove anything. Arguing that the free market will solve all problems is a utopian argument. Most markets will never be truly free for numerous reasons (governments, political interests, crooked politicians, etc.).

[Mucking Idiot]

Good luck vs someone using logic, you're gonna need it.

[MMMMMM]

"Most markets will never be truly free for numerous reasons (governments, political interests, crooked politicians, etc.)."


The freer the better, though.

Why isn't this obvious?

[Utah]

hmmmm.....you asked for some evidence that the movie was ficticious and they you ignored the evidence once it was presented. Very interesting.

Arguing that the free market will solve all problems is a utopian argument. Most markets will never be truly free for numerous reasons (governments, political interests, crooked politicians, etc.).

Maybe. But, free markets tend to work better than anything else. When you let markets operate freely it drives productivity, innovation, etc. Maybe most importantly, it properly matched supply and demand. In most cases, government interference in supply and demand is nothing but a disaster. Of course, government still has a big role to play with certain regulations such as environmental protection (which in my opinion usually stinks).

I am not sure what you guys are arguing about but I just wanted to through my two cents in about free markets.

[jokerswild]

AT least he isn't a welcher like you.

[Mucking Idiot]

I'll bet if it were moore choice...he would still make it 70% for rich.

[Utah]

Too funny son /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Just how do you figure I am a welcher? You have failed and failed and failed again (I am sure a common theme in your life) to produce the recount study that showed Gore would have won. What major newspaper study again showed Gore won? hmmmm.....seems pretty simple to me. All you need to do is post the study and the quote (although your link to the Tallahassee paper was really impressive any clearly showed your ability to master those 22 years of impressive eduction. We will just be quiet and ignore the fact that that paper did not conduct a study. Revealing that would make you look....well....kinda stupid).

Come on. I dare ya. Make me look like a welcher. Make me look like I dont know what I am talking about. Simply post the paper and the quote. Cant be that hard (I mean, you do have 22 years of impressive education right?). Here - to make it simple for ya, I'll give you the form and you just need to fill in the blanks:

On _________[date] The____________[newpaper] conducted a recount of the Florida election. It states on page ______[page] of the report that Al Gore would have won the election if the supreme court hadnt stopped the recount. Here is the relevant passage:__________[passage]

Wow! Look at how easy that is. Not a lot of work to show that I am a welcher and an idiot. Should take you 30 seconds tops (you might even be able to do it faster given your impressive 22 years of eduction). No need for one of your rants (which I assume only make sense to those with 22 years of impressive eduction). Simply fill in the blanks. Because it you cant fill them in - well, it makes you look like a dumbass and a jackass.

Are you up to the challenge coward? {Of course, we know the answer to that dont we?}

[Ray Zee]

really good post post kurn.

[Ray Zee]

the big thing about moore is that he makes us consider all those points he makes. he is still in the entertainment business and is trying to make money. but what he does is stir us all up and forces everyone to reconsider his position. if you never reconsider your position you are no better than the side you are opposite.

[Utah]

but what he does is stir us all up and forces everyone to reconsider his position.

True. But, Osama Bin Laden also stirred us up and forced us to reconsider our position on terrorism. This doesnt mean he provided the world value or that he is a good guy.

The problem with Moore is not that his position is wrong, its that he lies and deceives to make his point. Its like saying its okay for GWB to lie about Iraq having WMDs because, even if it is a lie, it forced us to reconsider our position on dictators with WMDs.

I personally dont disagree with all of Moore's positions. I am a huge proponent of handgun control/regulation, but I still hated Bowling for Columbine.

Probably, what bothers me most of all is that people who support the same issues as Moore are blinded to what he is doing or they simply dont care. They accuse Bush of being a liar yet they dont mind lies if it supports their cause. I would love to hear a liberal say, "I hate Bush and I hate the war. However, I simply cant condone the lies and methods of Michael Moore".

[cardcounter0]

Still looking for those big lies.

So far, I've seen the nit-pick he used "there" instead of "their" or just the general fact that he doesn't put a positive Fox News like spin on things.

Show me the false documents he presents to the UN. Show me the denial of even knowing Ken Lay.

[Utah]

Tedious....but for your benefit (although it would have been so much easier if you would simply have read the link I posted).

Lets start with five:

1) Gore won the election and Bush stole it.
2) Blacks were specifically added to the purge list
3) Bush vacations
4) Saudi Departures
5) Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (particularly devious)

Do you not think these were lies or deceits? If not, why?

[cardcounter0]

1) Gore won the election and Bush stole it.
There were many irregularities in Flordia. The deck was stacked against Gore before the first vote was cast. It doesn't matter how many times, or how carefully, you count the vote. The vote was skewed before the first vote was even cast. I think this statement is pretty much neutral -- You can't say Gore or Bush won the election -- it was a huge cluster f*ck. Of course, you had the Co-Chair of Bush's election committee running the elections, in a State where his Brother was the Governor, so guess who came out on top in a real squeeker?

2) Blacks were specifically added to the purge list
The South has had a good 40 years to practice discrimination since the civil rights acts were passed. No, they didn't have a specific document saying "Keep the blackies out." Much more subtle than that. They knowingly purged legitimate voters from the lists, a lot based on their name. So when "Leroy Willy Jones" gets purged from the list, it could have been a white guy just as easily as a black guy, couldn't it? And names that were falsely purged from areas that were 90% black? Well, it could have just have easily been a white guy as a black guy, right? Look at the results, How many whites were purged vs How many blacks. End of story.

