michael moore

[Kappa1873 0]

I'm all for charity, but it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's.And I'm still proud to be a Republican.

Ok, if charity is not the governments responsiblity, how to explain the Bush administrations RECORD donations to religous charities since his inauguration?And as for penalizing people who have had success in their lives, that is total nonsense. This great and wonderful society PROVIDED the means for them to accomplish this success and they owe that society for providing those means. This is a basic function of society and I'll give you a parallel. The NFL is the most socialist section of professional sports insofar as the most successful teams are requred to share revenue with the more unsuccessful teams in smaller markets. This function has made the NFL the most successful professional sports genre in the United States. MLB does not imploy this type of revenue sharing and therefore many teams have been on the chopping block or are forced to move to a larger market. The NFL's system works and it is a microcosm of how society should work.Instead of just sprewing out what you hear on the FOX news channel I suggest you do a little research yourself as to the true republican agenda.

Are you seriously trying to make a statement for socialism based on the NFL? That's probably the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard.If you honestly believe socialism has a snowball's chance in hell of working in our society, then no argument from me is likely to sway you. But you don't need to look at a sports league in order to find an example of socialism's effectiveness (or lack thereof). Why not look at history instead?You can start by comparing capitalist nations to socialist nations. Get back to me when you think of a valid argument in favor of socialism based on any reasonable microcosm. Let's leave the NFL's systems to pro sports, and keep it out of our government.

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

I feel like debating but I won't....as I have given up debating with liberals...they all now seem to be a bunch of clueless, paranoid, ninnies.It must be all the losing. 8)

[jrthunter 0]

Republican - Democrat??????Liberal - Conservative??????Enough already......... you guys have already chosen sides!Nobody here is going to all of a sudden convert. Bush won by 3.5 million votes, apparently the majority wanted him as their president.Maybe in 2008 the democrats will have a better candidate and take the white house back.But, come on with trying to sell your side in here. I am independent and will stay independent (technically I'm "not afilliated" since there is an independence party)

[Scott31 0]

To quote a very famous Republican:"Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendell HolmesStop whining about how it's 'your money' people. Last time I checked, it doesn't have your name on it, but it does have the United States of America on it. My point is that you wouldn't have any money if it weren't for the government and poker wouldn't be around, because people would get into endless arguments as to why their tractor is worth more than his car. The government of the United STates makes it possible for you to earn money in a safe (fairly safe anyway) environment. All of this complaining about taxes is pretty ridiculous and clearly selfish. The Democratic programs that act like Robin Hood (take from the rich, give to the poor) are pretty much the basis for creating a government in the first place. Why do people even start a federal government? In a word, protection. Protection from foreign invaders, protection from poverty, protection from each other. Taxes and federal programs for the poor are simply the U.S. government acting like a well, government... and not just a collection of selfish individuals. I teach this s hit, so trust me on this one. :-)

[jrthunter 0]

I teach this s hit, so trust me on this one. Pretty Scary thought!!

[vaglvr 0]

Yes political party affliliation has changed over the years, but it has not been until very recently that conservative identification has taken an upward swing. This is because of 9/11 and other events, historically liberal idenification (or identifying with the democratic party) has outnumbered conservative identification. Thats just the facts...http://people-press.org/commentary/display...3?AnalysisID=97

Don't confuse party identification and ideological identification. They're not even remotely the same thing. Ask a Southern Democrat.

I'll agree I blurred the lines of ideology and party identification, but they're not even remotely the same thing???

[DeNuts1 0]

Don't deny the truth SmashAbout what?The truth is that the GOP is better at exploiting suckers than the DNC is. When that changes, the Democrats will be in power again.You don't seriously think US politics has anything at all to do with issues on a macro scale, do you?One of two things will hapen, either the DNC will get better at exploiting suckers, or the GOP wil overeach SO badly that they'll cripple the economy by runing up massive defecits and people will have no choice but to vote them out.I'm completely unconcerned about the GOP shooting itself in the ass and fallig out of power again, it's essnetially guranateed. I'm more concerned about the SCOTUS appointees Bush is likely to bring to Congress and if the DNC can hold the line there or not. That might actually have some real impact on my life.Seeing the GOP censored the poor and anyone who isn't white is just par for the course.

Heheheh....This is precisely why we keep winning elections and the DNC doesn't. You fellas on the left just don't get it and it makes my day. Good Post. Keep it up!

[otnemem 0]

I'm all for charity, but it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's.And I'm still proud to be a Republican.

