Farenheit/Michael Moore links/Lies

[DrewKaree]

First, a few pics I came across:





and what a disgruntled and disenfranchised Wisconsinite did when Kerry said he was going to vote against gun control after he voted for it:


Now....for some links regarding Michael Moore and his movie, Farenheit 911.

The ethical scoreboard - Moore's ethical shortcomings ooze out

59 deceits in Farenheit 911

An Iraqi's commentary and views about the movie

Spinsanity's "The temperature at which his pants burn"

The Atlanta Journal Constitution's commentary - they don't want to be directly linked, so this is copied, but a copy/paste address is included at the end of it

Slate's take on it

Under the hot lights - commentary

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball's comments on MSNBC.com

Bowling for truth - too many items to list, just see it

Michael Moore: A Psychological Analysis

The American Spectator's commentary

An unofficial transcript of the beginning section of the movie & discussion @ redlinerants.com

mensnewsdaily.com's "The Farenheit 411"

Farenheit Facts

A site billed as "Michael Moore's permanent record"

A site concerning themselves with "Watching Michael Moore's every move" and their review

I think you can clearly see their perspective on him and his movie, as well as mine.  These links are given for you to look at after seeing the movie, or, better yet, if you don't want to throw one red cent his way, information regarding his movie from people who HAVE.  The transcript will allow you to see what was said in the movie as well, and they are working to make it as complete as possible on their own, since Moore won't make his "documentary" transcript available...maybe if someone offers him millions for it, perhaps he will?  meh.

Also to save said red cent (or for "enjoyment"), you can download the movie Farenheit 911 for free by finding the link on one of the sites I posted above (HINT: it's the last linked site I've posted).  Mr Moore has given the world his blessing to do so - here are his words, verbatim, as to his feelings on downloading and watching his movie for free:

I don

[Floyd10]

I dont really see your point at the end.

[Jakobud]

Thanks for all the great links!  I especially like the one that is a blog entry from an Iragi responding to 9/11 and what the US has done for Iraq.  Its a great perspective from someone who is seeing the work the US has done for Iraq first hand as opposed to the critics in the US who base all their judgements off what they watching in the news.  Great stuff!  

Its nice to have information like this posted for all the people who swallow everything Moore dishes out without a second thought about it.

[DrewKaree]

I dont really see your point at the end.

about downloading the movie?  If that's the case, it's just to say do it, if you want to see it....he's telling us to, and you won't have to send any of your money his way.  

If that's not what you meant, lemme know.  You know I'll tell ya...can't keep my big trap shut, James.  LOL

[shmokes]

I agree that Michael Moore's ethics are lacking.  I think he takes cheep shots and, while he doesn't USUALLY outright lie, he deliberately misleads his audience on a regular basis.  He commonly gives quotes and information without context, knowing and in fact desiring that his audience will come to certain, not entirely accurate conclusions.

That said, it's about time the democrats quit taking the "high-road".  Conservatives have been using these tactics for years (Limbaugh, Hannedy & Combs, Fox News, Ken Starr, etc.) and democrats have all but refused to join the fray.  

I personally think that Michael Moore is a lowlife, but we can't just not fight the battle because we don't like the battleground.  Unfortunately, Michael Moore is exactly what the democrats need.   I would much prefer a world without Michael Moore, but only if said world also did away with the ethically bankrupt people listed in the parenthesis is the previous paragraph.  

It's a lose-lose situation.  I hate Michael Moore, but am damn glad we finally have him.

Edit: Yikes!!! Add Anne Coulter to that list.  

[Dartful Dodger]

it's about time the democrats quit taking the "high-road".

Clinton didn't take the "high-road", he said he didn't inhale.

[shmokes]

 

Apples and oranges.

And Clinton also said that it was his first time trying weed and he was hacking his lungs out.  He said that he's sure he WOULD have inhaled if he could, but every time he tried he just started hacking.

Take it for what it's worth (which is very little).  Either way, It has little relevance to what I was talking about in my last post.

[Dartful Dodger]

Take it for what it's worth (which is very little).  Either way, It has little relevance to what I was talking about in my last post.

I understood your last post, you wanted a world without Michael Moore before you wanted a world with Michael Moore.

[shmokes]

Technically I still want the world without Michael Moore.  I just see him as a necessary evil -- the lesser of two evils (the other being the existence of Rush and company without any liberals who use the same tactics).  But I do see him as evil, make no mistake.

I want them all gone, but that's like wanting to win the powerball.  It's just something to say; it's not like it could ever happen.

But I can't imagine many conservatives really disagree with me.  I believe he is an unethical, but effective tool.  Considering the fact that F911 was #1 in the box office a few weeks ago (during summer blockbuster season, no less) and has since then been #2 only to Spiderman,  he is undoubtably effective.  I'm not talking about the hardcore liberals and conservatives who saw the film and just became more polarized than they already were, I'm talking about the fence-sitters who don't always vote, or aren't married to either political party.  The sheer numbers who are seeing this film suggest that Moore is reaching a lot of those.

I hope that explains why I have a love-hate relationship with Moore.  I think he's a low-life, but he is a low-life that might get Bush out of office.  Conservatives may not like him, but I suspect that some of what makes Moore so infuriating is the fact that he IS pretty effective.

...and so on.

[DrewKaree]

I understood your last post, you wanted a world without Michael Moore before you wanted a world with Michael Moore.

LMAO!

As for taking the high road, I'm guessing that the part in Moore's movie where the black caucus was continually bringing up "Myself and my constituents dispute the results" and bringing the argument to the floor despite Gore continually bringing up the protocol for such things was more of your idea of taking the high road.  

I live in the state where deliberately misleading information was brought up the day of the election so as to try to skew the result...something long since settled, and was known about previously....I think you misinterpreted the exit sign for the "high road"....you're actually on the road that's paved with good intentions.

You say Moore is effective...yet agree that he is a deceitful cheap shot lowlife...so his effectiveness then is in luring in mindless (because they will believe the deceits and cheap shots you speak of) people who will vote because of anger (like the lowlife who made the movie they are watching).  So selling your soul (don't worry, I know you don't believe you have one of those   ) is ok, as long as it removes someone as soulless as Bush.  

So you're down with the "Party of Values and Good Hair".  Gotcha.

How are your views on his "Life begins at conception", but "I won't legislate my beliefs on others" (Even though those "beliefs" then make an abortion legalized murder?)  or the statement by both Kerry and Edwards that they will not even show up to do anything about bringing the gay marriage vote to the table?  How about Kerry choosing SOME road, even though I know he's not looking for the "high road".

To quote my current favorite parody song "John Kerry's Waffle House, serving waffles since 1984"

     *edited to add more diatribe  *

[DrewKaree]

How about this for the clickable links?  Take your pick and click away.  Mozilla's a great browser to open these links in other tabs, too!

THIS is what you meant by the "high road", right?

or this...more "high road"...and this road would be higher how???

and as for said "high road", did Halliburton receive the same fate when the Clinton administration offered them similar dealings, shown here?!?  Oh, and you knew that Halliburton was the one who reported their internal problems and was taking steps to deal with them BEFORE the press ever caught wind of it, right?

So then what's being reported by the Senate Intelligence OVERSIGHT (that word has been ommitted, wrongly, as it lets these guys off the hook in mainstream writings) Committee who have this to say about Bush's "actions"...more "high road" reporting?  Or should we compare what they DID say to what they are NOW saying?

And  here - the most UNDER-reported event lately

And since Bush is doing the wrong thing, then Democrats would have voted..ho..ow, exactly?  Let's see, shall we?




SECOND BEST LINK OF THE BUNCH HERE...Kerry acts as Bush's war advisor.  Don't read it if you haven't had your daily dose of waffles to settle your stomach.




Perhaps Newt's interview said it best, but actually, it's what most have said, just that no one seems to EVER want to face the things he says

As for the "only reason" we went there, perhaps you noticed the fact it's been glossed over that they have found them, although not (Bush's words) stockpiles...but you need stockpiles to make it true, right?...why not read what Iraq's national security advisor had to say about this...make sure you check out both pages for the whole story


And for my BEST LINK of the bunch, and MOST IMPORTANT...since no one seems to want to show any pictures from Iraq (unless they are producing outrage, that is) HERE'S here's a BUNCH of pictures showing a DIFFERENT kind of interaction with Iraqi's.  6 people are A-holes, and everyone's willing to throw the rest of "their kind" under the bus...perspective, who needs it, hey?!


I've watched the "high roaders".  I've seen that they believe whatever gets them back into power.  "We've got great ideas for the country, just don't ask us to put them into words".  Actually, it's best put like this:

And for my last link, since Kerry says "he'd do it differently", then Bush MUST be doing the wrong thing, right?  Check out how Democrats would have voted, knowing what they know now. So the Democratic party is going to lead this country..how, again?  By agreeing with Bush before they didn't agree with him?  Change the party symbol to a waffle...wait, I kind of like seeing a donkey for their symbol...fits like a glove.

No, I think what really angers people about Moore and his ilk is the fact that they don't stand FOR something, they're only standing against Bush and offer no workable solution other than "we shouldn't have done it" (and I don't count "we should have talked with them more" as a solution, as those "other countries we should have had behind us" would have done).  The same people disagreeing with us have been shown to have shady deals with Hussein, but that's a widely touted fact, right?.  I should end this by mentioning the fact that Moore is labeled a liar and deceitful by people who agree with the stated outcome he desires with the viewing of his movie...wait, you did that already...well, can't do it enough, I think.  

I wonder if Hezbollah has sent Moore his Jr Terrorist badge yet.

[shmokes]

Drew,

I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with.  Pick one or two of the best ones and post those.  Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.  If we want a giant list of links we already have google.

Even Bush says the we never found WMDs.  He now makes the case that even without WMDs our invasion was justified because Iraq was a declared enemy of America that might one day make WMDs, and in such a case they might one day give those weapons to Terrorists.  That's a lot of mights.  I might make an assassination attempt on the Pope.  I might try to rob a bank.  I might go postal and kill everybody at my work.  But you can't really send the police after me until it is clear that I did these things or WILL do them.  The mere capacity to do wrong is not a jailable offense. President Bush MIGHT give weapons to terrorists.  Many American presidents have.  It boils down to: It is okay for America to invade a country and overthrow its government if said country does not like America and has the ability, or may some day in the unspecified future, have the ability to make dangerous weapons.  Why do you think so many nations, including western democracies, find our actions so deplorable?


I'm fine with his "life begins at conception" but "I don't want to legislate my beliefs."    It means that he realizes that God is probably capable of doing his job.  If he needs to send people to hell, fine.  But as far as society is concerned, making abortions illegal causes more harm than good.  

It wasn't just six ---uvulas---, Drew.  The rest of that report has been leaked.  Take a look at it.  The food being sent to the prison was filled with bugs, rats and dirt.    The prisoners were forced to wade, naked, knee-deep in mud and had no choice but to urinate and defecate in the same mud.  These are just soldiers, for chrissake.  Everybody here has the battlecry, "Nomatter how you feel about the war you should support the soldiers."  That comes from the quite sane idea that most soldiers don't have a choice about where they go or who they fight.  They follow orders.  These are mainly just a bunch of guys fighting for their country and following orders.  You don't think it's a big deal that this stuff is happening to Iraqi soldiers, but I suspect you'd sing a different tune if we found U.S. soldiers suffering similar conditions in a foreign prison.

Well...if I try to respond to any more of your argument my post is going to become so long that even more people will just skip over it.

Try to focus.  Make one or two points at a time and people will be much more willing to read what you've taken the time to write.

[Dartful Dodger]

I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with.  Pick one or two of the best ones and post those.  Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.

That's a false assumption based on your own beliefs and opinions.  Shmokes are you really Michael Moore?

[shmokes]

I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with.  Pick one or two of the best ones and post those.  Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.

That's a false assumption based on your own beliefs and opinions.  Shmokes are you really Michael Moore?

Errr.....hence the words, "...I doubt..."  

Out of curiosity, would a true assumption be one based on the beliefs and opinions of others?  

And about the Michael Moore thing.............ssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[DrewKaree]

Drew,I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with.  Pick one or two of the best ones and post those.  Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.  If we want a giant list of links we already have google.

If more people used google to check Moore's "facts" there wouldn't be as many undecided voters out there, one way or the other.  I don't doubt that many may NOT click on them all, but I don't mind doing it at all, since I highly doubt anyone gets ANY of this information on a daily basis, and if someone just clicks one of them, then my job disseminating information is helping to combat Moore's propaganda...er...documentary.  

Also, I'm doing this for the people who have seen and agree with Moore's movie.  I lost 2 hours of my life I can never get back watching his Kerry ad.  I read and heard numerous cries of "How can you criticize it when you haven't even seen it".  Since I found it important enough to view that movie, (sorry I didn't see Dodgeball, but my ticket stub says I did) the least you can do is take the information I've found and read it.  The onus is on those who wish to disagree with me, because how can you disagree with me when you haven't read the information I have

Even Bush says the we never found WMDs.

you are 100% wrong in making this statement.  You should read the statement he did make.  You  may have heard that there were several items were found, including biological agents.  Click this to see what he DID say. There's a definite difference between the words you're attempting to put into his mouth and what actually came out.  THAT'S another reason I've taken to posting these links.  The words that are said aren't matching up to what the public is being told he said.

What you're glossing over, though, is the fact that MANY MANY MANY others also believed these things, as you can see here...several instances and people, in fact, and expected actions to be taken...see the link I posted about Kerry being Bush's war advisor for specifics on exactly what type of actions...if you'd look, you'd see the man you want to replace Bush extols the virtues of exactly what Bush DID do...but he voted for it before he voted against it.  I think what angers so many about Bush is that he showed no hesitation in making a decision that should have been made years before.

He now makes the case that even without WMDs our invasion was justified because Iraq was a declared enemy of America that might one day make WMDs, and in such a case they might one day give those weapons to Terrorists.  That's a lot of mights.

Make sure you make the whole case.  
"Saddam Hussein had the intent, he had the capability".  Oh, and throw in a little human rights violations against his people.  I can't understand, and perhaps you can help me, why Hussein would use these weapons against his own people previously, but would never produce them to be used against us, his self-proclaimed sworn enemy which he vowed to one day destroy.  And, is there another use for wmd's that we don't know about?  Something the U.N. would agree to, since they were doing inspections to make sure he was eliminating them before we went in?  They didn't want him to have them either, and were attempting to search and ensure he was destroying them, but couldn't do a lot, since they kept getting booted out.  That's like the inmates running the asylum!

I might make an assassination attempt on the Pope.  I might try to rob a bank.  I might go postal and kill everybody at my work.  But you can't really send the police after me until it is clear that I did these things or WILL do them.

that's because we aren't declaring war against you.  Oh, and I WOULD be able to have the police come and visit you for a bit.  They ARE still allowed to talk to someone, right?  Sure, they can't arrest you for those things, but they can investigate the possibility that you might try 'em.  To use your line, apples and oranges.