3) Bush vacations
Yep. Heard it on Fox News even. Bush on vacation in Crawfordsville. What is to argue?

4) Saudi Departures
Yes. Fact. Used charter flights supplied by a defense contractor to fly around the country while the rest of the nation was grounded. A charter flight delivering a heart for a heart transplant in Oregon was grounded short of its destination on the same day a Saudi Prince was flown from Flordia to Kentucky to look at some race horses. First International flight out of the country, when flights were resumed, was the Saudis out of America. Most never questioned by the FBI. FACT.

5) Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (particularly devious)
Bush looked out over the well-dressed audience and declared it an impressive gathering of the "have and have-mores." "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base," he said.

What is the lie? More nitpicking that it wasn't a campaign dinner, but a charity event? Wooooooo! What is devious about this? I'm actually really shocked that Dick "F*ck You" Cheney and George "Giggles" Bush are as bold faced and undevious as they are about their screwing of the American Public.

OR was it that the President was just joking? Yeah, big joke. He's also been know to joke about WMDs too.

Is this the best you can do?

[nicky g]

"Maybe most importantly, it properly matched supply and demand."

What do you mean by "properly"? Sure markets are often better than the alternatives at matching supply and demand, but they do it through the price mechanism - that is, goods will rise or fall to a level where the consumers are willing to buy the same amount of output as producers are willing to produce. The problem with that is that sometimes that price is undesirably high; it's not worthwhile for producers to produce something important at a cost that everyone can afford, so some people can't afford something that might be socially desirable for everybody to have (eg health care, public transportation), or it will force people to spend undesirably large sums of their income on a product, especially in cases of highly inelastic demand (eg the California energy "crisis"). It won't bother to provide at all in many cases (try getting the market to offer proper banking services in poor areas - the banks aren;t interested, but how are poor people to escape poverty if they can't access basic financial services, get reaonably priced loans etc?).

There are many cases where it might be desirable for the government to intervene or for a service to be provided by something other than the market. My problem with both the libertarian and market fundamentalist positions is that they ignore actual real world outcomes in favour of some all-important utopian goal; in the real world there are always trade offs and compromises to be made. Yes there are costs to intevention and yes it often leads to ineffeciencies, but those seem like a small price to pay to stop people from being deprived of basic needs.

[nicky g]

"2) Blacks were specifically added to the purge list
The South has had a good 40 years to practice discrimination since the civil rights acts were passed. No, they didn't have a specific document saying "Keep the blackies out." Much more subtle than that. They knowingly purged legitimate voters from the lists, a lot based on their name. So when "Leroy Willy Jones" gets purged from the list, it could have been a white guy just as easily as a black guy, couldn't it? And names that were falsely purged from areas that were 90% black? Well, it could have just have easily been a white guy as a black guy, right? Look at the results, How many whites were purged vs How many blacks. End of story."

Just to point out what happened here - the comparison between felon lists and Florida voter lists neglected to check some very basic criteria for matches, but it did check race. So while it could easily have got the wrong person, ithey would have been of the same race as teh similarly named felon. Given that blacks make up a disproportionate mumber of felons, it meant that the list disproportionately barred innocent blacks from voting.

More scandalous (given that it's hard to prove that they did the above intentionally, although any idiot could have seen what would happen) is that people who had been convicted of felonies in other states were banned from voting in Florida on the instruction of Jeb Bush, despite the fact that this is illegal under Florida law.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The deck was stacked against Gore before the first vote was cast.

But that was systemic, not partisan. Dole lost more votes in '96 in Florida because of the same issue.

Blacks were specifically added to the purge list

Since a large portion of the black community is sympathetic to the Evangelical Christian message, I don't see how purging blacks helps the GOP.

[cardcounter0]

"Since a large portion of the black community is sympathetic to the Evangelical Christian message, I don't see how purging blacks helps the GOP. "

WOW! My head just exploded.

No further posts from me in this tread, I have to go lie down.

[nicky g]

Something like 90% of the black vote goes to the Democrats.

[Utah]

1) Lets not focus on the election itself as that is not important to the question (we can argue about that some other time). The question is whether Moore lied. The answer is a clear yes. Do you not agree that Moore made it appear that Bush stole the election? Does Moore make it appear that Gore would have won a recount? Is that not what he is trying to make the audience believe? To suggest Bush stole the election is a flat lie and Moore knows. There is also a lie by omission. Why does Moore not tell us that every single recount study show that Bush still would have won and the supreme court, Harris, etc. did not alter the election?

2. Whoops. You got your facts wrong. No evidence at all the blacks were more likely to be placed on the purge list. No evidence that race was any sort of factor. In fact, 20 counties allowed felons to vote. hmmm.....couldnt be that those counties were trying to stack the election in the democrats favor.....nah? Net result of improperly purged / improperly voted is +1000s of votes for Gore. Hey, but dont let facts get in the way of a great rallying cry. I mean, even though we have no evidence that blacks were improperly purged the South does a 40 year history of discrimination. So, the republicans MUST have done something. Where are your facts. You have provided none. Neither did Moore. He lied.

