Moore clears $100,000,000+

[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/Fift...enheit-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!

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[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." [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

[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!