It boils down to: It is okay for America to invade a country and overthrow its government if said country does not like America and has the ability, or may some day in the unspecified future, have the ability to make dangerous weapons.  Why do you think so many nations, including western democracies, find our actions so deplorable?

I say yes, but for so much more than the simplistic view you present.  The fact that he would use such weapons against his own people, would look to use them against us, would thumb his nose at the U.N. everyone is so fond of praising, defy the U.N. resolution everyone wanted us to get FIRST before declaring war...as for the "so many nations"...I'm fine with Poland, Spain, Britain, Japan, et al being secure enough in the knowledge that we were doing the right thing.  It's the countries (France, Russia, Germany being the notables) who were found to be running shady deals we Americans are so quick to castigate our companies for...those are the people who disagree with us?  I'm surprised they could see our "wrongdoings", what with the friggen plank in their eye.

I'm fine with his "life begins at conception" but "I don't want to legislate my beliefs."    It means that he realizes that God is probably capable of doing his job.  If he needs to send people to hell, fine.  But as far as society is concerned, making abortions illegal causes more harm than good.

I find his selective reasoning further promotes the "Waffle House" image and wonder if even you know where he stands on an issue.  You say that "It means", but until you show me where he has ever said that, then you're arguing something purely conjectural.  Let the man stand for something, open his mouth and make a stand, or tell us what "it means".  Right now, all he continues to tell us is that he voted for it before he voted against it.

It wasn't just six ---uvulas---, Drew.  The rest of that report has been leaked.  Take a look at it.

I've done the nice thing for you...I've given you (in your opinion ) link after useless link to bolster my charges, but you say something like this, and don't give me any information.  Show me the money.  I'm willing to concede that there may be more than six people.  I'm willing to eat my hat on this issue.  I just need to see some more information.  That's kind of unfair on your part, too, to make such a claim and give me no basis for it.  Please show me where you've seen that.  I like discussing this stuff with you!  

As for the charge "Everybody here has the battlecry, "No matter how you feel about the war you should support the soldiers.", I believe that.  If you didn't have brave men fighting for you long ago, you might not have the freedom to say the things you do, just as I might be more fluent in German!

I do believe that "most soldiers don't have a choice about where they go or who they fight.  They follow orders.  These are mainly just a bunch of guys fighting for their country and following orders."  I also believe that there's a reason we haven't had a draft.  Enough people volunteered their lives for the military so that we wouldn't have to be taken to do their job.  

You don't think it's a big deal that this stuff is happening to Iraqi soldiers, but I suspect you'd sing a different tune if we found U.S. soldiers suffering similar conditions in a foreign prison.

You're putting words in my mouth...please use salt next time  I do think it's a big deal, I just won't throw the vast (I don't know a figure to define it, so vast will have to do) number of soldiers "under the bus" who are doing an admirable job.  That's my point.  Click the "most important" link I posted.  Where have you seen pictures like that?  I'd be willing to bet several month's wages that you haven't seen it in the general newspapers or television...wait, I'll clarify.  I'd bet you haven't seen anywhere near the same coverage that the prison scandal gets.  I'll wait until we take all our soldiers out of Iraq, if you want to wait that long.  You'll NEVER see the good we do focused on with the laser lights they use to point out "a bunch" (I'll use that phrase until you get your info to me) of people and their wrongdoings.

Well...if I try to respond to any more of your argument my post is going to become so long that even more people will just skip over it.

witty repartee, I like it

Try to focus.  Make one or two points at a time and people will be much more willing to read what you've taken the time to write.

There's too much to comment on!  Are you saying you'd like to see 5 posts with 2 points on them in a row?!  My "Evil Conservative Industries" sig will make those 5 just as long as these...6 of one, bakers dozen of another....sorry, that's that new math!

And about the Michael Moore thing.............ssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Mikey, you magnificent b&#tard!  Have a sandwich, wouldja?!  You're looking a little haggard!

[DrewKaree]

It wasn't just six ---uvulas---, Drew.  The rest of that report has been leaked.  Take a look at it.

I've done the nice thing for you...I've given you (in your opinion ) link after useless link to bolster my charges, but you say something like this, and don't give me any information.  Show me the money.  I'm willing to concede that there may be more than six people.  I'm willing to eat my hat on this issue.  I just need to see some more information.  That's kind of unfair on your part, too, to make such a claim and give me no basis for it.  Please show me where you've seen that.

Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it?  I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.  

I'm also hoping you can find me a link to somewhere that lays out Mr Wilson's lies and the apology for touting his information as gospel regarding the current administration.  I have yet to see anything like that, and as of this posting, his information is still being used on a Kerry website as truthful, accurate, and the reason the administration should be (pulling out, apologizing, eating their hat, wearing sackcloth and wailing, take your pick).  

I'm gonna keep posting links, but I'll take your format and use that.  One or two at a crack.  I'm still waiting for your response to the "Taking the high road" links I've posted, so to narrow the discussion, I'll be looking for a response to that point, and your link about the leaked report.  

Cheers

[abrannan]

Drew,I hate for you to go through all that work, but I doubt that anybody clicks on these links you bombard us with.  Pick one or two of the best ones and post those.  Otherwise others, like me, just scroll past your post to get to the actual discussion.  If we want a giant list of links we already have google.

If more people used google to check Moore's "facts" there wouldn't be as many undecided voters out there, one way or the other.  I don't doubt that many may NOT click on them all, but I don't mind doing it at all, since I highly doubt anyone gets ANY of this information on a daily basis, and if someone just clicks one of them, then my job disseminating information is helping to combat Moore's propaganda...er...documentary.  

1.  I don't click on a lot of the links you post, because when I do I find very little substance there.  

Even Bush says the we never found WMDs.

you are 100% wrong in making this statement.  You should read the statement he did make.  You  may have heard that there were several items were found, including biological agents.  Click this to see what he DID say. There's a definite difference between the words you're attempting to put into his mouth and what actually came out.  THAT'S another reason I've taken to posting these links.  The words that are said aren't matching up to what the public is being told he said.

Ummm....  The link you posted only has Bush saying (and I'll quote it so nobody has to click the link)

[DrewKaree]

1.  I don't click on a lot of the links you post, because when I do I find very little substance there.

but you do click on some.  Your opinion of them is fine with me, everyone's entitled to theirs, and those that are of a similar opinion as mine DO find them to be helpful, as evidenced in this thread.  It also leads me to believe that there are many who hold similar opinions that do not post here.  I don't expect them all to say "WAY TO GO!  GIVE IT TO 'EM!", but I'll extrapolate those that have said thanks to mean keep it up.

Ummm....  The link you posted only has Bush saying (and I'll quote it so nobody has to click the link)

[Floyd10]

Um, Drew. Your link does nothing to prove that Bush didn't say it. It's Coulter and o'reilly for christs sake. two republicans arguing, and one babbling incoherantly: Lied lied, bush lied

btw, isnt ironic, that their spewing about the lies of the press, when they're on a news show?

[Floyd10]

The real Liberal Agenda:

http://www.ericSchwartz.com/video.html

scroll down smart one

[Jakobud]

Thank you for all the good links Drew!  We appreciate it!

[FractalWalk]

Conservatives may not like him, but I suspect that some of what makes Moore so infuriating is the fact that he IS pretty effective.

I think what bothers conservatives, is that he is effective (he is), but rather that the mainstream media blindly swallows what he says. The same can not be said of someone like Rush who is pretty much villified by any public personality that isn't on talk radio.

Now having said that, I think F911 is beyond the abilty of the media to just accept it at face value. Even Time and Newsweek have questioned his "facts".

[DrewKaree]

Um, Drew. Your link does nothing to prove that Bush didn't say it.

You're asking me to prove a negative (in my opinion)...just because shmokes said Bush said it doesn't make it true...the burden of proving it lies with him.  What I am doing is making an assumption based on reasoning that if, indeed, Bush HAD said we have not found WMD's, it would have been trumpeted over and over, shouted from the highest mountaintop.  I have also assumed that the words Bush said are what shmokes is referring to when he says "Even Bush says the we never found WMDs."  I'll state my position, as well as offer the challenge to anyone else who wishes to assist shmokes on this:  If you state something as fact regarding the words that came out of someone's mouth, post a link to the quote to back up your position - also, don't be so disingenuous as to post a "cut and paste-d" quote from someone i.e. cutting out the "STOCKPILES" from his oral offering - unless you're Michael Moore...then, let us know it's you so we can praise you or throw rotten eggs, whichever way the individual leans politically

btw, isnt ironic, that their spewing about the lies of the press, when they're on a news show?

it would be ironic, but only if there would be a more even-handed treatment of things that are reported on by someone other than a cable news show.  I, for example, don't have cable and thus can't watch O'Reilly unless I go to my father-in-law's house.  I never knew he disagreed with Ms Coulter on this subject until looking at that page!  And to think, he's considered part of the conservative propaganda machine too!  Realize that whoever has the most sensational, salacious, "OHMYGODREALLY?!?" story will be the one who gets the ratings...why do you think Rush has as large an audience as he does?  He angers people as well as soothes the conservative soul!  People who disagree with him want to listen to see what he says so they can tell their friends "And did you hear what that jack-hole Limbaugh said?!?".  

The real Liberal Agenda:
http://www.ericSchwartz.com/video.html
scroll down smart one

I didn't have Him on there, but I will try to make sure He doesn't go on there again!  I wasn't able to download that 10 Mb file yet, but I'll view the movie when I do get that done.  WHERE on earth do you find these links, James ?  I'll assume it's like the rest of them I've seen from you, and say nice job   Whenever I check out your links, I wonder what you were like as a kid - were you the one who realized you had to play with matches to light the propane cylinder to get the blowtorch started to melt the G.I. Joe?    What can you expect from James St James, though, hey?


Jakobud, check here shortly...I'm gonna drop the transcript of the movie as well as the 59 Deceits paper - prolly zip it up so you can download and print it if you so wish.  I'm trying to condense first, though.  That way, you can read it without seeing it and then coherently argue with your pro-Moore friends and enemas.

Michael Moore should thank me for providing all this interest in his movie.  Perhaps I'll ask for last week's gross of the movie

[Floyd10]

okokok. Just a question, we are doing this all in fun right? no bad blood? ok. I hope so. Btw, who are you voting for DK? Just a shot in the dark, but Nader.

BTW tell me what you think of the vid. Very funny stuff. and GET ON AIM!

[MasTequila]

Everyone saying that Moore has made the mainstream swollow blindly what he puts out is true but remember that lots of other news stations and websites do this as well.

I don't follow all this as much as I should but I know there are some very funny websites that are anti-bush on www.howardstern.com.  My opinion is that the bottom line is if he wasn't George Bush's son he would be sweeping some floor somewhere instead of being a leader of the free world.

~Mas

[fredster]

If you want to see the true Liberals and how deeply they think, go to www.protestwarrior.com, that's the real story

GO DREW

[DrewKaree]

okokok. Just a question, we are doing this all in fun right? no bad blood? ok. I hope so. Btw, who are you voting for DK? Just a shot in the dark, but Nader.

BTW tell me what you think of the vid. Very funny stuff. and GET ON AIM!

Not necessarily in fun, but I never mean anyone harm.  I just like discussing this stuff, James    Unless you crack wise about my momma or accuse me of not caring cuz I'm an evil conservative, then there's truly no bad blood.  Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and that's probably closest to the real reason there are two sides to opinions on the war.  

I actually would have been voting for whoever the Libertarian party threw up there, but I realize this next election won't be about a third party this time (that, and I think Nader's a wack-job...I may go to his rally and pour out gasoline on the ground or empty a few cans of hair spray into the atmosphere...look for me, I'll be on the news with Nader trying to choke the life out of me!), so I'll be throwing my vote at the Republican party.  

I'll prolly be DL'ing the vid tomorrow (real-life intrudes tonight, I'm just replying from work before heading home), and I'll let ya know.  Hey, mebbe you rememeber some song about a "plastic Jesus on my dashboard"?!?  Shot in the dark, but I figure if anyone knows of it, it'd be you  

Everyone saying that Moore has made the mainstream swollow blindly what he puts out is true but remember that lots of other news stations and websites do this as well.

you'll never hear me say they've swallowed blindly what he puts out.  I believe they use his film and similar things like it to promote their agenda while trying to maintain an appearance of balance.  See, putting his stuff in an article lets the writer off (to a certain extent) because if someone disagrees with them or accuses them of being partisan, they tend to fall back on "I'm just reporting on what happened, that's all...it's a sheer coincedence that I happen to be a card-carrying member of the communist party".  For all those who think those people don't exist, see Glenn Beck - and listen to him for a while if he comes in by you (make sure you check out his theory as to why you'll hate his show until a few weeks go by, too!) and check out his staff...he's got an actual card carrying member!  

My opinion is that the bottom line is if he wasn't George Bush's son he would be sweeping some floor somewhere instead of being a leader of the free world.
~Mas

Ya know, I was just thinking the same thing as I watched MY Ivy League graduate janitor sweep up our shop   C'mon, man, be a little more intellectually honest.  That's not your opinion, that's just what you'd LIKE to see him doing.  As it is, it must grate on you like nails on a chalkboard that he gave you back some "extra" money in your paycheck and now you have to figure out how to give it back to some organization better suited to doling out your money than yourself.  Send it here... www.drews_cabinet_fund.org  Thousands (ok, just my OWN) of kids are hoping to play Pac Man...won't you help them realize their dream    

If you want to see the true Liberals and how deeply they think, go to www.protestwarrior.com, that's the real story
GO DREW

DUDE!  That link is sweet!  I"m bookmarking that at home...thanks!

Fredster, what Jakobud said, man

Thank you for all the good links Drew Fredster!  We appreciate it!

I'm a-gonna make it my goal to convert Floyd and Shmokes into Glenn Beck fans...and...if I work hard enough at it...doggone it...think I can, I think I can, I think I ca.....

[MasTequila]

How about a janitor with a DUI or one that can barely even speak english correctly (go ahead and goole his fantastic quotes, try "bush funny quotes") or a janitor they can't even prove served in the national guard because they "lost" his records.

Ivy league please, you think daddy didn't have any pull in that one, and even then Ivy league is a football league not a golden path to greatness.  Now you are being intellectually dishonest.

Anyway did you know that in most states you will have a very hard time becoming a police officer if you have a DUI yet our dynamo P and VP have 3 together. GO TEAM!!!

~Mas

[fredster]

janitor they can't even prove served in the national guard because they "lost" his records.

Ok. I was in the Army, the Army reserve, and the National Guard. They lost my records too. 2 years worth. I served 9 years total. Obviously, you have never been in the military.  If they had his records this long it was a miracle.

Chaney had a 2 DUI's? Wow. I don't recall seeing that. Got a link to that?  
But you are right, MasTequila. They'd have trouble getting to be cops in one or two states. Bus Driver's too.  Our Former president, as honest and decent as he was couldn't hold his lawyer's licence in Ark because of that little episode with Monica and her cigar. Seems he misrepresented something somewhere.  

I guess we can forgive people if they are Democrats though. And since Bush got his younger life in order and doesn't drink anymore, we should never give him any credit, after all, he's a conservative.  They can never reformed huh?