Ok, if charity is not the governments responsiblity, how to explain the Bush administrations RECORD donations to religous charities since his inauguration?And as for penalizing people who have had success in their lives, that is total nonsense. This great and wonderful society PROVIDED the means for them to accomplish this success and they owe that society for providing those means. This is a basic function of society and I'll give you a parallel. The NFL is the most socialist section of professional sports insofar as the most successful teams are requred to share revenue with the more unsuccessful teams in smaller markets. This function has made the NFL the most successful professional sports genre in the United States. MLB does not imploy this type of revenue sharing and therefore many teams have been on the chopping block or are forced to move to a larger market. The NFL's system works and it is a microcosm of how society should work.Instead of just sprewing out what you hear on the FOX news channel I suggest you do a little research yourself as to the true republican agenda.

OK, now wait. Pro Sports is designed to be competative. Each team is supposed to have equal footing and then let the Atheletes skill determine the out come....how is that like our society? We are in a free market society....that's completely different!

The United States conforms more to a mixed market economy, not a free market. And I don't think socialism is a healthy alternative to the conservative vision, but we certainly need to maintain adequate programs for those who need aid. It's very easy to say, "You're taking my hard earned money to support people who don't want to work," but the difference to me is in accesibility. Most, MOST, modern success can at least be partially credited to upbringing. If you're brought up underpriveleged, it's a fact that you miss opportunities that others are fortunate enough to take advantage of. Redistributing wealth for social programs is essential in giving everyone an equal footing.

[vaglvr 0]

Least bias as in how. He admitted he was voting for John Kerry and he consistantly takes a liberal viewpoint. He was on crossfire arguing against Tucker Carlson. He had on John Kerry and asked him pretty tough questions too. Ummm..

Sure, it's bias. But the Daily Show is masterful at poking holes in the Bush administration's policies and they make them look like fools, which admittedly, is not hard to do.He was on crossfire saying that the show Crossfire was 'hurting America.' He didn't say anything about liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican. He just basically told the world that he hates that show. He argued with Tucker Carlson because 1. Tucker's a bit of an idiot 2. He was the only one arguing. Did you honestly think Stewart would ask the possible future president crazy, hard-hitting questions on a comedy show. Are you completely humorless? Oh, Republican...say no more.

I'm not saying that the show isn't funny, but don't tell its not biased. My point with Kerry was, obviously Bush would have been asked tougher questions and wouldn't been treated the same way. You can argue that he was an incumbant president and deserved to be treated this way, but I thought if Bush would be grilled that harshly why not Kerry. Jon Stewart double backed on himself on Crossfire. He was on a mission to say that crossfire was hurting america (I assume he was attempting to poke fun at the show but he was fairly adament about it on the show), but tries to keep the tone of a comedy show. That outburst I really didn't understand, maybe I should have read his book. It was probably one of his points or something. Its a good show, but don't tell me its not left leaning.

[Guest]

I feel like debating but I won't....as I have given up debating with liberals...they all now seem to be a bunch of clueless, paranoid, ninnies.It must be all the losing. 8)

Resorting to name-calling for the win!

[HtotheNootch 0]

Oh and just pre-emptively - yes I am a conspiracy nut.

I wouldn't expect anytyhing less from a Bill Hicks fan.

You ever go to http://www.sacredcow.com?Check out the Alex Jones stuff as well as Bill's.

[blueodum 0]

Look people,It's not a choice between a command economy and unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.There are literally thousands of options in between. The fact is, there has been a serious rise in wealth inequality in the United States over the past 25 years - this is well documented. Compare that to the 1950s, during which inequality was very low, there was nearly full employment and the economy was growing like gangbusters. High inequality not only has adverse effects on the economy, but creates myriad social problems that exact huge costs on all members of society, rich and poor, though these are not always readily visible.And the idea that Republicanism = Small Government doesn't wash in practice. Both the Reagan and Bush Jr regimes cut taxes, but they failed to reign in government spending in any meaningful way and consequently ran up or are running up massive deficits.You can have your government spend a lot of money on the military, the police and prisons; or you can take some of that money and spend on healthcare and education. The choice is yours - I'll only add that I'm glad I live in a country that's made the right choices.

[mx957 0]

I'm all for charity, but it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's.And I'm still proud to be a Republican.