3. Hm.....so you count weekends as vacation? You count the following as a vacation day? You must take some pretty taxing vacations.



Monday, August 20
Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in Independence, Missouri.
Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in Milwuakee,Wisconsin.

Signed six bills into law.

Announced his nominees for Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management, member of the Federal Housing Finance Board, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disabled Employment Policy, U.S. Representative to the General Assemblyof the U.N., and Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development for the Bureau of Humanitarian Response.

Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.


Tuesday, August 21
Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the matter of free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.



Wednesday, August 22
Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget.
Announced nomination and appointment intentions for Ambassador to Vietnam, two for the Commission on Fine Arts, six to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, three for the Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, one to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and one to the National Endowments for the Arts.
Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.

Thursday, August 23
Briefly speaks with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

Friday, August 24
Officials arrive from Washington at 10:00 AM. Briefly after this at a press conference, Bush announced that General Richard B. Myers will be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General Pete Pac will serve as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He also announced 14 other appointments, and his intentions for the budget. At 11:30 AM these officials, as well as National Security Council experts, the Secretary of Defense, and others, met with Bush to continue the strategic review process for military transformation (previous meetings have been held at the Pentagon and the White House). The meeting ended at 5:15.
Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications issues.
Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.

Saturday, August 25
Awoke at 5:45 AM, read daily briefs.
Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45
Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.


Sunday, August 26
Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still working, not at the picnic.

4. You dont think Moore painted the impression that Saudi's were allowed to fly out of the country when there was still a ban? You know he did. Again, Moore lies by omission in not saying that Clarke was the one who authorized these flights. Lies and more lies. The question whether the FBI interviewed them is not important to the question of Moore's lies.

5) If you knew anything about the dinner you know that the candidates go up there and mock themselves. Gore did the same thing at the dinner. Its not a question of whether it was a charity or campaign event. To suggest that Bush was being serious is a BIG ASS lie. Too bad you didnt know what the dinner was about Of course, Moore was counting on the ignorance of his audience to paint that picture.

I noticed that you never directly answered a single lie directly and you never presented any evidence. Thats okay - when you dont have facts to back up your arguments you are left with few options. Lets recap you responses shall we:

1) Did Moore lie when he suggested that Gore would have won if the recount continued? your answer: well, there were a lot of regularities in Florida and the deck was stacked against Gore.

2. Did Moore lie when he suggested that blacks were specifically added to the purge list? your answers: well, the south has a 40 year history or racism

3. Did Moore lie when he suggested Bush was on vacation 42% of the time? your answer: Yep. Heard it on Fox News even. Bush on vacation in Crawfordsville. What is to argue?

4. Did Moore lie when he suggested Saudi's were allowed to leave the country during the flight ban? your answer: well, they did fly within the country and the FBI didnt interview them all

5. Did Moore lie when he suggested Bush's quote was serious? your answer: What is the lie? More nitpicking that it wasn't a campaign dinner, but a charity event?

Try again and answer the questions directly. I will answer your directly.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yes there are costs to intevention and yes it often leads to ineffeciencies, but those seem like a small price to pay to stop people from being deprived of basic needs.

On the surface your premise sounds reasonable, but lets take an example, Rent Control. Who wouldn't favor a check and balance when market factors drive the working class out of neighborhoods in which they've lived for years? That's theory.

In practice here's the downside. A working class family saves enough to become a homeowner, but the only viable option is a 2-family. Now along comes the government slapping a ceiling on rents. Now the same regulation meant to help one working class person ends up hurting another.

My feeling on rent control has always been that the big corporate landlords have the economies of scale to withstand the regulation, but the little guy always gets squeezed in the process.

[cardcounter0]

1) Did Moore lie when he suggested that Gore would have won if the recount continued?
Moore SUGGESTED something? I suggest that the election was fixed before the first vote. DON'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU COUNT THE VOTES -- the fix was already in. What don't you understand?

2. Did Moore lie when he suggested that blacks were specifically added to the purge list? HOW MANY BLACKS WERE "ACCIDENTALLY" PURGED? HOW MANY WHITES. END OF STORY.


3. Did Moore lie when he suggested Bush was on vacation 42% of the time? your answer: NO. WHEN THE PRESIDENT REPORTS HE IS ON VACATION, THEN HE IS ON VACATION.

4. Did Moore lie when he suggested Saudi's were allowed to leave the country during the flight ban? NO -- THE SAUDI'S WERE ALLOWED TO FLY WHEN CITIZENS WERE NOT. THE FLIGHT OUT THE COUNTRY OCCURED WITHIN HOURS OF WHEN IT COULD. NITPICK TO SAY OTHERWISE.

5. Did Moore lie when he suggested Bush's quote was serious? AGAIN WITH THE "SUGGESTION" THING. AGAIN, MOORE DOESN'T PUT THE FOX NEWS SPIN ON EVENTS, SO HE MUST BE LYING, RIGHT?

[nicky g]

It's not always desirable. Rent control as I understand it has been a big mess that's made it impossible for new residents to get housing. But there are other ways of intervening - government supplied housing, for example. That's been a big mess over here and probably in the US too but not for economic reasons - they were poorly conceived and carried out (massive construction programmes heding thousands of people into isolated spaces etc), and for all their faults are superior to the private slums they replaced, and I would imagine have a huge impact on homelessness. Other options could be as varied as helping the poor with housing costs to subsidies to private firms for building affordable good quality housing.