I guess that even when the 9/11 commission revealed the other day that the "yellow cake" from Niger was actually pretty good intel, we shouldn't admit that either.  Seems like the CIA Agent/Talk Show guest that rebuffed him is working for Kerry now. Huh.  

Michael Moore is a "stupid white guy". I don't really know what this man wants, and I really don't know if he does. He is backing away from serious discussion on it.  He knows he's put out a piece of work that is making money and he's playing it for all it's worth.

It all comes down to two sides.  One side thinks Bush is honest and is working in our best interests.  The other side thinks he's not and he has some agenda.  

After we get to that, the discussion always gets to name calling and slogans.  So we know the issue.

Nobody questioned the intel at the time.  Saddam was a maniac.  His sons were even more bent. They were waiting for a time they could come out with force and take over the middle east.  Remember in '90, Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. He had capabitlities and he was ruthless. I feel safer now that the machine he had is destroyed. I fall on the "Bush is honest and is working in our best interests" side.

[rampy]

fwiw, (I didn't read all the posts in this thread, my noggin is full at the moment)  my buddy runs a site for this type of political discussion...   myspinzone

currently there are more "right" leaners than left leaners on the site (or at least are active/proficient posters)

*shrug* if political discourse is your thing, check it out (d-bunk the lies, d-bunk the d-bunkers, support your point of view) the original poster would fit right in =)

You'll actually won't find me over there (anymore) as i've foresaken arguing about politics on the internet =)

rampy

[MasTequila]

Yes you are right I have not been in the armed forces before, I never claimed to be.  I guess maybe missing records is a common thing but then again I am going out on a limb here and saying you are not the offspring of a former President.  They may keep tighter hold of those, but I do not know.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20778 There you go, it does not give great detail but it says they both have DUI's and I am pretty sure Cheney has 2, if i am wrong than I retract saying it, I am no expert on this.  In fact this will be the first election I am able to vote in because of my ripe old age of 20.  

Also I do not doubt that Bush is trying to help us but I don't think he is doing that good of a job.  After this 4-year bang up job it will be hard for the US to get back into the international standing it had.  With basically telling the UN to f off cause we are going to Iraq and with all this abuse over there now, our "good" name got put in the dirt because of the people at the wheel (Bush, Rumsfeld, etc..).  

Now all I hear about is americans getting kidnapped and decapitated.  As someone who was involved in the armed forces I would like to know if you think the soldiers/US Staff were just having fun, acting on their own or if their orders to do that "abuse" came from Rumsfeld or someone else.

None of this is meant to offend anyone and if I have done so I apologize, I said before I am no expert and these are my opinions.

A few other things I do not like bush for are:

-Gay marriage
I am not gay, in fact I don't even think I know any gay people but if they want to make some kind of law for that the last place it should be is on the constitution.

-Stem cell research
The advancement of science is very important to me and I am against his views on stem cell research.

-Abortion
I am male (heh) and while I believe that abortion is wrong I believe that women should have the right to choose.


~Mas

[Floyd10]

I'll prolly be DL'ing the vid tomorrow (real-life intrudes tonight, I'm just replying from work before heading home), and I'll let ya know.  Hey, mebbe you rememeber some song about a "plastic Jesus on my dashboard"?!?  Shot in the dark, but I figure if anyone knows of it, it'd be you

Yes I happen to have heard it 3 or 4 times. The band was in rotchester (my homestretch), so I heard about it all the time on the news. lol. well maybe twice. Wasn't it also in a kevin smith movie? Hmm, Im gonna change my title.

To everyone:
Watch that vid. all reasons why Im against bush.
He does exagerate a little, I'll admit (on the taliban comment). After you see it, I'll explain for him.

[8bit]

Hahaha oh people just care to damn much about Michael Moore.  I frankly think he should go back to doing satire like Canadian Bacon.  When I first saw Bowling for Columbine, I picked up on what Moore's original intentions were with the film since prior to it I had read an article that was about him discussing to Richard Linklater about the the evolution of documentrys and his new project Bowling for Columbine.  However as we all know Moore has heavy political tones within much of his work which tends to overshadow the point of the film.  Bowling for Columbine went from exploiting the questioning of why the acts at Columbine occured to that the film was a forefront of anti-gun propaghanda.  About 1 month after the movie came out, Bowling for truth aired onto the internet.  I read it up because I was curious as to what political analyst were refering to this movie as "its not a documentry" and "the movie is full of lies".  As a fox news viewer, I saw arguements made over the movie and that the anaylsts like O'Reilly and Hannity were using the information that was from this site.  However when I actually looked into the site I saw what they were refering Moore as to lying about.  Most of it was completely ludicrous and having nothing to do with factual information what so ever.  Case being arguements made about "Moore gives false information that violent video games do not cause violence" and followed it up with a study conducted by a company whos parented by a christian organization who also parents a 2nd ammendt rights lobbyist campaign.  My favorite part of all of it was watching political analyst with no background in film what so ever try and debunk it as a documentry.  It was absolutely priceless.  I think all of these who are trying to debunk Moore such as Michael Wilson (who is making the film Michael Moore Hates America) are no better than Moore and in many cases are even more biased than Moore himself.

Your only greasing the gears that make Moore tick more every time you pollute his controversiality amoungst the public.

[fredster]

You are right 8bit.

Any publicity is good publicity for Mr. Moore.  I'm done with this thread.

[shmokes]

Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it?  I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.  

Yeah...sorry.  I haven't even been looking for the report (much of my daily news intake comes from NPR.  It's difficult to link to as it is spoken word (of course I could link to streaming audio and you can listen to the story, but I'm sure you'd rather something written).

Hopefully I should have some time today or tomorrow to do a little research and respond.

[Dartful Dodger]

There's still a chance for America to be strong and free after this next election.  Hopefully the people that do believe Moore are also to stupid to vote correctly (like the voters in Florida).

Vegas casino gives singer Linda Ronstadt the boot after performance

<sup>Before singing an encore, she called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Her comments drew loud boos, and some of the 45-hundred people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down her posters and tossed cocktails into the air.</sup>

It seems I underestimated the common sense my fellow Americans have.  I too will not post to any more of these idiotic threads. (no offence Drew, I know why you started this, and your efforts helped renew my faith in the American people)

Don't forget to vote, unless your a Moore fan, then you should go see his movie on election day.

[Santoro]

There's still a chance for America to be strong and free after this next election.

Amen.  Based on the media coverage, I was beginning to think the American public just was too stupid to see through Moore's blatant propoganda.  This story gave me a much-needed shot of confidence in the American intellect.

I cherish the thought of this self-righteous star being escorted out of the casino with her belongings.  I would have paid to see it.  Classic.

[Floyd10]

Amen

[allroy1975]

Am I to assume that you're looking for the report and will post a link when you find it?  I will assume that you haven't been online, I know "life" tends to intrude into our online worlds, and haven't been able to post it.  

Yeah...sorry.  I haven't even been looking for the report (much of my daily news intake comes from NPR.  It's difficult to link to as it is spoken word (of course I could link to streaming audio and you can listen to the story, but I'm sure you'd rather something written).

Hopefully I should have some time today or tomorrow to do a little research and respond.

haven't yo picked up on the point of what EVERYONE complains about from the right?  Any kind of media (except web pages and other sources that PRINT) are run by bad bad people?  the people who want our country to fall apart?  it's all a conspiricy if you heard it on the radio (unless it was rush...the fat drug addict guy who's been divorced 2 times[at least that's what I saw printed on a T Shirt..]...not those 3 guys who sound like women, but are good on drums) or saw it on TV.  

This whole attitude of "well if someone took the time to write it down ..it has got to be true" just blows my mind. I clicked on 2 or 3 of Drews links and it's like....there are so many of those ads on the sides of the "article" that I suspect they may be home made by him on tripod or something.  

What "well respected" paper was it that just had the guy who was just making stuff up and putting it in the paper?  I don't think he made it up, because he wrote it down.  right?  that's how it works?

For the love of god.  How can people argue that one side is right and the other is wrong when they're all as crooked as they could possibly be!?

And who cares if gay people want to get married?  Some of the weddings I go to put an emphasis on LOVE.  If 2 gay people LOVE each other enough to make it legal, why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?

this stuff just irritates me, and I shouldn't have clicked on this thread...but I read a few posts and had to yell at someone about your opinion is your opinion.  It's not right.  It's not wrong.  It's yours and thats all you can say about it.  

The real problem in this country is no one is responsible for anything and everyone is upset.   Everyone gets "offended".  I can't even figure out what that means.  I've never BEEN offended.  I can't imagine being so arrogant that if someone calls me a name or says something I don't like it would actually bother me.  It's their opinion, and they're entitled to that.  

Yeah, Hooray for those people a the Linda Ronstadt (Linda Ronstadt for chrissakes!) show.   Someone said something I didn't like...that means I can throw my drinks and tear the place apart.  Jesus!  are we animals?  why is a singer talking politics the story here?  what about all the idiots who went balistic because they heard some words in a certain order and it upset them?  

Yeah....hey, here's a call out to all you psychos at the Linda Ronstadt show...get out there and vote!  you seem like very stable people....please don't come to my town.

My point is who really cares about any of this...kinda like 8bit pointed out a few posts ago.  I think about a few things....

When clinton was president he got the gig by being cool and playing the sax!  and I was happy and all my friends had good jobs and everything was cool.  Then when bush got elected, I and some of my friends lost our jobs, we don't make as much money now and I see posts on my favorite FREAKING PAGE ON THE INTERNET about how MY BEST FRIEND FROM HIGH SCHOOL JUST GOT KILLED BECAUSE OF OUR WAR.  

I'm sure that Clinton had nothing to do with my job or anyone elses and I'm sure Bush didn't have anything to do with getting all those poor people killed.  But for me, my life and attitude seemed better when there was a Democrat in office.  

Do I need to watch a movie or read a bunch of internet sites (that someone took the time to type up!) to know this stuff?  nope...I just remember.  

Now, I want you all to just reply and say how right I am, and you're all sorry that you tricked me into reading this post.  If you don't I'll be very upset.  If I get too  upset I might get offended....and when people get offended, that's when lawsuits start flying.  

(Saint, if you happen to read this, i'm not really going to sue anybody...I'm a normal person who beleives people should have the right to their own opinion, so when everyone tells me what a stupid idiot fatso loser I am, I can take it...I won't get offended or sue anyone...don't ruin all their fun and close the post and for god's sake don't close th forums!    )

Allroy

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There's still a chance for America to be strong and free after this next election.

Yeah, as long as Bush is voted out of office.

How anyone can support the ultimate flip-flopper is beyond me.
02.08.04:
"I'm a war president."

07.20.04
"I want to be the peace president"

You trust this man with our soldiers? Our Country?


P.S. I never wanted to read this thread since I didn't want to mix something I enjoy (arcade machines) with something I don't (politics)...but I clicked on it hoping the majority of posts would be sensible. Political discourse has gone to hell since 2000. Oh well.

Bush, The Great Divider.

[APFelon]

How anyone can support the ultimate flip-flopper is beyond me.
02.08.04:
"I'm a war president."

07.20.04
"I want to be the peace president"

I don't see where the flip flop is. One could even say those phrases in one breath and it would make perfect sense.

"I am a war president but I want to be the peace president".
"I am a war president and I want to be the peace president".
"I am a Minnesotan but I want to be an Iowan"
"I have a white car but I want to have a black car".

The first phrase shows a statement of fact- "I am a war president"
The second phrase shows a desire- "I want to be the peace president"

Hardly contrary, and a huge leap if you want to conclude, from these two statements, that the man is incapable of leading a military force. Simply because he stated two polar opposites- "War" and "peace" in two seperate phrases does not make the statements converse.

Hope that makes sense.

Anyway, I hate politics on forums like this. It builds bad blood. Bad blood makes for poor cooperation. Poor cooperation leads to a lousy community.

As a request (not a demand; I am not so foolish as to demand anything over an Internet forum) can we avoid topics like this? Here are a few good places to discuss politics and cultural issues ad nauseum:

www.freerepublic.com
www.democraticunderground.com

APf

[J_K_M_A_N]

"I am a Minnesotan but I want to be an Iowan"

OK, being from Minnesota, I have to say "THAT IS WRONG!".

J_K_M_A_N



j/k Iowans  

[DrewKaree]

much of my daily news intake comes from NPR.  It's difficult to link to as it is spoken word (of course I could link to streaming audio and you can listen to the story, but I'm sure you'd rather something written).

Nah, the stream is fine...it's the info that I'm looking for, that's all.  

"I am a Minnesotan but I want to be an Iowan"

OK, being from Minnesota, I have to say "THAT IS WRONG!". j/k Iowans  

well, Iowans have been waiting as long as Minnesotans for a pro football team, so...  (sorry, couldn't resist!)

It seems I underestimated the common sense my fellow Americans have.  I too will not post to any more of these idiotic threads. (no offence Drew, I know why you started this, and your efforts helped renew my faith in the American people)

I used to feel the same thing about my fellow Americans.  I also take no offense.

How about a janitor with a DUI or one that can barely even speak english correctly (go ahead and goole his fantastic quotes, try "bush funny quotes") or a janitor they can't even prove served in the national guard because they "lost" his records.

Ivy league please, you think daddy didn't have any pull in that one, and even then Ivy league is a football league not a golden path to greatness.  Now you are being intellectually dishonest.

I don't spek inglish sew goodly sumtymz neether. I'm sure speaking to the nation or knowing your every word is reported on makes it easy.  Got me on that one.  What it does illustrate is just how good Clinton WAS as a public speaker, and shows what happens when you underestimate a politician.

He had a DUI.  Got me again.  I've seen politicians on either side do things that SHOULD have gotten them thrown into jail if they were regular citizens.  Doesn't make it right on either side, but if there were a prerequisite that you couldn't run for an office if certain things were done by a person, then boot 'em out.  As it is, Bush didn't "run" for policeman.  As shmokes says, you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm sure that when they "find" Bush's records (they did find 'em...but you were looking for something more...?) they'll be sitting right next to John Edward's service records, which will be on top of Bill Clinton's.  I    could care less if a president or candidate served, didn't serve, whatever.  Why does that matter to many, anyway?  

That his dad had pull in getting him into college, sure.  It's insanity to think otherwise...for him, or hundreds/thousands of other kids who go there too.  Your point was?  Dad got him those grades there, too, or was that something he did?

"even then Ivy league is a football league"
COME ON!  Now you're just talking silly  Are you referring to last year's national champ, Harvard?  woops!  

"not a golden path to greatness.  Now you are being intellectually dishonest" So you're being tried for murder.  You'd rather have the lawyer from JoeSchmo University defending you, and wouldn't think you MIGHT have a better chance with the guy with the Harvard law degree?  C'mon!  Never did I say it was a "golden path to greatness", but I DO say having an MBA from one of those schools shows you DO have a touch more brains than he's given credit for.  If you wish to discredit Bush for what he's achieved, then let us know that you also think that Clinton would have been sweeping another part of the factory that Bush would be working in too  Gaining knowledge counts, no matter what side of the aisle you lean into.