Ok, if charity is not the governments responsiblity, how to explain the Bush administrations RECORD donations to religous charities since his inauguration?And as for penalizing people who have had success in their lives, that is total nonsense. This great and wonderful society PROVIDED the means for them to accomplish this success and they owe that society for providing those means. This is a basic function of society and I'll give you a parallel. The NFL is the most socialist section of professional sports insofar as the most successful teams are requred to share revenue with the more unsuccessful teams in smaller markets. This function has made the NFL the most successful professional sports genre in the United States. MLB does not imploy this type of revenue sharing and therefore many teams have been on the chopping block or are forced to move to a larger market. The NFL's system works and it is a microcosm of how society should work.Instead of just sprewing out what you hear on the FOX news channel I suggest you do a little research yourself as to the true republican agenda.

OK, now wait. Pro Sports is designed to be competative. Each team is supposed to have equal footing and then let the Atheletes skill determine the out come....how is that like our society? We are in a free market society....that's completely different!

The United States conforms more to a mixed market economy, not a free market. And I don't think socialism is a healthy alternative to the conservative vision, but we certainly need to maintain adequate programs for those who need aid. It's very easy to say, "You're taking my hard earned money to support people who don't want to work," but the difference to me is in accesibility. Most, MOST, modern success can at least be partially credited to upbringing. If you're brought up underpriveleged, it's a fact that you miss opportunities that others are fortunate enough to take advantage of. Redistributing wealth for social programs is essential in giving everyone an equal footing.

Not that I totally disagree, but this "reditributing" has to be for a reason...not just well "you've earned to much and freeloader Joe down the street needs a boost". I do agree that you need to give help but in my own personal case, when I took the help I paid it back ten fold because I thought it was the right thing to do and also I knew the money was going to help someone that needed it, appreciated it and ultimately would do more good for having received it. To many social programs miss that final step.

[vaglvr 0]

Look people,It's not a choice between a command economy and unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.There are literally thousands of options in between. The fact is, there has been a serious rise in wealth inequality in the United States over the past 25 years - this is well documented. Compare that to the 1950s, during which inequality was very low, there was nearly full employment and the economy was growing like gangbusters. High inequality not only has adverse effects on the economy, but creates myriad social problems that exact huge costs on all members of society, rich and poor, though these are not always readily visible.And the idea that Republicanism = Small Government doesn't wash in practice. Both the Reagan and Bush Jr regimes cut taxes, but they failed to reign in government spending in any meaningful way and consequently ran up or are running up massive deficits.You can have your government spend a lot of money on the military, the police and prisons; or you can take some of that money and spend on healthcare and education. The choice is yours - I'll only add that I'm glad I live in a country that's made the right choices.

Yeah not much happend to change the world economy except republicans since 1950. Globalizaiton, China opening their doors, fall of Russia, Japan, Britians economy failing and recovering......

[faketree 0]

I'm all for charity, but it's not the government's responsibility. It's the individual's.And I'm still proud to be a Republican.

Ok, if charity is not the governments responsiblity, how to explain the Bush administrations RECORD donations to religous charities since his inauguration?And as for penalizing people who have had success in their lives, that is total nonsense. This great and wonderful society PROVIDED the means for them to accomplish this success and they owe that society for providing those means. This is a basic function of society and I'll give you a parallel. The NFL is the most socialist section of professional sports insofar as the most successful teams are requred to share revenue with the more unsuccessful teams in smaller markets. This function has made the NFL the most successful professional sports genre in the United States. MLB does not imploy this type of revenue sharing and therefore many teams have been on the chopping block or are forced to move to a larger market. The NFL's system works and it is a microcosm of how society should work.Instead of just sprewing out what you hear on the FOX news channel I suggest you do a little research yourself as to the true republican agenda.

Are you seriously trying to make a statement for socialism based on the NFL? That's probably the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard.If you honestly believe socialism has a snowball's chance in hell of working in our society, then no argument from me is likely to sway you. But you don't need to look at a sports league in order to find an example of socialism's effectiveness (or lack thereof). Why not look at history instead?You can start by comparing capitalist nations to socialist nations. Get back to me when you think of a valid argument in favor of socialism based on any reasonable microcosm. Let's leave the NFL's systems to pro sports, and keep it out of our government.

No, I'm not seriously making an argument for socialism. Socialism is a proven failure mostly because of the obscene opportunity for corruption by the 'controllers' of that society.My point was merely that helping the less fortunate is mutually beneficial to both the poor and rich of the society. I think that is a clear concept and I was merely showing an example within our sporting society.

[TS Clark 0]

Yes political party affliliation has changed over the years, but it has not been until very recently that conservative identification has taken an upward swing. This is because of 9/11 and other events, historically liberal idenification (or identifying with the democratic party) has outnumbered conservative identification. Thats just the facts...http://people-press.org/commentary/display...3?AnalysisID=97

Don't confuse party identification and ideological identification. They're not even remotely the same thing. Ask a Southern Democrat.