[nicky g]

"The answer is a clear yes. Do you not agree that Moore made it appear that Bush stole the election? Does Moore make it appear that Gore would have won a recount? Is that not what he is trying to make the audience believe? To suggest Bush stole the election is a flat lie and Moore knows. There is also a lie by omission. Why does Moore not tell us that every single recount study show that Bush still would have won and the supreme court, Harris, etc. did not alter the election?"

This simply isn;t true. The media consorium found that GOre would almost certainly have won Florida had a statewide hand recount counting undervotes and overvotes, as the Supreme Court instructed, been held.

"But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting--rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible--Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush--but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found"

Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-111201recount.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dpolitics )

Note that the US Supreme Court over-ruled these state Supreme Court rules; under its conditions for a recount Gore would have won. But it gave Florida two hours to conduct the recount it said was the fairest measure.

From teh same article:

"The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush--but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes.... The review found that:

* Precincts with large numbers of black voters were measurably more likely to produce spoiled ballots than precincts with few black voters. The data cannot explain why. However, the study debunked the belief that older voters are error-prone. Across the state, precincts with younger voters had higher error rates.

* Bush probably would have won any recount of "undervotes," ballots that were rejected because they registered no clear vote for any presidential candidate. By contrast, Gore would have won most recount scenarios that included "overvotes," ballots that showed votes for more than one candidate. However, Gore's lawyers never pressed for overvotes to be recounted.

* Ballot design was a key factor. Although the Florida fiasco initially focused on the "butterfly ballot" for punch cards in Palm Beach County, the voters' error rate was even higher in some counties that used more modern optical scanning systems but had equally confusing ballots. Most of the errors occurred in 18 counties where ballots spread the presidential candidates across two pages or two columns.

* Hand recounts can be reliable, but only if the rules are clear. The researchers who examined the ballots agreed on the marks they saw more than 97% of the time. The disagreements came mostly when they were asked to judge whether a voter who failed to punch a clear hole in a ballot had left a "dimple," an indentation on the card.

[Utah]

Hi Nicky g,

You make some excellent points.

Sure markets are often better than the alternatives at matching supply and demand, but they do it through the price mechanism - that is, goods will rise or fall to a level where the consumers are willing to buy the same amount of output as producers are willing to produce.

That is 100% correct. The only thing I would add is this price mechanism drives productivity, efficiency, etc. This drives prices down, improves goods and services, or both. Suppliers will also try and gage future demand and plan accrodingly.

The problem with that is that sometimes that price is undesirably high; it's not worthwhile for producers to produce something important at a cost that everyone can afford, so some people can't afford something that might be socially desirable for everybody to have (eg health care, public transportation), or it will force people to spend undesirably large sums of their income on a product, especially in cases of highly inelastic demand (eg the California energy "crisis").

I would rather let the free markets work and simply give poor people money to spend on those services than try and regulate those services. For example, I would give poor people a government benefit/$ and let them shop for their health insurance on the open market. When you regulate an industry it throws the equation into whack and it either degrades performance or increases costs. Please give me an example of a regulated industry that has constantly shown innovation, price decreases, and improved service. I honestly cant think of one (but maybe there is). I can think of 100 examples where the opposite is true. btw - I believe the whole California mess was caused by price controls.

try getting the market to offer proper banking services in poor areas - the banks aren;t interested, but how are poor people to escape poverty if they can't access basic financial services, get reaonably priced loans etc?

Good point. Dont know the answer. The dirty secret of capitalism is that it forces inequality. Its the degree of inequality we are willing to accept for the greater prosperity.

Yes there are costs to intevention and yes it often leads to ineffeciencies, but those seem like a small price to pay to stop people from being deprived of basic needs.

We dont disagree of the goal - basic needs for everyone - just on the method of getting there. I would rather see free markets take off and drive up overall productivity which drives up real income across the board than to try and meddle. Again, I would rather simply give people dollars to spend.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but what he does is stir us all up and forces everyone to reconsider his position.

True. But, Osama Bin Laden also stirred us up and forced us to reconsider our position on terrorism. This doesnt mean he provided the world value or that he is a good guy.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is quite a stretch. OBL killed innocent people, Moore makes movies.

[riverflush]

Let me say that I appreciate that many liberals, leftys, greens, even socialists really truly want to help out society and humanity in general. They want to make life better for more people. They wish to bring economic equality and a better life to more people of the world.

I'm cool with that, and I respect the sentiment. Many of us simply believe that it is a fallacy to attempt to bring "equality" to human behavior. We don't behave "equally" and we don't have "equal" outcomes in our daily lives. Humans are just too complex. Some people work hard, some are lazy. Some people love others, some hate. Some people create things, some people merely consume things. Some people eat healthy, some live in gluttony.

To us, every attempt to make things "better" through forced collectivization of behavior or production simply makes the human condition worse in the long run. We want humans to be left alone to fend for themselves, and we believe that this is the only and best way to even approach a more perfect society. When everyone has the ability to move freely through their lives without government or totalitarian intervention, we come closest to approaching a more perfect condition.