I guess maybe missing records is a common thing but then again I am going out on a limb here and saying you are not the offspring of a former President.  They may keep tighter hold of those, but I do not know.

status profiling?

<sup>Logan says Bush could have turned his DUI into a positive campaign message.

"He could have taken it and run with it, and been very proactive about it and made a stance against it," she said, "because he has been supportive of tougher drunk-driving laws in Texas."

As Texas governor, Bush has backed lowering the legal limit for blood-alcohol concentration to 0.8 percent and making it illegal for underage drivers to have even a trace of alcohol in their systems. Both are now the law in Texas. The national office of MADD issued a statement today saying, "We appreciate Gov. Bush's support of anti-drunk-driving legislation in Texas."

"He could have been more up front [about his DUI], and it could have worked to his advantage," Logan said. "Too late now."</sup>

So he passed tougher laws, they recognized that he could have used it as a campain issue (to his advantage) and didn't...I'm good with how he's dealt with it...everyone remembers how this came out right before everyone went to the polls (was that an attempt to use it to someone else's advantage ) I'm ok with how Bush dealt with his DUI...are you ok with my state's exhibition of utter hypocrisy towards a politician's DUI?  See, it's silly to think there's not an example on either side of the aisle.

As someone who was involved in the armed forces I would like to know if you think the soldiers/US Staff were just having fun, acting on their own or if their orders to do that "abuse" came from Rumsfeld or someone else.

you say Rumsfeld or someone else.  That encompasses a whole lot of people who COULD have acted on their own.  Please narrow it down or be more specific in your charge.  I do not think Mr. Rumsfeld was apprised of that particlar situation before it happened, and have no reason to think otherwise.

None of this is meant to offend anyone and if I have done so I apologize, I said before I am no expert and these are my opinions.

If any of us were experts, wouldn't we be better suited to talking to someone other than a bunch of arcade fanatics

[DrewKaree]

haven't yo picked up on the point of what EVERYONE complains about from the right?  Any kind of media (except web pages and other sources that PRINT) are run by bad bad people?  the people who want our country to fall apart?  it's all a conspiricy if you heard it on the radio (unless it was rush...the fat drug addict guy who's been divorced 2 times[at least that's what I saw printed on a T Shirt..]...not those 3 guys who sound like women, but are good on drums) or saw it on TV.

if you read me, it's not about bad people, it's about how the story is written to make the most impact.  The fat drug addict says what he says to make the most impact.  That's why to you, he's the fat drug addict, while to many, he's known more commonly as Rush Limbaugh.  

This whole attitude of "well if someone took the time to write it down ..it has got to be true" just blows my mind. I clicked on 2 or 3 of Drews links and it's like....there are so many of those ads on the sides of the "article" that I suspect they may be home made by him on tripod or something.

Actually, geocities gives me more features I want, so I go with them.

What "well respected" paper was it that just had the guy who was just making stuff up and putting it in the paper?  I don't think he made it up, because he wrote it down.  right?  that's how it works?

that was the NY Times.  The rest, depends on your perspective.  

For the love of god.  How can people argue that one side is right and the other is wrong when they're all as crooked as they could possibly be!?

well, if you don't stand for something you'll fall for everything.  The challenge is to pick who you think is the "least crooked".

And who cares if gay people want to get married?

many many people who think it's not right.

Some of the weddings I go to put an emphasis on LOVE.  If 2 gay people LOVE each other enough to make it legal, why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?

because then you wouldn't be able to call them "gay".

...but I read a few posts and had to yell at someone about your opinion is your opinion.  It's not right.  It's not wrong.  It's yours and thats all you can say about it.

but it's still o.k. to speak about your opinion and debate with others who don't hold the same opinion, that's all that's going on...it's not like I told someone I'm tearing the control panel off of my Centipede and making a three-tier 247 button 4 player control panel to replace it.

The real problem in this country is no one is responsible for anything and everyone is upset.   Everyone gets "offended".  I can't even figure out what that means.  I've never BEEN offended.  I can't imagine being so arrogant that if someone calls me a name or says something I don't like it would actually bother me.  It's their opinion, and they're entitled to that.

stop forcing your opinions on us, man.  But seriously, good point.

Yeah, Hooray for those people a the Linda Ronstadt (Linda Ronstadt for chrissakes!) show.   Someone said something I didn't like...that means I can throw my drinks and tear the place apart.  Jesus!  are we animals?  why is a singer talking politics the story here?  what about all the idiots who went balistic because they heard some words in a certain order and it upset them?

the few that did those things didn't exhibit the same discretion others did.  I'd be upset that I paid $80 to hear someone sing and they started spewing their political views...perhaps some felt the need to extract their pound of flesh.  That was their choice.  If they got arrested for it, that was the consequence to their actions...what better way to teach cause and effect - responsibility for one's own actions?!?

My point is who really cares about any of this...kinda like 8bit pointed out a few posts ago.  I think about a few things....

well, the same could be said of this hobby...different strokes for different folks.  Sometimes, each person being different, worlds collide.  It seems that many care about this...you yourself exhibit concern - at least about the fact that we shouldn't care so much about this

When clinton was president he got the gig by being cool and playing the sax!  and I was happy and all my friends had good jobs and everything was cool.  Then when bush got elected, I and some of my friends lost our jobs, we don't make as much money now

I'm sure that Clinton had nothing to do with my job or anyone elses and I'm sure Bush didn't have anything to do with getting all those poor people killed.  But for me, my life and attitude seemed better when there was a Democrat in office.  

I saw you speak to this in two differenc areas...combined 'em here...neither president had anything to do with your job, those are decisions that a  company makes.  Why didn't you hold out for a better paying job?  I think two planes flying into buildings in an attack in our land may have something to do with MY life and attitude being different, but your life and attitude (you spoke of personal responsibility before) are what you make of them.

and I see posts on my favorite FREAKING PAGE ON THE INTERNET about how MY BEST FRIEND FROM HIGH SCHOOL JUST GOT KILLED BECAUSE OF OUR WAR.

I see that it upsets you, but it's still something that will be talked about, for precisely the reason you're upset...some folks want to voice their displeasure at this war and all that is going on around it.  I'd like not to be able to say "I've got you beat" in the people lost in the war issue, but that's why I feel the need to speak about this stuff.  I find Moore's movie personally offensive towards the people I've lost, and feel that his lies are detrimental to the safety of our armed forces and thus, can't sit by and not say something about it.

Do I need to watch a movie or read a bunch of internet sites (that someone took the time to type up!) to know this stuff?  nope...I just remember.

It has nothing to do with remembering.  I have more money in my check - I SAW the extra money I got to keep.  That had nothing to do with a movie or some article I read or remembering.  It was an affirmation that someone was doing something for me that I believed in, and that's why people watch/read things that affirm their point of view.

Now, I want you all to just reply and say how right I am, and you're all sorry that you tricked me into reading this post.

you're right, I'm sorry I tricked you into reading this.

I'm a normal person

said the guy with the pretty white jacket with the crossed sleeves that buckles up the back

when everyone tells me what a stupid idiot fatso loser I am, I can take it...I won't get offended

you are a stupid idiot fatso loser (sorry, couldn't resist)

[DrewKaree]

As promised, the transcript of the movie Fahrenheit 911 - first is 59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 911, so you can follow along as you read.

Download the file - right click and rename - change name to Fahrenheit 911.zip

Two formats, .doc and .txt, are included.

[Magnet_Eye]

59 Deceits of F/911?

Compared to the 10,124 deciets from the Bush (BUllSHit) administration!? LMAO!

You guys are too much!  

[Valence]

59 deceits of F/911.
Crap

Accuses Moore of being deceitfull when the author uses the very same thing Moore does to try to prove his point.

My favorite line

"And if you think that the people who are slaughtering American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are terrorists rather than "minutemen," then it is true that Moore supports terrorists."

Yep, that proves it for me.

Not

[8bit]

Hmm that link about ronstadt couldnt be more wrong.  There were 1,360 people at attendance according to the ticket sales and it was an outdoor event.... though according to this site <i>some of the 45-hundred people in attendance stormed out of the theater.</i>

Also it was noted as that the crowd by divided in two... half cheering and aplauding (giving ovations) and the other half booing and it was noted a couple drink and napkins thrown.  Ronstadt was already aware of this would occur since she had brought up moore during a past couple shows on her tour.  Also people didnt storm out of the theaters they said it was about 1/4 of the audience who just got up and left.   I just love how if you switch a couple words arround you can make it sound so dramatic.  Oh media and your ways of deception...

Yep that was deffinetly some head line news was it not...  

[DrewKaree]

59 Deceits of F/911?

Compared to the 10,124 deciets from the Bush (BUllSHit) administration!? LMAO!

You guys are too much!  

Come on...make with the descriptions...more words - flesh out your arguments.  

BTW, did you download and read it/the movie?

[8bit]

59 Deceits of F/911?

Compared to the 10,124 deciets from the Bush (BUllSHit) administration!? LMAO!

You guys are too much!  

Come on...make with the descriptions...more words - flesh out your arguments.  

BTW, did you download and read it/the movie?

Have YOU actually read it all and seen the movie?  And when I mean see the movie, I mean see it from a point of veiw that wont see what it wants to see.  Do you not read things like bowling for truth and kinda wonder why they say certain things they do?  Do you actually even question that other form of supposid "truth" you are shoveled.   Or do you just stand behind it because its overall content is just out to debunk both Moore and his name?

[DrewKaree]

Have YOU actually read it all and seen the movie?

As a matter of fact, I have, that's why I started this thread.  Have you not read that?  It may disqualify you from commenting on me, if you haven't  I've seen people say that a person is poorly qualified to comment on something if they haven't seen or "experienced" it personally.  Now, I'll admit, Dodgeball got my money, but I saw and "experienced" this film.

And when I mean see the movie, I mean see it from a point of veiw that wont see what it wants to see.

So now the "you gotta see the movie" argument is being further refined, more narrowed?  Are you saying if I didn't see it this way, it precludes me from commenting on it?!?  I've gone into plenty of movies for my wife that I DREADED seeing because they were "chick flicks" (honey, in case you're reading this, see, I DO love you) and come out saying "that was a pretty good movie".  

I didn't need to go into that movie with any different point of view than what I already had.  That's a specious point to bring up.

Do you not read things like bowling for truth and kinda wonder why they say certain things they do?

I would like to pose the reverse of your question to you - Do you not wonder why he is writing the things that he does?  Do you not wonder if there's a possibility that there may be another (or usually, three, four, or more sources) source out there that debunks his arguments?  That's rather interesting, as it appears that you are assuming that I don't do this.  

I'll kindly direct you to the repeated, again and again, over and over asking by myself to those who disagree with me to show me the information they have used to form their opinion.  I think you'd have to be blind to read this thread and think I'm unwilling to see both sides, but I've been looking so long, I had to form an opinion. After I've formed an opinion, though, I'm the type of person who will stand by it and fight for it, as I don't just "fall into" them.  

It also doesn't mean that I just casually dismiss your argument as "some left-wing nutjob's lunacy".  You may sway me to rethink my position, although so far, you've just told me (and I'm paraphrasing) that even though I've seen it, I haven't seen it with "the right frame of mind" and I haven't questioned Moore's "facts".  I dunno what number that falls under in Dale Carnegie's book, but so far, I'm not looking to change my position based on some "left-wing nutjob's lunacy

I respect Moore because he doesn't waver constantly about what he believes.  It doesn't mean I'll ever agree with him, but I do respect him for his stance.  I wonder, do you know his stance - howhe feels about his "fellow Americans"?  I believe I'm more than capable of figuring out why he puts out the things he does, since he's been reported time and again commenting on his work and the America he comes from, and I am more than confident that I can figure out what he is attempting to do with his films and books.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Moore views us as idiots.  In case you don't feel like clicking this link

_{it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.}

[8bit]

wow your very good at filling words in my mouth.  Maybe you should your hand at making misleading documentrys as well.  

You seem to venture off topic of my question and never directly answer it but ramble on and on and in some instances repeated things you just said.  Very cute.  And yes to answer your questions I have read the information.  I frequent many other forums that get the same type threads with the same links.

What I am saying is if you saw the movie going in with your own political bias (we all have one so this isnt putting you out on the spot) misguide your preceptions as to what you were looking for in the film.  Im give you an example with this.  Many who saw bowling for columbine saw it only as just an anti-gun film instead of rather what Moore was originally intending for.. however to be fair Moore really went askew of those original intentions for the film to further bring out emphasis towards cultures affect on our motivs.  A lot of the time you can make something out of nothing if you just look deep enough (and as a film studies major, I can tell you first hand ive had enough classes where people have made attempts to do so... so extreme it just boggles the mind how they tried to connect it).  But with instance of Moore he does explicitly bring upon letting up on what hes trying to come accross with.  To break this one down even further...  heres a good example .. your aware of IMDB.com correct?  If not its the internet movie database.  Before F9/11 was even released out into theaters it had only been see by the select few at the Cannes's Film Festival and those who part of production and post production of the film.  However even before it hit theaters members of the site had already voted in ranking F9/11.  Out of close to 2000 people who voted and claimed to see a movie that wasnt even out in theaters or seen by public ...2/3 of the vote gave it a 10 out of 10 (the best a movie can get) and the other 1/3 gave it a 1 out of 10 which is the lowest a movie can be ranked.  This is what I mean about the intentions of going in seeing what you want to see.  Just as there are people who want to see only certain factions of the film there are others who are taking certain factions and making more to them than what they are and trying to read even in deeper.  

What I mean about the supposid truth is that do you actually look into what they say inside sites like the 59 deceits, have you researched up what bowling for truth says.  As someone who has read through links like this I see much of their arguements head off into having no support of themselves.  I saw commentator/political analyst Sean Hannity use things from the bowling for truth site when it use to be nothing more than a .pdf document.  At the time he didnt have much support over his claims which later turned out to be false... but if those claims were in time evident as false he would have made a fool of himself.  What happens is though one party will go out and try and uncover anothers reasons/logic ....  often no one goes to to either support or check that other partys claims.  

Im not trying to play any partisan game or trying to support Moore.  If you didnt read my earlier post, I thought the movie was frankly quite boring and just lost itsslef in all the hype is was given.  The fact of the matter is that too many are further projecting Moore by trying to subject to trying to debunk him.  Im frankly tired of listening to an abundant of zealotry on message boards by people subjecting onto others that they dont know the truth unless they are told so from another for of media that has potential to be equally as biased.  And I think im deffinetly not alone.

[DrewKaree]

You seem to venture off topic of my question and never directly answer it but ramble on and on and in some instances repeated things you just said.  Very cute.

I answered each of your questions.  If you feel I didn't answer one of your questions, please state the specific question you feel I didn't answer.  Please show, as well, the instances where I put words in your mouth.