I'll agree I blurred the lines of ideology and party identification, but they're not even remotely the same thing???

Maybe "not even remotely" is hyperbole on my part, but you absolutely cannot equate them. A large majority of Southern Democrats (and a plurality of Dems in parts of the Rust Belt and Farm Belt) would describe themselves as conservatives. In the past, there have been more Dems and GOPers, but there have NEVER been more liberals than conservatives in America. Not even close. Not even during the Great Depression.

[Scott31 0]

but don't tell its not biased.

I said it was biased... 1st sentence actually.

My point with Kerry was, obviously Bush would have been asked tougher questions and wouldn't been treated the same way.

Gotta disagree there. I forgot who he was talking to. I think it was Bush's campaign manager, but Stewart was pleading for Bush to be on the Daily Show and Jon said, "If he comes on here, I'll be such a pu s sy." Stewart respects power like most people. Well, at least to their faces anyway.

Its a good show, but don't tell me its not left leaning.

I never implied otherwise. But, it's very smart and effective in exploiting the ridiculousness of the system and the current administration. That's why I like it.

[SapphireTiger 0]

Watch a movie called farenhype 911 if you to see how michael moore put together his film most of the people in the film were interviewed by somebody else michael moore sent out and not told what the interview was auctually going to be used for

what?

[KidKanuck 0]

The states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow gays the privilege, not right, to marry.

doesn't this sound kinda like

The states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow blacks the privilege, not right, to vote.

....just seems eerily similar to me.KK

[heisthejuan 0]

A majority of the US is liberal?With absolute certainty.How could you possibly think otherwise?Seriously.

Typical remark of someone from Massachusetts who thinks the rest of the world is as liberal as his home state.I'm sure you can't possibly fathom how we have a republican senate, house, and president in the midst of a nation full of liberals.For a liberal, you sure do a goodjob of stereotyping others, Smash. But I guess my mistake was stereotyping liberals as open-minded.

Fly over country

[Scott31 0]

I teach this s hit, so trust me on this one.Pretty Scary thought!!

JR, I didn't hear any real rebuttal. Why is it scary? I know the government of the U.S. backwards and forwards, although this government tends to be backwards most of the time. :-) I'll tell you what....I'll cite the number and level of my government classes and my political background, along with my papers published (ok, just one paper) and you cite yours. I'm more than qualified to talk about this subject intelligently, unlike 99% of this country who babbles on about their 'political beliefs' when they really have no idea what they're talking about.

[TheSandMan 0]

A majority of the US is liberal?With absolute certainty.How could you possibly think otherwise?Seriously.

Typical remark of someone from Massachusetts who thinks the rest of the world is as liberal as his home state.I'm sure you can't possibly fathom how we have a republican senate, house, and president in the midst of a nation full of liberals.For a liberal, you sure do a goodjob of stereotyping others, Smash. But I guess my mistake was stereotyping liberals as open-minded.

It used to make me laugh how Americans would attack each other over things like this. Now it scares me because its coming north of the border too.

[DeNuts1 0]

The states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow gays the privilege, not right, to marry.

doesn't this sound kinda like

The states should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to allow blacks the privilege, not right, to vote.

....just seems eerily similar to me.KK

Heh...Surely you are not comparing the struggles of the gay community to the struggles of the civil rights movement. Surely!! I mean come on that is a MAJOR stretch! :-)

[otnemem 0]

but don't tell its not biased.

I said it was biased... 1st sentence actually.

My point with Kerry was, obviously Bush would have been asked tougher questions and wouldn't been treated the same way.

Gotta disagree there. I forgot who he was talking to. I think it was Bush's campaign manager, but Stewart was pleading for Bush to be on the Daily Show and Jon said, "If he comes on here, I'll be such a pu s sy." Stewart respects power like most people. Well, at least to their faces anyway.

Its a good show, but don't tell me its not left leaning.

I never implied otherwise. But, it's very smart and effective in exploiting the ridiculousness of the system and the current administration. That's why I like it.

Whether Stewart would be tougher on Bush is a non-issue. Bush would never go on the show. The Bush administration does not like the press. They don't like confronting the media, which is why Bush attends so few press conferences. It's really unsettling when you can feel the disdain that the administration confronts their people with.

[blueodum 0]

"Yeah not much happend to change the world economy except republicans since 1950. Globalizaiton, China opening their doors, fall of Russia, Japan, Britians economy failing and recovering......"What does this have to do with my thesis that a high level of inequality is a bad thing for a society?