Rent controls, social health care, government schools, federal art programs, seatbelt laws, anti-smoking crusades, corporate welfare... all stifle freedom of choice and trade.

It's why the United States was formed in the first place. Unfortunately we are marching away from the message.

[Utah]

Hi Nicky g,

OMG. I am not sure how to response. Someone actually answered my challenge directly lol

The media consorium found that GOre would almost certainly have won Florida had a statewide hand recount counting undervotes and overvotes, as the Supreme Court instructed, been held.

Please provide the relevant passage. Here is what I found from your link:

"If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes. The reason: Nine counties were including overvotes, but 58 were not. (The Times' analysis of this scenario recorded each ballot according to the standard each county said it was using or planned to use at the time.)"

another:

Eventually, Gore did ask for a statewide recount, but his lawyers never pressed for overvotes to be included.

When the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount in December, based on Gore's petition, it too focused only on undervotes--drawing a dissent from Chief Justice Charles T. Wells. "How about the overvotes?" he asked.

When the U.S. Supreme Court took Bush's appeal of the case, Justice John Paul Stevens asked the same question of Gore's lawyer, David Boies.

"Nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes," Boies explained. "Once you get two votes, that ballot doesn't get counted for the presidency."

Therefore, if this assertion is true, Bush and the supreme court did not steal the election from Gore. If that is true Moore lied. Why didnt Moore point out the results of this recount study?

I believe there is one case under certain standards counting over and under votes in which Gore would have won. However, that was never in play and thus could be affected by the supreme court ruling. And thus, the election was not stolen.

Now, the issue of whether more people intended to vote for Gore is a completely seperate question. It very well might be the case.

[Utah]

You simply cant answer a question directly can you? I know, I feel for ya. Its an impossible situation when you dont have any facts to support you.

[Utah]

No further posts from me in this tread

Thank God! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Utah]

"but it did check race"

Please explain. I believe it didnt use race at all

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

"Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races."

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Other options could be as varied as helping the poor with housing costs to subsidies to private firms for building affordable good quality housing.


There are a lot of rent subsidy programs (at the State level). I'd prefer they have time limits on them since i don't think you really help the poor by making them long-term wards of the state.

The best programs here are private, like Habitat for Humanity (to which I contribute). There are also various programs that take young people from poor neighborhoods, pay them a moderate sum to fix up run-down properties and then give the workers a percentage ownership in the property and allow them to sell it and make a profit. That way people both learn marketable job skills and learn the mechanism of private enterprise.

I'd like to think that if people weren't so socialized to expect government to take care of people more programs like this would pop up.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

WOW! My head just exploded.

I have earned my keep for the week. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

this type of radical freedom you would like to see come to fruition never will, and rightly so. You want a world where people are free to make their own decisions, however there is no accountability, and in fact there is little order in that world. You said it yourself, people don't act equally. People will do bad things and I am sure some people will do good things. But when you take into account the nature of man, you have to realize not everyone will act fair, and then what? Someone else is restricting and inhibiting someone elses basic fundamental riights.

Obama, made a excellent point in his speech last night. it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work. That is what makes America work. How do you think the U.S. would have faired during The Civil War, the Great Depression, WW2 and the Cold War if we all had to fend for ourselves?? No, Government serves a role in America to keep us safe, and to give everyone a chance to succeed. Not everyone is lucky enough to go to good schools in the Suburbs, or have their parents pay for school, or move to areas where the economoy/crime/education/enviroment are better. Its simply not possible for them, and to write them off and say "tough [censored], this is a dog-eat-dog" country, is not only insensitive to your fellow man, but is also totally un-American.

Some people need that "kick-start" to get them moving, and EVERYONE deserves a chance to have a good life.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
The media consorium found that GOre would almost certainly have won Florida had a statewide hand recount counting undervotes and overvotes, as the Supreme Court instructed, been held.

Please provide the relevant passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sentence is here: "By contrast, Gore would have won most recount scenarios that included "overvotes" "


If any stealing was done it had more to do with events prior to the election IMO such as the wrongly barred voters and the poor quality of voting machines and procedures in poorer counties. After the election both sides were simply doing whatever they could to try to win - as it happened, they both took the wrong track (Gore called for a limited recount that would have seen him lose, while the Bush camp opposed it). My point was simply that it isn;t true to say that Gore lost under all of the recount scenarios - under the one recommended by the US Supreme Court as fairest(but then thrown aside because "there wasn;t enough time"), a statewide had recount counting all votes where intention was discenible, Gore probably won. As a Republican-dominated instution, one can make something of a case that the election was stolen by the Supreme Court by refusing to allow that extra time and effectively handing it to Bush. I've written before that Gore screwed himself in some ways (although he did offer a state-wide hand recount previously). His lawyer's point about overvotes is wrong - they aren't simply votes where two candidates were voted for, as most people have said and as the article itself says (obviously counting those would be impossible), although those do constitute the bulk of them, but any vote where more than one mark was made (marking the same candidate twice for instance).

On the race/database issue, Greg Palast writes in his book The BEst Democracy Money can by (p 61 in my edition): "DBT...identified race for every real felon, and the secretary of state provided the race of the voters. It was left to county supervisors to finish the operation: They would accept racial matches as proof that the right person was named." Race must have been a factor at some stage - otherwise, why would nearly half of the scrubbed voters have been black? If the mismatches were just random they would have conformed more or less to Florida's ethnic make-up, no?