Im give you an example with this.  Many who saw bowling for columbine saw it only as just an anti-gun film instead of rather what Moore was originally intending for.. however to be fair Moore really went askew of those original intentions for the film to further bring out emphasis towards cultures affect on our motivs

I just cannot comprehend how you can say what Moore was intending for, then say that he went askew!  Isn't he the same person who did the movie?!  How the heck can you say he intended one thing, then went askew?!  He intended to go askew, then!

Im frankly tired of listening to an abundant of zealotry on message boards by people subjecting onto others that they dont know the truth unless they are told so from another for of media that has potential to be equally as biased.  And I think im deffinetly not alone.

what I'm tired of is seeing the promotion he is receiving by saying Disney was "censoring" him, when all they were doing was making a business decision.  He's achieved his goal, his movie is out, and now it's being used to pillory an administration by using clear deception and outright lies.

[8bit]

Before bowling for columbine was out Moore did an interview with Richard Linklater (famous for his indy films like slacker, he also wrote at the same time a movie called Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes).  Moore discussed what he thought about indy films and how they were heading and then Linklater asked him if hes got anything new planned.  he mentioned a movie that was going to be about Columbine High massacre (which would become Bowling For Columbine).  Moore's original intent according to him was that with the height of everyone accusing each other of why the kids at columbine did what they did he was going to show that these kids werent being influenced by video games, music, tv,... etc.  Nothing about the NRA, nothing about the meetings that occured and all that... that appeared into the concept somewhere at the start of the movie.  Gus Van Sant stole a similar approach with his film Elephant which was recreating a similar massacre to show that the kids had all these aspects around them (like violent video games, violent movies, music.. etc) but he failed with coming accross with resolve for the film.  At this point in time most people didnt have a clue who Michael Moore even was.   However Moore, being Moore just part way into pre-production switched a great course of the film.  And this is something that does happen in films... ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- theres another version of American History X that didnt make it because Norton's ego got in the way.  But with Moore there was only one thing bigger than himself... and that was his ego.   Its possible that he tried to doupe us.... but I think with an interview with a friend like Linklater... he would have been honest with him.

[DrewKaree]

_{Before bowling for columbine was out Moore did an interview with Richard Linklater (famous for his indy films like slacker, he also wrote at the same time a movie called Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes).  Moore discussed what he thought about indy films and how they were heading and then Linklater asked him if hes got anything new planned.  he mentioned a movie that was going to be about Columbine High massacre (which would become Bowling For Columbine).  Moore's original intent according to him was that with the height of everyone accusing each other of why the kids at columbine did what they did he was going to show that these kids werent being influenced by video games, music, tv,... etc.  Nothing about the NRA, nothing about the meetings that occured and all that... that appeared into the concept somewhere at the start of the movie.  Gus Van Sant stole a similar approach with his film Elephant which was recreating a similar massacre to show that the kids had all these aspects around them (like violent video games, violent movies, music.. etc) but he failed with coming accross with resolve for the film.  At this point in time most people didnt have a clue who Michael Moore even was.   However Moore, being Moore just part way into pre-production switched a great course of the film.  And this is something that does happen in films... <auto-censored> theres another version of American History X that didnt make it because Norton's ego got in the way.  But with Moore there was only one thing bigger than himself... and that was his ego.   Its possible that he tried to doupe us.... but I think with an interview with a friend like Linklater... he would have been honest with him.}

I once heard it said about me that

You seem to venture off topic of my question and never directly answer it but ramble on and on and in some instances repeated things you just said.  Very cute

 "Imitation" is the most sincere form of flattery, and I appreciate your expression of approval of my work.  

[Floyd10]

lol

[fredster]

Please read my girl's article:

http://www.anncoulter.org/

[Floyd10]

ooooooooooo. I hate her

[DrewKaree]

ooooooooooo. I hate her

James, you know she secretly turns you on and you really want her to tie you up and spank you until you call HER "daddy"!  

 

C'mon, fess up!

[Floyd10]

Lol. actually she isnt that good looking...

[rchadd]

You can have bloody Tony "Smiler" Blair if you want him.

[Floyd10]

hehehe

[GGKoul]

hehehe

Now thats funny  

[hulkster]

um...i like mame and street figther.  and i think i heard that bush loves arcade games and kerry hates them because he's a hippie....but thats just what i heard.  

[fredster]

Anybody see Moore on OReilly?

Moore kept saying the President lied.  OReilly quoted all the sources that said he didn't.

Kinda like a preview of the election.

I feel like if you don't like Bush, you should vote Nader. I mean, that's a protest vote..

[DrewKaree]

The latest on Kerry and why we should all be concerned with voting and making a choice one way or the other...click this link for the most important reason we all should be rising up to take arms one way or the other.  And since it's written and on the internet, it's GOT to be true    

[APFelon]

I hate to keep this stupid thread alive, but I found this site that is a take on the "George Bush or Monkey" site (In the interest of fairness, here is the link: http://www.bushorchimp.com/ )

This is the same business on Michael Moore. http://mooreorpig.com/moore_or_pig.html

APf

[Floyd10]

Don't forget to goto my thread! Musicians against bush (in off topic)

[DrewKaree]

Since I'm betting it may have been "missed"   by the local/national media you pay attention to, I'm offering to you this:  "The Bloomington Pantagraph published an article in which it said if Moore "wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and 'falsely represented' pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first."  
Excerpted from the article

The letter to Moore says, "In an instance that The Pantagraph prints materials in which there is a mistake, it is corrected. It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard and correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."

In its news story, the paper said, "The letter calls into question the ethics of how Moore made his movie, a movie whose primary purpose is to call into question the ethics of the Bush White House."

yeah, right...don't hold your breath on that first one  


And - GET THIS!    Kuwait Bans 'Fahrenheit 9/11'  EVERYONE heard about this one, right?!?

And lastly, Saudi Royal Family Claims "Fahrenheit 9/11" Grossly Unfair In this piece, the Saudi Ambassador to London has the temerity to state

"He missed an important opportunity to find out key facts," he said. "In my opinion he should have made every effort to go to a country he has taken to task so heavily in his film."

So time and again Moore decieves/lies (aren't they getting to be interchangeable when referring to this bloated buffoon?) and yet, I haven't seen the news story that condemns his movie as a propoganda piece designed to circumvent the campaign finance laws (tell me this ISN'T designed to be a mouthpiece for the Kerry/Edwards campaign).

As the Judge says...I wouldn't believe a thing that came out of that man's mouth if his tongue came notarized!

[Floyd10]

  Notorized...

Well the Saudi one is pretty muuch saying, "Bush affiliated with us? How insulting!"

That both helps and hurts your opinion DK

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Moore can lose weight, this thread will always be stupid.

[Floyd10]

Moore can lose weight, this thread will always be stupid.

Ouchies

[Dartful Dodger]

Moore can lose weight

That is a lie.

He can't lose weight, and he will die fat, and only lose weight when the worms start eating away at his flesh.

[DrewKaree]

Moore can lose weight, this thread will always be stupid.

That is a lie.

He can't lose weight, and he will die fat, and only lose weight when the worms start eating away at his flesh.

Stuff like DD's post show this thread to be erudite beyond belief.

The only way Moore can lose weight is if Kerry's "end to corporate welfare" causes Hostess to go bankrupt and Twinkies will never be sold again...wait, you can make donuts at home...nope, I change my opinion.  Moore will always be fat.  

See MrC, I can change my opinion.  I'll probably change it back right away, but it is possible.    

[shmokes]

Sorry...I've been silent for a bit.  I got busy with work things and just haven't had the time for this (my god, Drew, you must be a government employee or unemployed).

Okay....Here's Bush admitting that Iraq hasn't got (and didn't have) any WMD's:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/bush.speech.ap/index.html
"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."   I heard him say this.  It was an admission that Iraq did not posess WMD's.

Here is an excellent movie showing Bush joking about there being no WMD's.  It's probably as effective as Michael Moore's film even though it's only about 60 seconds long.
 

On the Abu Ghraib prison conditions, here is a link to the newstory.  It's NPR so you can listen to it, or there's a link to a U.S. News and World News report on it, but it costs a few bucks.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3351015

Edit: here's a print article about it:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/prison.htm

Ann Coulter is a dog.  The only reason people even think she's good looking is in the political pundit world she has no competition.  She's ugly.  And she's worse than Moore when it comes to journalistic integrity.  And she's extraordinarily mean.  A cruel, lying hack.  I swear to god there's something wrong with her.  

Edit: Damn-it  If someone tells me how to set up links right in here I'll fix those.  I guess I can't just use HTML.

Edit 2: I fixed the links, but I don't know how to do them right, so you can make a single word a link and so on.  Cet la vie

[DrewKaree]

...(my god, Drew, you must be a government employee or unemployed).

possibly having foot surgery, so I'm here, there, and everywhere to doctor after doctor after test facility, after therapy after....sheesh...and I work when I can.

Okay....Here's Bush admitting that Iraq hasn't got (and didn't have) any WMD's:
CNN
"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."   I heard him say this.  It was an admission that Iraq did not posess WMD's.

just did this to fix your link...I'll look into this later tonight.  I may concede this to you

Here is an excellent movie showing Bush joking about there being no WMD's.  It's probably as effective as Michael Moore's film even though it's only about 60 seconds long.  

again, just making the link clickable here

On the Abu Ghraib prison conditions, here is a link to the newstory.  It's NPR so you can listen to it, or there's a link to a U.S. News and World News report on it, but it costs a few bucks.  NPR


Edit: here's a print article about it

now it can be viewed

Ann Coulter is a dog.  The only reason people even think she's good looking is in the political pundit world she has no competition.  She's ugly.

I actually agree with this point, but it behooves me to use her to have fun with those who disagree with her because

And she's worse than Moore when it comes to journalistic integrity.  And she's extraordinarily mean.  A cruel, lying hack.  I swear to god there's something wrong with her.

you could be right there.  Or else you try to get others to think you hate her because you secretly love her

If someone tells me how to set up links right in here I'll fix those.  I guess I can't just use HTML.

Actually, those seemed to be perfectly good links if used on a web page, but they use a slightly different format of it for bulletin boards.  Check your IM for how I did it.

Thanks man!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Moore will always be fat.  

*disclaimer*: I think Moore is a blowhard. He made a great film (F9/11) but undermined a good majority of it's valid criticisms by interjecting snide commentary. Just like, Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Severin, O'Reilly, et al. He could have risen above, but he couldn't.
/*disclaimer*

If I were Moore, I'd actually make a documentary about the obescity epidemic in this country and in parallel I'd lose a good portion of the weight in order to make some progressive commentary, and to be a little bit of a smart-ass. If Moore were thin 95% of the wingnuts criticism of him would be instantly invalidated.

[GGKoul]

Before I post this, I just want too say that I am a Canadian and I have not seen F9/11.

But if you don't believe Bush & the Saudi's royal family are "close" friend.  You may want to see this

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0804041gifts1.html

-GGKoul

[Dartful Dodger]

If I were Moore, I'd actually make a documentary about the obescity epidemic in this country and in parallel I'd lose a good portion of the weight in order to make some progressive commentary, and to be a little bit of a smart-ass. If Moore were thin 95% of the wingnuts criticism of him would be instantly invalidated.

If ifs and buts were fruits and nuts....

You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

Before I post this, I just want too say that I am a Canadian and I have not seen F9/11.

I just want to say, you can't vote againts Bush (and that's all Moore wants, not to vote for someone better, just to vote against Bush), so your opinion on this means nothing to me.

[GGKoul]

I just want to say, you can't vote againts Bush (and that's all Moore wants, not to vote for someone better, just to vote against Bush), so your opinion on this means nothing to me.

Alright...

[saint]

Heh. Heheh. As long as everyone's still smiling and polite!

(Saint, if you happen to read this, i'm not really going to sue anybody...I'm a normal person who beleives people should have the right to their own opinion, so when everyone tells me what a stupid idiot fatso loser I am, I can take it...I won't get offended or sue anyone...don't ruin all their fun and close the post and for god's sake don't close th forums!    )

Allroy

[Valence]

You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

Now I know that no anti-moore people talk about this but he was an eagle scout

He also was elected to be on the school board at age 18.

One of the youngest elected people in US history.

I assume Dartful Dodger that you are at least 15. Eagle scout?

But I have to ask if you are over 18 if you have been elected yet?

[Dartful Dodger]

You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

Now I know that no anti-moore people talk about this but he was an eagle scout

He also was elected to be on the school board at age 18.

One of the youngest elected people in US history.

I assume Dartful Dodger that you are at least 15. Eagle scout?

But I have to ask if you are over 18 if you have been elected yet?

I did not say he was fat, I'm saying he IS fat and that he can not lose weight.

[shmokes]

Well...he's definitely fat.  And perhaps somewhat ethically challenged.  But Lazy???  Common.  Maybe you haven't heard of Bowling for Columbine or Farenheight 9/11.  They're these films he is famous for.  

What a bunch of cry babies.  Rush Limbaugh has been doing what Michael Moore is doing for the last...um....a long time.  And you've got Hannedy, O'Reily and Coulter.  Learn to laugh a little.  It helps guard against hypocrisy.  Michael Moore is a bit of a bafoon.  What are you going to do?  Sit around and complain about it?  Now you're sounding like a liberal  

[DrewKaree]

Well...he's definitely fat.  And perhaps somewhat ethically challenged.  But Lazy???  Common.  Maybe you haven't heard of Bowling for Columbine or Farenheight 9/11.  They're these films he is famous for.

he IS about working hard to get his message out, on that, he definitely CANNOT be called lazy.  Good point!

What a bunch of cry babies.  Rush Limbaugh has been doing what Michael Moore is doing for the last...um....a long time.  And you've got Hannedy, O'Reily and Coulter.  Learn to laugh a little.  It helps guard against hypocrisy.  Michael Moore is a bit of a bafoon.  What are you going to do?  Sit around and complain about it?

we were gonna try until you came along with your fascist attitude about telling us what we should and shouldn't do about it  Can you guys believe he TOLD us to laugh a little?  Adolf, thanks for the Volkswagons and all, but...lemme wallow a bit!   (I, for one, am glad he's fat...I'd want him arrested and flogged if he were skinny and good looking, another quality he's not known to possess!)

Now you're sounding like a liberal  

  just you wait'll I tell my mom you said that!  

[Valence]

You are not Moore, Moore is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

You said that Moore can lose weight, you are wrong, he is lazy and fat, that's all he is, that's all he will be.

Now I know that no anti-moore people talk about this but he was an eagle scout

He also was elected to be on the school board at age 18.

One of the youngest elected people in US history.

I assume Dartful Dodger that you are at least 15. Eagle scout?

But I have to ask if you are over 18 if you have been elected yet?

I did not say he was fat, I'm saying he IS fat and that he can not lose weight.

Um, I don't think I said anythings pertaining to what you said about being fat? Maybe you misquoted. I did say a bunch of other things that you choose to ignore though.

[shmokes]

Learn to laugh a little.  

 Can you guys believe he TOLD us to laugh a little?

Correction:  I told you to LEARN to laugh a little.  I left the decision whether or not to laugh completely up to you.  I am completely fascist-label proof.

[DrewKaree]

Correction:  I told you to LEARN to laugh a little.  I left the decision whether or not to laugh completely up to you.

Sorry, you're right.  I didn't read that...but I blame it all on the public school system I'm a product of    I joined the ghetto version of Skull & Bones, Cranium & Femurs, but all we aspired to was "master of our domain".

I look forward to Moore's next movie on public education.  

[shmokes]

Drew,

I notice in your little animated avatar guy that he types with the barrel of one of those pistols used by Nazis in WWII.  Perhaps this is something like a Freudian slip???

Now who's the fascist!!!!?

[Floyd10]

hahaha Now whos michael moore?

[DrewKaree]

Drew,

I notice in your little animated avatar guy that he types with the barrel of one of those pistols used by Nazis in WWII.  Perhaps this is something like a Freudian slip???

Now who's the fascist!!!!?

curses, I've been found out.  Was that a Walther?  Actually, that's one of the reasons I couldn't serve the U.S.  My salutes always were messed up and I couldn't stop saying Heil instead of sir.  That and how I kept spelling U.S. with that funny shaped "S".

As for James, you prancing nancy boy (or is that girly man?) I find your high heeled avatar sexy disturbing.  

[Floyd10]

Drew,

I notice in your little animated avatar guy that he types with the barrel of one of those pistols used by Nazis in WWII.  Perhaps this is something like a Freudian slip???

Now who's the fascist!!!!?

curses, I've been found out.  Was that a Walther?  Actually, that's one of the reasons I couldn't serve the U.S.  My salutes always were messed up and I couldn't stop saying Heil instead of sir.  That and how I kept spelling U.S. with that funny shaped "S".

As for James, you prancing nancy boy (or is that girly man?) I find your high heeled avatar sexy disturbing.  

God bless america the internet

[danny_galaga]

finally seen the movie now.

as you were...

[DrewKaree]

finally seen the movie now.

as you were...

wait....you just saw it?  what took you so long?  Had to put the steering wheel on the correct side of the car before you could drive to the theater?  

[danny_galaga]

hehe. well its been going for maybe a month here but ive gone off michael moore a bit lately so i was contemplating just downloading the movie rather than pad his already rather large wallet!!

i like OUR side better, means we get all the cool jap cars as they were supposed to be  

[DrewKaree]

hehe. well its been going for maybe a month here but ive gone off michael moore a bit lately so i was contemplating just downloading the movie rather than pad his already rather large wallet!!

i like OUR side better, means we get all the cool jap cars as they were supposed to be  

Nobody told me left-leaning people get all the cool jap cars    I may have to re-think my conservative outlook now!  Lied to AGAIN!  

And I think you meant to say "his already FAT wallet"  

Hey, I saw in the run with scissors thread that you said it would be free to get that fixed.  How exactly is it free (not meaning to start another topic in the middle of this, but what better place, hey?!)?  I useta know a nursie from there (can't forget a "tounge" ring, even if that WAS you in disguise....nice photoshop skills, too, btw.  You should turn pro like Pixelhugger  ) and she got paid, so she wasn't donating her skills.

[danny_galaga]

medicare, mah man. medicare. everyones covered for most things except dental. (darful dodgers?) favourite place, france even covers you for that!! you can get private health insurance here, which entails faster service and prettier nurses,  but if you cant afford it you wont be sent to gaol for being sick!! my sister had a boyfriend in the US and he was broke for years after breaking his leg. had to get a loan  

[DrewKaree]

medicare, mah man. medicare. everyones covered for most things except dental. (darful dodgers?) favourite place, france even covers you for that!! you can get private health insurance here, which entails faster service and prettier nurses,  but if you cant afford it you wont be sent to gaol for being sick!! my sister had a boyfriend in the US and he was broke for years after breaking his leg. had to get a loan  

So you have medicare to cover your medical bills.  Gotcha.  What are the tax rates over there to pay for medicare?  Oh, and how much does it cost to get a prettier nurse...I'm ALL for that!  I'm a little disappointed that I pay so much for the woofers   we've got.

[danny_galaga]

who knows? hehe. i never pay much attention to tax rates. our new gst will be obvious when its hiked since its an (arbitrarily) even 10%. different governments draw the line at different things. many countries have some form of medicare. some countries hardly get enough revenue to repair their statues of liberty (not singleing anyone out, hehe). just think, in the real old days governments didnt even pay for soldiers- they just left it up to rich people to supply the armies  

[DrewKaree]

who knows? hehe. i never pay much attention to tax rates. our new gst will be obvious when its hiked since its an (arbitrarily) even 10%. different governments draw the line at different things. many countries have some form of medicare. some countries hardly get enough revenue to repair their statues of liberty (not singleing anyone out, hehe). just think, in the real old days governments didnt even pay for soldiers- they just left it up to rich people to supply the armies  

Yeah, I also don't like the fact that my government's idea of a "budget" is a complete joke - on BOTH sides.  They play the "we should get this much money this year, and because of this, we can increase spending this amount", instead of how you or I do a budget.  We HAVE this much money, so we can't spend above and beyond that, unless a line item in our budget is to pay the bank so we build up a savings.  The U.S. budget is a joke, plain and simple, and both parties use/twist/shape it to suit their purposes, rather than having it suit the people they serve.

Rich claim they are getting hosed, poor claim they are getting hosed...everyone gets hosed, but no one has the cojones to actually fix the problem.  Flat tax, consumption tax, or some combination of both, and a budget that has money to subtract from, rather than hope comes in...wait, let me take my rose-colored glasses off.

THAT should be the movie Moore should make to enlighten us "stupid Americans".  

[shmokes]

Flat tax is lame.  It is intuitively appealing.  It sounds fair.  But the fact (read: opinion) is, applying a 20% tax to a family of four and bumping their annual income from $20,000 to $18,000 has an astronomically greater impact than applying a 20% tax to another family of four which bumps their annual income from $1,000,000 to $800,000.

Rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people.  Private property protection was arguably the founding fathers' cheif concern when designing the new government.  Let the people with property pay for it.

[DrewKaree]

Rich people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people.  Private property protection was arguably the founding fathers' cheif concern when designing the new government.  Let the people with property pay for it.

If you'll notice, I didn't say a flat tax was the ideal or only solution.  You are referring to, in essence, a consumption tax, which I am for.  I don't care how it gets paid, just make it so that we all know who gets to pay what, and that is what ISN'T being addressed.  THAT is the point where a budget should be started, which is the thing I was addressing.  

While I am not rich, and am FAR more than a few shades away from it (you would be hard pressed to say I am middle class, I dare say), I do not agree with the concept of penalizing someone who made money.  What incentive would there ever be to start a business, for instance, if, after doing well, you'd be penalized for it?  Now, if someone MAKES more money, how do you figure that they aren't already paying more?  Do you honestly think that poor people are paying the same or MORE than rich people?  Also, what are your definitions of rich and poor?  The trailer park queen with her t.v., vcr, and cell phone are far more rich than what the rest of the world consider poor.  

[danny_galaga]

hehe. death and taxes...

[shmokes]

hehe. death and taxes...

Which reminds me...I'm also for the death tax.


And I don't just think that rich people should pay more than poor people, I think that they should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  Just so you don't think this comes from a chip on my shoulder, I fully intend to join, at least the upper middle class, if not the upper class when I finish school.  I've got a plan .    I just think I should get taxed higher when I do.

[fredster]

Income taxes were not imposed by the founding fathers.  In fact, it wasn't imposed until the war of 1812. It wasn't on individuals, but more like a sales tax then.  A real federal income tax was levied first in 1862 to pay for reconstruction.  After that it was removed of in 1872.  

The supreme court said income taxes were actually unconstitutional in 1895.

It took a constitutional amendment in 1913 (the 16th amendment) to change that.

Here in TN, there is NO income tax on individuals, they only collect sales tax.  It's 9.25%.  People have tried here to change that, but sorry, we like it like that.

It keeps the government at bay.  In the end, it's a whole lot less than I paid in IN with a 6% sales tax AND income tax AND all kinds of fees.

I like the idea of a Flat tax.  Richard Lugar proposed that in 1996 and again in 2000.  

One thing about a flat tax is that everybody can understand %.  Nobody can understand the tax code we have with all the different levels and rules.

[shmokes]

That's true, and I can understand how my post could be misconstrued to suggest that I was claiming that the founding fathers implemented the income tax based on the wording of my post.

The founding fathers, of course, did not institute ANY tax.  They merely gave that power to congress (Article 1, section 8 if I remember correctly).  But the government was set up around private property protection.  They even changed Jefferson's (who got it from Locke, I think), "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to, " ...life, liberty or property."  

In fact, the catalyst to the constitutional convention was Shay's Rebellion in Massachusettes, where local farmers who had responded to a call to serve in the military came back to an aristocracy who was forclosing on their farms.  They rebelled and Massachusettes didn't have an army to put down the rebellion.  Massachusettes asked for federal help, but the federal government was too weak under the Articles of Confederation to offer assistance.  Shay's Rebellion put the fear of god into rich property holders all across the land.  It was a full-on Marxist-style working-class uprising and the 55 rich white guys who drafted the Constitution had a lot to lose if Shay's Rebellion replayed itself throughout the States.  

The Constitution was formed to protect private property.  Federal income tax, I would imagine, would have been impracticle at the time, given the technology and lack of things like Medicare and Social Security.

I'm not necessarily married to income tax, but I don't see any better way of sticking it to the rich people   . You can't very well have a sales clerk check somebody's net worth before ringing up a sale so they will know which sales tax rate to charge.  

Sorry for the little history lesson.   I hope it's interesting enough that I don't seem too idiotic for yapping so much.

[fredster]

And I don't just think that rich people should pay more than poor people, I think that they should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

OMG Robin Hood.

Rich people should pay more tax? Redistribution of wealth is what you would consider a good idea? whoa dude.

The sales tax could be applied to affect rich people if it were applied under the luxury tax ideas.  Certain things could be off limits to taxes, things like food, clothing of a certain price, etc.  That would offset the impact on less well off people.

I'd like it just to get rid of the IRS.  So would Willie Nelson.  I think it stands in the way of poor people trying to get ahead.

I think it's a very workable idea.

[shmokes]

Income tax brackets, luxury tax, death tax.  Whatever works.  Like I say, I'm not married to income tax.  It's all redistribution of wealth.  And yes, I am for it.

Do I believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"  No, not really.  Or, rather, I believe that it's a fundamentally good idea, but I think if you add a healthy dose of capitalistic incentive in there a person's "ability" can be dramatically increased.  

I fall somewhere in the middle.  I think people should be rewarded for hard work, blah blah blah.  I just think they owe a greater percentage back to society.  Robin Hood was good, despite what Ayn Rand will tell you.  He wasn't just robbing the rich, he was robbing the rich people who were stealing from the poor people.  It's an important distinction.  

Yes, rich people should pay more tax.  You are taxing a rich person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.  You tax a poor person's ability to send their kids to college.  Once again, a flat tax (one in which everybody pays the same percentage of their income in taxes) does not affect everyone the same way.  Taking $200,000 out of a $1,000,000 annual household income does not affect a person in as imporant a way as taking $4,000 out of a $20,000 household income.  That would be a 20% flat tax (but I suspect a flat tax would likely need to be quite a bit higher than that, unless our government changed its spending habits fundamentally).  Whether you tax them with luxury taxes or income taxes, rich people should pay more in taxes.  

[DrewKaree]

It's all about redistribution of wealth.  And yes, I am for it.

Do I believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"  No, not really.  Or, rather, I believe that it's a fundamentally good idea, but I think if you add a healthy dose of capitalistic incentive in there a person's "ability" can be dramatically increased.  

I fall somewhere in the middle.  I think people should be rewarded for hard work, blah blah blah.  I just think they owe a greater percentage back to society.  Robin Hood was good, despite what Ayn Rand will tell you.  He wasn't just robbing the rich, he was robbing the rich people who were stealing from the poor people.  It's an important distinction.  

Yes, rich people should pay more tax.  You are taxing a rich person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.  You tax a poor person's ability to send their kids to college.  Once again, a flat tax (one in which everybody pays the same percentage of their income in taxes) does not affect everyone the same way.  Taking $200,000 out of a $1,000,000 annual household income does not affect a person in as imporant a way as taking $4,000 out of a $20,000 household income.  That would be a 20% flat tax (but I suspect a flat tax would likely need to be quite a bit higher than that, unless our government changed its spending habits fundamentally).  Whether you tax them with luxury taxes or income taxes, rich people should pay more in taxes.  

Other than the college example, I don't disagree with very much you said, I'd perhaps word it differently....at work right now, so don't have bunches of time to think over the theory you post in that quote.  

The tax on college for a poor person can be more than offset by grants and scholarships if a person is industrious enough to search out all available options.  I have 6 friends that paid for their schooling in this fashion, 2 who actually got paid to go to school.  

Luxury taxes generally do NOT work.  Remember the boat tax of a few years ago and the stories of the shipyards laying off millions (hyperbole, sorry) of workers because the "rich" weren't buying new boats because of the tax?  

Consumption tax (since no one agrees on a flat tax).

Oh, and tax the SNOT out of any Australian who posts their opinion on the internet.  They should move to France.  

[shmokes]

Yeah, you're probably right to a large degree about college being a bad example.  I should have just used ability to pay for high school.....or toilet paper.  And, in reality, there are many people who can't afford to send their kids to college, but don't qualify for grants either.  

[danny_galaga]

my nose is absolutely clean from all the snot thats been taxed out of it. i wont need kleenex for years...

oh, and we're having a lovely summer here in my little french country retreat  

[fredster]

I'm a little fuzzy here, what's the difference between a "consumption tax" and a "sales tax"?  

Flat tax isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about a "sales tax".  

[shmokes]

Sales tax is when you get charged extra at the cash register for a case of beer.

Consumption tax is when a representative of the IRS comes into your home and charges you based on how much of it you drink  

[DrewKaree]

I'm a little fuzzy here, what's the difference between a "consumption tax" and a "sales tax"?

They're very similar.  It would probably raise one tax, while reducing or eliminating another (those on the other side of it argue that it again aids the rich and screws the poor, instead of seeing that it benefits the poor, and benefits the rich as well.  It's all a matter of how you view someone else's money   )

First, you would still have a "sales tax" as you know it, only it would be a higher amount.  In states where there is no sales tax, it would be implemented.  Therefore, everyone pays sales tax for everything, and last I looked, even rich people need toilet paper, so they'd be paying it as well.  As an example, I'm in WI, my state tax is 6.5%.  Under a consumption tax, it would go to, let's say, 10%.  The additional 3.5% would be going to the federal government (the 6.5 would still be going to the state, unless they reformed as well).

The second part of this would come in the form of savings.  You pay tax on everything you buy, but you would be able to deduct, at the end of the year, everything you have saved over the course of that year, probably with a limit, but the goal is to get people to save their money.  After some point, it would be human nature to want to spend some of your windfall, at which point, you pay your increased sales tax.  If not, those "poor" would get a tax break (money back from their daily tax)...eventually, when some "poor" dude's got a pile of cash saved up, he's gonna buy something big...think car or house...and pay the tax on it at that point, but he'd have an easier time (if he realizes the breaks given for saving)  attaining those things that are currently viewed as "unobtainable".  