[nicky g]

The article doesn't specify what the US Supreme COurt's opinion regarding overvotes was, so here it is from a paper on the subject:

"The assumption prevailing in most of the what-if scenarios was that overvotes would have been ignored in any legal recount process. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop
the recount because, according to the Per Curiam opinion, the recount had fatal equal protection problems, was based in part on seven Justices’ anticipation that the manual
recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court would ignore overvotes on which “a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent” (Bush v.
Gore, 531 U.S. 108 (2000))."

That is, one of the reasons they put a stop to the busines was that not counting overvotes was unfair under equal protection. The artilce also points out that it the recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court might actually have included overvotes anyway. "
But remarks by the Florida state judge who was presiding over the recount effort suggest that that assumption may have been inappropriate. In an interview conducted early in 2001, Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis suggested that “he would not have ignored the overvote ballots” (Damron and Roy 2001)" Overvotes in the 2000 (http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/overvotes.pdf)

[nicky g]

"The best programmes here are private... I'd like to think that if people weren't so socialized to expect government to take care of people more programs like this would pop up. "

The best programmes might be private, but based on what life was like in the UK for example before the introduction of the welfare state, it doesn;t seem to me that enough of those programmes would pop up (and that many of them that did would be incredibly mean-spirited or have ulterior - for example, religious indoctrination - motives) to avoid an unacceptably poor and resourceless underclass from springing up.

[nicky g]

"You make some excellent points."

And you too.

"I would rather let the free markets work and simply give poor people money to spend on those services than try and regulate those services. "

I kind of agree with you on that. The best working health system I've seen is in Belgium, where there is mandatory government-provided and subsidised health insurance, which repays most (but not all - 80 percent, I think) of costs. Providers themsleves are private and generally excellent. They are also reasonably cheap, to the extent that I think some sort of price controls might be in place. If not I'm not sure how they do it. When I make a trip to the doctor or dentist there it costs a fraction of what it costs my American wife to do the same in the states (although, having been to both, she says that you get a more thorough cleaning service at the US dentist). I think state-provided health care is still better than a private system with no help given to those that can;t afford it.

"Please give me an example of a regulated industry that has constantly shown innovation, price decreases, and improved service. I honestly cant think of one (but maybe there is)."

I think this is a little bit broad to answer - all industries are regulated to some extent. I'll agree with you that markets in general are better at innovation, but on the other hand much innovation can also come from government funded research. UK universites for example are effectively state run and a lot of innovation has come from them.

[nicky g]

"You make some excellent points."

And you too.

"I would rather let the free markets work and simply give poor people money to spend on those services than try and regulate those services. "

I kind of agree with you on that. The best working health system I've seen is in Belgium, where there is mandatory government-provided and subsidised health insurance, which repays most (but not all - 80 percent, I think) of costs. Providers themsleves are private and generally excellent. They are also reasonably cheap, to the extent that I think some sort of price controls might be in place. If not I'm not sure how they do it. When I make a trip to the doctor or dentist there it costs a fraction of what it costs my American wife to do the same in the states (although, having been to both, she says that you get a more thorough cleaning service at the US dentist). I think state-provided health care is still better than a private system with no help given to those that can;t afford it.

"Please give me an example of a regulated industry that has constantly shown innovation, price decreases, and improved service. I honestly cant think of one (but maybe there is)."

I think this is a little bit broad to answer - all industries are regulated to some extent. I'll agree with you that markets in general are better at innovation, but on the other hand much innovation can also come from government funded research. UK universites for example are effectively state run and a lot of innovation has come from them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

but based on what life was like in the UK for example before the introduction of the welfare state

I always hear this argument. Why is it a given that we have learned nothing in a century? I refuse to accept that we have to live with what we have because the *past* was worse.

many of them that did would be incredibly mean-spirited or have ulterior - for example, religious indoctrination - motives

I believe it's the absense of "uterior motive" that makes government programs fail. There must be a cost to the recipient, be that cost simply a time limit when the benefit will expire. There must be a motivation to solve one's own dilemma. As much as I dislike religious indoctrination, are we to forbid churches from charitable work just because they might proselytize?

to avoid an unacceptably poor and resourceless underclass from springing up.

The welfare system in the US perpetrates this very situation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Government serves a role in America to keep us safe

The consitution says nothing about keeping us safe. The role of government is to provide defense against foreign invaders and a court system and police forces to bring criminals to justice.

Do you realize how insidiously dangerous the phrase "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" really is? Reading his speech made my skin crawl.

EVERYONE deserves a chance to have a good life.

In the US right now, everyone does have that chance. Some may have a few more hurdles to overcome, sure, but that's reality. You can't completely even the playing field without taking something from someone that they have earned.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The consitution says nothing about keeping us safe. The role of government is to provide defense against foreign invaders and a court system and police forces to bring criminals to justice.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes and thats what I meant, maybe I didn't elaborate enough, but if Americans were free to do whatever they wanted, without interfernce from the government, can't you then see how they wouldn't be keeping us safe from criminals, because you cannot argue that crime wouldn't go up.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how insidiously dangerous the phrase "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" really is? Reading his speech made my skin crawl.