The main goal of a consumption tax is to reduce/eliminate the need for the bloated IRS we have now, since there are those that think a flat tax won't ever work because it penalizes the guy who only makes $20,000/year (although the guy would know exactly how much he'd be paying every year and then could budget his money, rather than hoping and praying our tax code won't go nuts this year and take $3000 from him, even though he'd make the same amount of money).

I don't understand how it is that the rich aren't being socked with their "fair share" of taxes (with the logical conclusiong that the poor are getting hammered) and yet, a system that would give a known outcome is ridiculed as being punitive to the poor.  I though the poor were being taxed out of their minds!?!  Which is it?  

     *conservative cheap shot coming...duck and cover*

What opponents fail to realize is that a flat tax would eliminate any guesses as to what some billionaire ketchup heiress would be paying in taxes that year.  As it is right now, we have to see if those records will be released, or if they are too damaging to have come to light (we do need to know all this information about each candidate to form a decent opinion of them, right?  At least that's what all the "disclose the records" are about, I thought.

     *time to stand up, cheap shots over*

And if you don't like it, move to France

     *BLAM*

(sorry, forgot I had that last one still in the chamber)  

[Floyd10]

*keels over and dies*

[shmokes]

Drew,  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the following scenerio not the logical outcome of the system you just described?:

Poor Person:  Take a working class guy with a couple of kids.  Lets say it's the $20,000 a year household income family.  Regardless of the incentive, he's just barely scraping by and simply has no money to save.  So he pays, you know, taxes on everything he buys.

Rich Person:  Here's a wealthy guy.  Let's say he married a ketchup heiress (who is not a billionair -- worth like 450 million, I think).  His ketchup company is paying him a cool million dollars a year.  But he realizes, that he already owns a bunch of houses, a plane, a great boat, cars.  He can totally get by on spending just 500,000 a year.  Now he just puts the other $500,000 in savings and not pay any taxes.  That's pretty cool, because he used to pay about a third of that million bucks in taxes and now he pays nothin'.  

I know you said that there would be some kind of limit, but I'm using an extreme to make a point.  Maybe he wouldn't be allowed to cancel out his entire tax debt by putting money in the bank, but either way he's getting a giant tax break while the poor guy gets nothing.  

This is just like poll taxes and literacy tests.  They tried to pretend that they were not descriminating against blacks because whites who wanted to vote were subjected to the same voting prerequisites, but the goal and result were keeping blacks from voting.

This would be a tax break that pretended to apply the same to everybody but, of course, it only applies to people with disposable income.

Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings?  Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?

I don't understand how...a system that would give a known outcome is ridiculed as being punitive to the poor.  I though the poor were being taxed out of their minds!?!  Which is it?  

I am searching for a line of reason here and am at a total loss.  If the "outcome" is punitive to the poor, it is so regardless of whether the results were known beforehand.  The only way I can make any sense whatsoever out of that argument is to assume that you are talking about poor people no longer having to pay H & R Block fees (cos the tax code is now simple enough for them to do their own taxes).  I guess maybe you mean that any tax code can be got around, but only rich people can afford to pay people who know how to do it.  This is true to some degree, but I'm sure you are aware of the fact that in spite of accountants and money managers, rich people do in fact pay the bulk of the tax burden in America.  

billionaire ketchup heiress

This is my favorite thing about politics.  As soon as there is an obscenely rich democrat, conservatives suddenly think that there is something immoral about having loads of money.  What ever happened to the trickle down theory?

And if you don't like it, move to France

Put your money where your mouth is (read: send me some money for airfare).
When I was nineteen my friend and I got second jobs, saved up, and then lived in Paris for a month.    It was the most amazingly bad-ass place I have ever been, ever.   I'm thinking that New York might be able to give it a run for its money (I haven't been there yet), but I can tell you that San Francisco doesn't hold a candle to Paris, and San Francisco is pretty bad-ass.  Given the opportunity I would move to France in a heartbeat -- but only for a couple of years.  I'm sure I'd get homesick before long.

[fredster]

I live in Tennessee, the heart of the nation.
We dont' have state or local income taxes.  We have a 9.25% sales tax on everything except medicines.  We fought for NO income taxes and won for several years. The state constitution forbids it.  

Rich people / anybody does pay a capital gains tax in larger stock transactions, but I haven't personally heard of how that works.

We DO not get to deduct any taxes, save property taxes, on the 1040.

I used to live in Indiana.  There I suffered the following taxes:
a 5 % sales tax (I think it's up to 6% now) - not on food
3.25% State Taxes
1.25% City and Local taxes
A property tax on cars - I bought a new '94 mustang in '94 and it cost me $485 for plates
A property tax on my house
A trailer tax for a small trailer I had
A Dog tax of $2 for my Rover
I had to pay for school fees like books and other lab fees for my son, on the order of $200 a semester.
Plus the federal taxes and medicare taxes and the SS I paid out of my check.

Then I moved to TN.  I had more money and more services than in Indiana.  I didn't have to pay anything for school, it's a foreign concept here. All I had to pay was about the same, (maybe less) property taxes.  They can spend the money right here.  They even have a state supported highway service that will come and help people fix flat tires and give them a gallon of gas if they run out.  There are nice people here that care about each other.

When the President came in I got $600 back the first year, and $400 back every year afterward ; and my net Fed Tax dropped. It even outpaced the insurance premiums increase the coincided with the tax CUTS from the wonderful and wise Republicans.

I have more money in my pocket. Now maybe the rest of you don't really make any money and wish you did, but as far as my middle class tax cut from the President, I have enough now to build a kick butt mame machine.  My son and I can take vacations and enjoy life more because of the less tax burden.

During the Clinton years my raises didn't outpace the tax burden.  I'd make a quarter more and they'd take $ .27 from me.  I worked harder to make the same money.  I owed 4 of the 8 years Clinton was in office.

I think killing off the IRS is a great thing to do if we can still afford all we have and what we need to do to stop the terrorists from futher destroying our nation.  I don't know, but I trust that we will elect people who look out for us, like President Bush.

It's like the beatles said, "So you say you want a revolution, well, we'd all love to see the plan" So far I haven't seen any plan from anybody except the President.  All I've heard from the other side is empty vitriolic rhetoric and sour grapes.

Just like Michael Moore - empty vitriolic rhetoric.

[shmokes]

Is vitriolic really a word?  Common...you're making that up.  

That's a nice story, and it's nice that you got your $300 rebates and all, but just because something makes you, individually, feel fuzzy, doesn't mean it's a good or responsible idea.  What kind of moron cuts taxes when he intends to take us into war?  The war in Iraq costs more than $1 billion per week.  President Bush's economic policy is awful.

I trust that we will elect people who look out for us, like President Bush.

Err.....have you looked at capitol hill recently....or ever, for that matter.  Perhaps you didn't notice all these, well.....non-republicans up there.  An attitude like that just sets you up for disappointment  

edit:  P.S. Fred, it looks like we were posting at the same time, but I beat you to the punch.  Don't miss my last post (which is right above your last post).

[DrewKaree]

Poor Person:  Take a working class guy with a couple of kids.  Lets say it's the $20,000 a year household income family.  Regardless of the incentive, he's just barely scraping by and simply has no money to save.  So he pays, you know, taxes on everything he buys.

So we understand each other, the $ amount isn't relative to this, it's just a number used for illustrative purposes, right?  As for paying taxes on everything he buys, he already does that, only difference is the rate.  Oh, and right now, if he DOES have any savings, that's also taxed, so there's no incentive for him to do so at all right now, unless he has some goal in mind and will do so regardless of the fact that his savings are taxed.  

Under our current tax laws, how much WOULD this guy pay?  Is that a fixed item, or will it fluctuate from year to year at the whims of Mr Tax Code Inventor and Mr Politician?  I'm making his "expense" a known amount that he is in control of lowering.  He has a wonderful option of finding a part-time job, socking the money away, not paying a dime in taxes on that money, and reducing his taxes.  Right now, Joe Taxpayer has no idea of what he will owe or get back at the end of the year (although that's another topic) and relies on our fine government to give him back the money he had (his tax refund) until it was removed from his check.  And did I also add that they give him this money back with no interest (unlike letting him save it through the year and earn interest on it).  Under my plan (I just wanted you to shudder at thinking of me running for office ) he has control of his money.  Now, this guy moves up in "class" at whatever pace he decides to do so.  If he wants to shoot for a house or car, he picks up a second part-time job.  Remember, he can put it all in savings, reducing his year-end taxes too.  Win/win.  Can't get a part-time job?  Give up some of those luxuries we Americans have come to consider as "necessities", such as food or clothing.  Anyone without a sense of humor, please insert McDonald's or Tommy Hilfiger for those two words...and laugh a little, wouldja?  

It's putting the power of your own destiny back into your own hands rather than relying on the government to be your "bank" for the year and "graciously" giving us the "overpayment" back at the end of the year (according to the rules they set up at whatever whim they so choose).

Rich Person:  Here's a wealthy guy.  Let's say he married a ketchup heiress (who is not a billionair -- worth like 450 million, I think).

I was talking about Mrs. Hunts...is there another ketchup heiress you had in mind

His ketchup company is paying him a cool million dollars a year.  But he realizes, that he already owns a bunch of houses, a plane, a great boat, cars.  He can totally get by on spending just 500,000 a year.  Now he just puts the other $500,000 in savings and not pay any taxes.  That's pretty cool, because he used to pay about a third of that million bucks in taxes and now he pays nothin'.

I know you addressed that I spoke of a limit, and I understand you're just making your point.

At some point, there would be a limit, as there isn't a politician in the world willing to give a never ending tax break and give up all that revenue.  The end result of such a tax would be to lower his total tax, thereby giving him incentive to further spend to make more money, such as starting a business.  If Joe Richguy can now make/create more money for himself and pay less in taxes, where would that money he makes/creates go?  Why, to Joe Taxpayer...maybe even two, three, or several thousand Joe Taxpayers.  He thereby gets a break, gives others a similar (if smaller) break, and he still pays a majority of the tax burden of the country, thereby continuing to fund our government.  Let's say he DOES decide to bank his 500,000...so now he's putting (let's say MORE) in the bank to escape paying taxes.  Does that money just sit in the bank, or does the bank do something with it?  We all know the answer to that...they use that money  to turn around and make money for themselves and pay you a tenth of a percent of what they make.  They make money by putting it into investments (allowing the businesses they invest in to enlarge - more Joe Taxpayers coming into the equation).  

When you say the poor guy gets nothing, you must know hundreds of people who don't want to better themselves.  This gives them whatever opportunity they want to make for themselves, period.  If they don't want to improve their lives, that's their choice, and the sad fact is that, while 95% of Americans work to improve their lives every day, there is that apathetic 5% who could care less if their life never changes.

You look at Joe Richguy as getting a giant tax break, while dismissing the fact that, the more he isn't penalized severely, the more willing he is to reinvest it, thereby making potentially more money, thereby paying more taxes, and giving others employment in the process, and if he decides to save all of it, it then goes to the bank, which leads to....and so on...and so on.

This would be a tax break that pretended to apply the same to everybody but, of course, it only applies to people with disposable income.

kind of hard to give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay that much in taxes to begin with.  Remember how everyone ridiculed Bush for "giving a tax cut that equates to a new muffler for your car"?  

You've already stated that you're for the redistribution of wealth, but at what point do you stop redistributing it?  At some point, you'll no longer have "poor", but you'll also no longer have "rich" to take from to give to that "poor".

Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings?  Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?

yeah, I guess if that "poor" person has $10,000 in the bank, he's gonna let it sit there, and never spend a dime of it...ever...not even on food, clothing, shelter, gas, cars, houses....encouraging someone to save will eventually lead them to see that they can (despite all they're fed about how they can't get ahead for one reason or another) afford those things that seemed out of reach...show them how they can afford better things than what they have...in short, do what Americans do best...anger foreigners...wait...spend money to better thier lives.  

If the "outcome" is punitive to the poor, it is so regardless of whether the results were known beforehand.

You see the result as taxing the snot out of the poor, I see it as telling them they'll be taxed "x" amount of dollars so they can plan how they will overcome that, rather than having them think they're going to be taxed "x", and instead be taxed "y" and spend the rest of the next year trying to recover from that, only to have the cycle start all over again the following year.  

I don't believe it would be punitive at all, rather, it would be probably be either the same or less than what they currently have to pay, and gives them the option to LOWER that amount!  You believe otherwise, and that's why it makes no sense to you.  That's ok.  It's just a difference in our views.  

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that in spite of accountants and money managers, rich people do in fact pay the bulk of the tax burden in America.

do I sense facetiousness in your words?!  I've got to wonder why, if the rich do pay the bulk of the tax burden, these "rich" tax cuts don't just shut our economy down altogether, since they just save it and put it in the bank.

billionaire ketchup heiress

This is my favorite thing about politics.  As soon as there is an obscenely rich democrat, conservatives suddenly think that there is something immoral about having loads of money.  What ever happened to the trickle down theory?

not a darn thing...but let's  just see those tax records so we can tell how much "trickled down" and how much was put into "fat-cat tax shelters".  I don't think it's immoral to have loads of money.  What I think is immoral is to carp about those who don't "pay their fair share" while practising the very same things you rail against.  The conservative viewpoint is not to rail against the fact that they aren't getting enough tax breaks, it's to strive to give everyone the opportunity to work their way up to the point where they reach "fat-cat" status.   We both want the same thing - for everyone to be as successful as can be - we just differ on what route we should take to get there.

Put your money where your mouth is (read: send me some money for airfare).

AHEM...I have already POSTED my plans for your air fare and it's use  

Oh, and those who abhor Floy'd random posts and the time it saps from their life to read 'em...you owe me BIG TIME now that I shot 'im dead.  

[danny_galaga]

 "Can't get a part-time job?  Give up some of those luxuries we Americans have come to consider as "necessities", such as food or clothing"

or gas-guzzling SUV's...

 

[saint]

Er... without weighing in on either side...

Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings?  Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?

Ack, bad economics!

Savings = money in the banks = money for the banks to loan = people/companies getting loans to build/expand = re-investment in the economy.

(That's about the only thing I remember from my Econ classes)

--- saint

[shmokes]

Phew...when I saw that Saint had posted I thought we might be in trouble again

That's not entirely true.  For one thing, banks do reinvest money, but a large portion of deposites has to stay on-hand so withdrawals can be met, and so on.  So that money is completely removed from the economy.  Also, a bank cannot perform its proper role in an atmosphere where everyone is saving.  We need to have a proportionate amount of people wanting to take out loans as people wanting to save money.  If people are encouraged to save and not spend the economy will tank, and people will then have even less money to save (or spend).