[/ QUOTE ] The mere notion of helping out your fellow man may make your skin crawl, but definitely not mine. He said that Americans know they have to work hard, and that they don't think the Government should do everything, but they should do something to help.

[ QUOTE ]
In the US right now, everyone does have that chance. Some may have a few more hurdles to overcome, sure, but that's reality.

[/ QUOTE ] Those hurdles are proof enough that they don't have the same chance as everyone else. Why is it that a kid born into a middle class family has more potential in front of him, than a kid born into poverty? Neither child had any control over what life they would be born into, however it is clear that one has much more to look forward to. How is that fair?

[ QUOTE ]
You can't completely even the playing field without taking something from someone that they have earned.

[/ QUOTE ] this is true, and this is one area I agree with you. I cringe just as much as you when I see people abusing the welfare system. But you need to realize not everyone is doing that. GIving everyone a chance, with a level playing field, is what America should be about. What they do from there is up to them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Why is it that a kid born into a middle class family has more potential in front of him

Because his parents earned it.

The mere notion of helping out your fellow man may make your skin crawl, but definitely not mine.

You misunderstand me. I think this statement says "Don't worry about taking care of yourself, the government will do it." I don't know who this "my fellow man" is? What did he do to get himself in this situation? Why does he need my help? If this help I give him is financial, will he make an honest effort to better himself, or will he fritter it away and come back asking for more?

f Americans were free to do whatever they wanted, without interfernce from the government, can't you then see how they wouldn't be keeping us safe from criminals

This is the kind of response that pisses me off. People should be free to live their lives as they choose providing that they do not initiate force or fraud against others. How does this translate into being opposed to a criminal justice system?

I cringe just as much as you when I see people abusing the welfare system. But you need to realize not everyone is doing that.

I have never said that I believed all people on welfare are frauds. Most have legitimate needs. But the system itself gives them no incentive to solve their own problems. I oppose welfare because it does nothing but keep people poor.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that a kid born into a middle class family has more potential in front of him

Because his parents earned it.

[/ QUOTE ]
so they other kid is SOL?

[ QUOTE ]
People should be free to live their lives as they choose providing that they do not initiate force or fraud against others.

[/ QUOTE ] totally

[ QUOTE ]
How does this translate into being opposed to a criminal justice system?

[/ QUOTE ] Your above statement shows that you do indeed care about the criminal justuce system, and I wasn't trying to say you didn't. However the original poster I was responding to said there should be no government intervention in any part of citizens lives.

[ QUOTE ]
But the system itself gives them no incentive to solve their own problems. I oppose welfare because it does nothing but keep people poor.

[/ QUOTE ] This is just proof to me that the system needs reform, not that it needs to be abolished. I was also taking about several other programs, like education and public safety. This issue has more to do with equal opportunities than just simply a welfare check.

[nicky g]

"I always hear this argument. Why is it a given that we have learned nothing in a century? I refuse to accept that we have to live with what we have because the *past* was worse."

But we have learned - we've learned not to leave it in private hands.

"to avoid an unacceptably poor and resourceless underclass from springing up.

The welfare system in the US perpetrates this very situation. "

And yet countries with much more state intervention eg the Scandinavian countries have a tiny fraction of the underclass problem.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

so they other kid is SOL?

All I'm saying is the kid in the suburbs doesn't owe him anything.

This is just proof to me that the system needs reform, not that it needs to be abolished. I was also taking about several other programs, like education and public safety. This issue has more to do with equal opportunities than just simply a welfare check.

Don't get me wrong. I would like to see something reasonable done to help kids born into poverty. Obviously they aren't responsible for being there.

With respect to education. more money has been pumped into education in the past 30 years than ever, and the quality continues to go down and the rift between good and bad schools continues to widen. So simply more government funding isn't the answer.

The phrase "public saftey" scares me. I see individual freedom impinged upon all the time in the name of security. It's been said that the safest major city in the world in the 20th century was Madrid during Franco's tenure.

It's hard to look at some of the inequities of life and not be drawn to the words of the Obamas of the world, but be careful of feel-good phrases.

You want to help that kid in the inner city who doesn't have a chance? Great. Come up with a proposal for a privately funded program that'll help him learn to read by age 4, convince his parents to spend $5 (random number) on that program, and sell the concept to community leaders who will benefit from raising the literacy level and achievement level of their neighborhood.

I mean, isn't that the kind of thing you want a government-funded program to accomplish? And wouldn't this actually give you more control and have a better chance of success?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is the kid in the suburbs doesn't owe him anything.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said he did, just that more doors will be open to him, based solely upon where he is born("class"-wise). I would also agree that childs parents worked hard to provide that life to there children, but everyone should have the same opportunities as well(maybe this is naive).

[ QUOTE ]
With respect to education. more money has been pumped into education in the past 30 years than ever, and the quality continues to go down and the rift between good and bad schools continues to widen. So simply more government funding isn't the answer.

[/ QUOTE ] My undertanding is that most of the money that schools receive is from local property tax. So schools in more affluent neighborhoods get more funding than those in poorer neighborhoods. I would agree with you that the public school system is a failed system, in fact, I think many state colleges are failing to. I was lucky enough to go to a private school, so I don't have first hand experience, but I know that when I graduated from HS, I was leaps and bounds beyond my public school counterparts, in regards to almost everything. The funding is there, but again, it is being wasted.