Drew, your tax policy seems to be rooted in fantasy land.  You claim, arbitrarily, that the poor person would be paying the same, or less than he was before.  Clearly the rich person, who has an enormous capacity to save, not only gets a corresponding enormous tax cut, but also takes a huge chunk of money out of the  economy in the process.   Government costs money.  If you quit getting money from one place you have to get it from another place, or quit spending money.  

 It is also an unrealistic fantasy to believe that this would somehow eradicate the IRS.  It just wouldn't.  As long as there are taxes we'll have an executive office to make sure they're getting paid.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs, but when poor people get a tax break they....I don't know, burn the money?  Whether one rich guy gets $100,000 back or 100 poor people get $1,000 back, that $100,000  gets spent.  Any time money gets spent it creates jobs.  In fact, the rich person is much more likely than the poor person to spend that money in another country, creating jobs there rather than in the U.S., so, arguably, tax cuts to the poor create more jobs than tax cuts to the rich.

[DrewKaree]

...there are many people who can't afford to send their kids to college, but don't qualify for grants either.

still a terrible example, but only to me and others who believe as I do.  If you wish to go to college, you can, somewhere.  HOW it's paid for is where we differ.  You say "...people who can't afford to send their kids to college", when the reality is that it's not the job of a parent to send their kid.  It's the kids responsibility to find a way.  The parents WANT to help, and normal parents TRY to help, but ultimately, they don't HAVE to.  It's called teaching your kid the cruel realities of the world.  

Oh, and you would be hard-pressed to show me the person who "can't afford it" and "don't qualify for grants".  I say to those who don't qualify for a grant, it's for a reason.  They can't get it because of some of those luxuries (food) I talked about.  You also skipped over any scholarships available, and didn't even address *GASP* getting a school loan to pay for the higher education to make more money.  I have three kids who will be heading off to college in 2, 3, and 4 years.  I've looked into this.  If you can't get into college nowadays, you just aren't willing to sacrifice to get the education some jobs require to make more money.  If someone's not willing to make that sacrifice, it's my opinion (and here's where the phrase "cruel" and "evil" and "heartless" conservatives comes in) that it's tough nuts when you end up where you are in life.  Oh, and there are examples of those who never went to college and "made something" of themselves, as well as those who dropped out of high/elementary school as well, so I'm not saying it's a requirement that you go to college.  Your life, and the money/standard of living you earn are choices made by you somewhere, sometime in your life.  It's not MY job to ensure that someone who doesn't want to make the sacrifices I made to get the benefits I have, and since it's not MY job, I don't think it's anyone ELSE'S job, rich or poor, to do so either.  

Our tax system is set up to assist those who CAN'T, it isn't there to assist those who WON'T, and unless it's reformed, it will continue to be misused, abused, exploited, and wasted by those who won't disguised as those who can't.  

 

[shmokes]

No, a person isn't entitled, yet, to send their kids to college.  I never actually made that claim.  I said that a person's ability to send their kids to college is more important, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a societal standpoint, than another person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.

My little sister is an example.  She does not qualify for grants because she's not old enough yet for my parent's income to quit mattering.  My parents can't afford, or at the very least would have to sell a car or move into a smaller house or something, to send her to school and "aren't willing to make that sacrifice."  So she can take out loans, but is understandably reluctant to do so.  

You know, come to think of it, you never addressed *GASP* getting a loan if you want a nicer yaght, but can't afford it with your tax burden.

Anyway, shouldn't you be against grants?  Why should rich people have to pay to send poor people to college?  One way we could lower taxes would be to get rid of grants altogether.  

And this is all a red herring.  My argument never hinged on a poor person's ability to pay for college.  That was just one example.  If you don't think they should go to college feel free to substitute it with any of a million other more legitimate expenses.  Substitute it with a poor person's ability to pay for medical expenses for their kids.  Or their ability to buy nutritious food, or a decent car.  Or their ability to go to the movies.  Whatever...it's more imporant than the nicer yaght.

[DrewKaree]

Phew...when I saw that Saint had posted I thought we might be in trouble again

me too!  Then he went and got all political on us and stuff

Drew, your tax policy seems to be rooted in fantasy land.

that's fine that you would think that.  I'm all for giving it a try.  I currently do try it on  my own small personal scale...so far, other than being taxed on my savings, it seems to be working pretty well.  I save for larger and more important things, like a house, cabinet, and retirement, and yet still manage to spend on a daily basis to keep the economy going.  I'm willing to take a shot at my "fantasy land" idea because the current program is more clouded in fantasy than my idea.  How much are you getting back or paying this year?  I can guarantee you what my idea would give for an answer - a known quantity.   That's my problem with the current system.  My claim is that when someone KNOWS what they have to pay, they can then plan and do something about it, regardless of their "ability to pay a high price accountant".

I guess what I'm missing in your argument is why you think money is a static thing...why encouraging someone who doesn't make much to save is a bad thing, while encouraging someone who makes a bunch to save as they currently do while giving them some incentive to produce more money by making it less punitive to do so.  What I am reading, and maybe I'm reading into it, help me out, is that you think that if a wealthy person is given a tax break, you think they'll be KEEPING this money all to themselves and won't put any of it back into the economy.

Government costs money.  If you quit getting money from one place you have to get it from another place, or quit spending money.

I seem to remember you saying somewhere that liberals are also for smaller government...correct me if I'm wrong about that...so if it's true that government costs money, then please tell me how much.  That's all I'm wanting to get to.  I want government to be held to the same standard you and I are.  If we don't have the friggen money in the bank, we can't spend it, yet our government and it's current state of taxation spends it based on probability of what will come in.  Our current "budget" (and the word has no meaning when it comes to government) is based on a statistical probability that they will collect "x" amount of dollars.  What has the government done if they didn't get enough money to pay for those things?  We've slowly been selling off America to help pay the bills, or done things contrary to the interest of our nation for the goal of getting money to pay for things we didn't need.  What's going to happen when all these countries start cashing in their markers?  

It is also an unrealistic fantasy to believe that this would somehow eradicate the IRS.

that is my fantasy, but even I realize that it won't happen, and never said it would.  The major goal of this would be to reduce the institution that is our IRS.  Unless taxes were eliminated altogether, the IRS will be a constant.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs

no, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do...see, creating a business (thereby creating jobs) gives them the opportunity to make MORE money...they don't all create jobs, though.  That just happens to be one of the better things they do with their money.  They also help keep businesses that are already in business, busy.  Tell us, do you think they just spread the money out on their bed and roll around on it?  Patrick Ewing said it best when he said "We may make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too".

but when poor people get a tax break they....I don't know, burn the money?

It hasn't been said that they don't contribute to creating jobs, but as you are fond of saying, the rich person has more money to do so, therefore there will be a larger impact when doing it.  And I'm sure there are rich people burning their money too

In fact, the rich person is much more likely than the poor person to spend that money in another country, creating jobs there rather than in the U.S., so, arguably, tax cuts to the poor create more jobs than tax cuts to the rich.

And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.  Did all those middle class folks who got their "tax cut" under him turn around and build restaurants that offer all those low paying burger flipping jobs that we are now relegated to performing in this "poor economy"?  You continue to say that the rich are more able to improve our economy by paying a larger share of taxes; how then would the far lesser impact of tax cuts to the poor be creating more jobs?  

No, a person isn't entitled, yet, to send their kids to college.  I never actually made that claim.

Nor have I, and haven't said that you did say such a thing.  HEY!  Something we both agree on!  YAAYAYYAYAYAYAY!    Sooner or later, we will always come upon something that we agree on, one of these days, it may even be on something that is pertinent, hey?!

I said that a person's ability to send their kids to college is more important, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a societal standpoint, than another person's ability to buy a nicer yaght.

you continue to give me the impression that you don't believe that someone rich isn't inclined to do something good with that money and in looking to further their own life will step all over the poor to reach their goal.  I also get the impression that you think even if they DO do something nice with that money, you're better suited to parcel out their money for them because you know best where to put it.  Remember those scholarships I spoke of?  I'm still waiting to see the fund set up by John and Sally Muckenfutch.  

My little sister is an example...she can take out loans, but is understandably reluctant to do so.

I retract my statement that you would be hard-pressed to show me such a thing.  However, I still stand by my feeling that if your sister wishes to further her education in an effort to better her standard of living, then it is her responsibility and no one else's!  To take that to extremes, if your sister DOES take out a loan, succeeds WILDLY, thereby becoming "rich", why does it then become her responsibilty to pay for someone who doesn't want to go through the hard work she had to in order to better herself?

You know, come to think of it, you never addressed *GASP* getting a loan if you want a nicer yaght, but can't afford it with your tax burden.

I am now addressing it.  Get a loan, all you rich suckers out there, or if you don't want to do that, stop giving money to charities, scholarships, employees, etc.  

Anyway, shouldn't you be against grants?  Why should rich people have to pay to send poor people to college?  One way we could lower taxes would be to get rid of grants altogether.  

ANOTHER thing we agree on! I AM against grants...I think if we stopped giving them out, people would be more interested in what they are getting for their money they spend on higher education, the money the schools waste, the continuing salaries of teachers not worth a plug nickel, etc.  

And this is all a red herring.  My argument never hinged on a poor person's ability to pay for college.  That was just one example.  If you don't think they should go to college feel free to substitute it with any of a million other more legitimate expenses.  Substitute it with a poor person's ability to pay for medical expenses for their kids.  Or their ability to buy nutritious food, or a decent car.  Or their ability to go to the movies.  Whatever...it's more imporant than the nicer yaght.

I don't think any of these instances are any different.  They're smaller expenditures, and each of them relate.  If people are allowed to be in control of the money they pay (or don't pay) as a tax burden, they are better able to make decisions based on what's best for them and their family, period.  If they wish to make poor decisions and run their life into the ground..well...there's where I agree with Darwin.  I also object to your bringing up nutritious food.  If people are buying such nutritious food already, how come there are so many open burger flipping jobs in this lousy economy  

[shmokes]

Ugghh....This is turning into a quagmire.  Drew, I insist you be more economical with your posts.    I don't want to go through and respond point-by-point to all that.  If we want to keep an audience we've got to limit ourselves.

Another myth is that when rich people get a tax break they create jobs

no, that's not a myth, it just happens to be the major thing they do

Okay Ann Coult....er, I mean Drew.  You can't just cut my sentence in half and respond to it as though the other half didn't exist, LOL.  That's commonly known as taking something out of context.  When you add the second half of my sentence on there it is clear that I did not say that rich people don't create jobs with their money.  But if you give $100,000 to a rich guy he'll spend it.  If you split up $100,000 between a bunch of poor people, they'll spend it.  The jobs get created either way.

And yet somehow we have managed to still have the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.

LOL....er, Drew, we could have the HIGHEST unemployment rate in the history of America and it would be the lowest unemployment rate since Clinton.  George W. Bush is actually the only president we've had since Clinton.

Don't get me wrong, Drew, I do think it's helpful to know how much you're going to pay in taxes.  It's just more helpful to pay less.  By your rationale, giving a person a raise doesn't help them afford the necessities of life.  It doesn't matter how much a person is paid, as long as they know before-hand how much it's going to be so they can plan accordingly.  

I don't understand why you want rich people to get tax breaks so badly.  Why don't we just tell them up front how big a bite we're going to take outa them so they can plan accordingly?  That seems like it would be just as desireable, doesn't it?  No?  Well, maybe that's because how much you have to pay, in the end, is far more important than how difficult it was to figure it out.

And the reason my sister should turn around and help other people when she takes the initiative and gets rich and all that jazz, is that she belongs to a society (a society that has been very generous to her, no less) and she wants that society to be as good as possible.  She dislikes ghettos and she dislikes aristocracies.  She believes that power corrupts and that it's dangerous for too much wealth and power to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people.  She believes that the more educated people there are in her society, the better the economy is going to be, and the better her society is going to be overall.  She likes to help pay for people to go to college for the same reason she likes her taxes to pay for people to go to elementary, secondary and high school -- because it makes the place she lives better.  Because she has to live with all these yahoos, one way or another.

I am worried about when our debts come due.  China is going to own our asses.  That's another reason it makes no sense for Bush to make huge tax cuts right after Clinton finally sorted out the mess that Reagan got us into.

How's that for a liberal cheap shot?

[DrewKaree]

How's that for a liberal cheap shot?

you're killin' me smallz!

Ugghh....This is turning into a quagmire.  Drew, I insist you be more economical with your posts.    I don't want to go through and respond point-by-point to all that.  If we want to keep an audience we've got to limit ourselves.

as long as we don't accuse each other of skipping over some point "conveniently leaving that out of the argument".  Deal?

Okay Ann Coult....er, I mean Drew.  You can't just cut my sentence in half and respond to it as though the other half didn't exist, LOL.  That's commonly known as taking something out of context.  When you add the second half of my sentence on there it is clear that I did not say that rich people don't create jobs with their money.

but adding on your second point doesn't make a difference in how we look at the issue.  I look at giving the dude his fat chunk of change to spend.  He's going to create those jobs quicker, thereby getting more Joe Taxpayers paying their small chunk, thereby getting more revenue faster.

You're right about Bush/Clinton and the fact that there has been no other between them, color me stupid.  Our unemployment rate is the same as when Clinton was in office.  

I agree that it's helpful to pay less.  That's the goal behind giving someone a choice as to what they would pay.  I have no qualms about putting a limit on how much the wealthier among us could save (shelter), while allowing the less wealthy/broke among us to pay none.  I want the people who want to pay no taxes, though, to have to DO something  to effect that result, something that would be to their benefit.  It would eventually lead to their raising their standard of living, but not at the sole expense of those who "can afford it more".

You shade your words saying giving someone a raise doesn't help them afford the "necessities of life".  There aren't hundreds of thousands of people starving in this country because they don't have the money, not with all the programs available to people out there.  You'll never convince me of that, because I've seen and lived on those programs during my life.  We DO take care of those less fortunate in this country, but it's not unreasonable to expect them to, at some time in the future, work to better thier lives and stop living off of others.

You've missed completely that I AM suggesting we tell them up front how big of a bite we're gonna take.  I just don't see the solution to this as taking more from them to give to others.  It has yet to work anywhere in the world it's been tried.  I'm not dealing from a zero-sum standpoint.  As long as there are Americans with a will to better themselves, they will find a way to create more opportunity.  The more they make of that opportunity, the more they will be willing to share that chance.  The more they are penalized for making the most of that opportunity, the more they will be working to save that which they worked so hard to earn and achieve.  It's the MAIN reason your solution has yet to work anywhere in the world that it's been tried.  Human nature will always work to keep that which you feel is being threatened, hence the distaste for this current election on both sides.

It's noble that you (and sister) want all that stuff, and it's noble that you believe you should give people money to change that situation, but that which is not earned through hard work and struggle does not satisfy.  The question will become "If they can afford to give me THIS, what else can I get".  I long for your utopia as well, but that, IMO, is where the real fantasy land is based.


Is that more economical? I've got so much other stuff I feel obligated to respond to that I feel the need to get it out whenever I can.  I had to take so much Pepto-Dismal during that last administration, I think I'm immune to it now, and have diarrhea of the mouth  

[Floyd10]

Exit Stage Left