[ QUOTE ]
The phrase "public saftey" scares me. I see individual freedom impinged upon all the time in the name of security. It's been said that the safest major city in the world in the 20th century was Madrid during Franco's tenure.


[/ QUOTE ] I wasn't talking about police squads or anything like that. I meant common place saftey standards that the government has impossed on our life. Nearly all of them are in the best interest of the citizens to follow them. Clean water, safe working roads, etc...


[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to look at some of the inequities of life and not be drawn to the words of the Obamas of the world, but be careful of feel-good phrases.

[/ QUOTE ] Here is what his speech does.... it makes people hope and it makes them optimistic, both of which I think are good for the country. After all hope and optimism built this country.

[Utah]

I will answer both your posts in this one.

To say that Gore would have won under some recount scenarios is far far different than saying that the recount and the election was stolen by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Basic fact I think we agree on:
Gore would have lost if the recount had continued under the scenario ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court stopping the recount had no effect on the election results. Therefore, it could not have stolen the election for Bush.

Do you not agree that Moore leads his audience to the conclusion that the Supreme Court, Harris, etc. stole the election and that the recount would have shown Gore won? Is this not a complete lie by Moore? Additionally, do you not think most democrats believe Bush stole the election because of the supreme court's decision to stop the recount? Whether Bush and Co stole the election beforehand is a completely different question of whether Moore lied about the recount.

Although it has nothing to do with the case of whether Moore lied, your analysis was interesting. So, the supreme court should have intervened, but they didnt do so correctly? I havent heard that one before, although you could be correct. I think a case could be made that the U.S. Supreme Court TRIED to steal the election for Bush and that they used poor judgement and bad legal logic. This is of course different than saying they stole it.

Also, lost in all this is the unbelievably bad rulings by the Florida Supreme Court. They have gotten a free pass from history because of all the focus on the US Supreme Court.

[nicky g]

"To say that Gore would have won under some recount scenarios is far far different than saying that the recount and the election was stolen by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yes.


"Basic fact I think we agree on:
Gore would have lost if the recount had continued under the scenario ordered by the Florida Supreme Court."

Probably but not necessarily. It was generally assumed that the statewide recount it ordered would not have included overvotes. But some state officials involved have said they would have counted overvotes. Florida law demands that all votes where intention is clearly discernible be counted. If that had have happened, Gore almost certainly would have won. But really, we don;t know.
Furthermore, the court didn;t know at that point what way the vote would go, and its decision to stop the recount effectively asssured Bush in the White House. Finally, the court said the fairest measure would have been a statewide recount including overvotes - but then wouldn't let it go ahead on time grounds. So the Supreme court stopped a procedure that could have given the election to Gore in favour of an outcome that definitely gave it to Bush, and declined to implement its own stated fairest outcome.


"Do you not agree that Moore leads his audience to the conclusion that the Supreme Court, Harris, etc. stole the election and that the recount would have shown Gore won?"

I genuinely don't remember how he phrased it. Perhaps someone has a transcript.

"Additionally, do you not think most democrats believe Bush stole the election because of the supreme court's decision to stop the recount?"

I'm not in a postion to answer that.

" think a case could be made that the U.S. Supreme Court TRIED to steal the election for Bush and that they used poor judgement and bad legal logic. This is of course different than saying they stole it."

Yes. I guess that is part of my argument above.

[playerfl]

The point is Moore is making sh*tloads of money and I bet he has a very expensive tax attourney.

[Roy Hobbs]

You say:

Or are you saying that "those people" can't take care of themselves, so we have to?

First of all, you are saying that "those people" don't deserve our help. If you want to make the "get yourself a job" argument, I suggest that you try living in abject poverty for a while, and maybe even try being discriminated against because of your skin color, and to top it all off, give yourself no marketable skills because the public school that you attended didn't have enough money to buy books. Then come back and talk to us about the "cycle of dependency," which has become the myth of all myths when it comes to government assistance.

RH

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

First of all, you are saying that "those people" don't deserve our help.

Please cite the post where I said this.

I suggest that you try living in abject poverty for a while

I was homeless at 32.

But my history is less relevant than your condescension. Not only do I believe the poor deserve our help, I regularly contribute money and time to shelters and programs to help the homeless make their way back to being productive members of society. How much effort do you put into volunteering? How much do you donate to charities? I won't assume anything about you, as you did about me, but people who don't do those things seem to feel good about themselves when they put down people who oppose failed government programs, content to proselytize about how others should spend their money.

[MMMMMM]

Kurn: "Or are you saying that "those people" can't take care of themselves, so we have to?"

Roy: "First of all, you are saying that "those people" don't deserve our help."

I think some of those people do indeed deserve our help. I also think that nobody should have the right to force you, I or anyone else to help them.

Charity or assistance may be freely given, but IMO it is immoral to try to force others to act in a charitable manner. What gives anyone the right to force another to donate to charity part of the fruits of his labor--which is his time, and thus a part of his life. We necessarily trade a lot of the hours of our lives for money. Shouldn't you be able to give hours of your life to charity, or not, as you see fit? Do you own your life or does "society" own your life?