|
Post by stetto on Jul 28, 2004 6:20:36 GMT -7
What an absolute joke this buffoon is...Classic issue dodging, non-answers to every question, A role model... www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html And some of you take this guy's work seriously?? There are cartoon characters with more credibility...
|
|
|
Post by HB on Jul 28, 2004 6:48:52 GMT -7
The long and Short of it,,, The wealthy use the government to oppress and exploit the working class.. And they're smarter than you Heck you don't even realize it.. It's been that way for a very long time We left Europe for the most part to get out from under their thumbs the rich bastards wuld kill you in a heartbeat Michael Moore is right that the wealthy have two parties This partisan stuff is just a show.. Enjoy
|
|
|
Post by stetto on Jul 28, 2004 7:44:45 GMT -7
A-a-a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-----d then the Marxists join the fun. HB, I AM working class, with all the responsibilities and opportunities that come with that label, and I have been going nowhere but UP for the last 15 years...If you'd get out of the welfare line and go to work you might find that a healthy amount of ambition and work ethic will surprise you with the rewards of your hard work. The only repressed in this country are those who are comfortable on the welfare roles, communists who want the government to spread industrious working peoples income amongst the slackers. Hey! You got me, you little troll, you!!!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 28, 2004 8:09:57 GMT -7
I wouldn't call Moore a buffoon, as some of his work was very good, for instance the closing of the GM plant in Michigan. Much like Limbaugh, there is the oposing view. I don't agree on everything Moore or Linbaugh says, but they do make some good points. The country is divided about equally on who they favor for the white house, and this is as it should be with such oposing views and values between the two party canidates.
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Jul 28, 2004 11:42:57 GMT -7
...The country is divided about equally on who they favor for the white house, and this is as it should be with such oposing views and values between the two party canidates... The problem is that most voters are ambivalent and about equally divided over which candidate would be worse for the country rather than best. When it was Dewey against Truman, the losing side could at least take solace in the fact that both candidates were committed to public service and doing the best for their country. Between Bush and Kerry we have the choice of big government in aide of corporate feudalism or big government in aide of big government. Neither choice is appealing. But at least Kerry's big government is limited by the increasingly ignored Constitution. The corporate fiefdoms of the Bush future are immune to constitutional control.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 28, 2004 18:29:10 GMT -7
Heh, Kerry's big govt would not be limited in any way by the constitution, only by the greed of the UN that he wishes to be subservient to.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Jul 28, 2004 21:50:08 GMT -7
I heard some of the "interview" and it seemed O'Reilly was getting increasingly frustrated that Moore wouldn't answer his leading questions in the exact self-incriminating way he wanted them answered. Moore really got him going as a result.
His post interview "analysis" was equally self justified and was little more than a lengthy ad hominem attack.
Now there's two guys I'd love to see equipped with dull pocket knives and sewn up in a hammock together.
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Jul 29, 2004 8:06:28 GMT -7
Eric, around here I see farm after farm being bought up by insurance companies and other large corporate interests.
I see those farms being operated at a loss, year after year, for the sole reason that the corporate owners don't care about the crop, they just need to maintain beneficial use of the water until there is enough profit in diverting it over the pass.
I see the kids raised on those same farms now driving someone else's tractor for $8.00/hour, if they can get farm work at all.
Trading the life of an independent farmer for an hourly wage is no trade at all. It's a trip into serfdom.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 29, 2004 9:21:06 GMT -7
Chris, I don't know about other parts of the country, but there there are years we get to actually pay for the priviledge of the independant lifestyle. It has been that way since I can remember, in every place I have been. I have seen corporations and even more annoying, municipalities buy up land at overinflated prices to control the water right. It happened no matter what party was in the whitehouse. So I can't seem to get myself to believe that a lifetime politician, who has consistently voted against the things I think are important will suddenly change and work for the best interest of the country at large, and not special interests that contribute directly to his future political aspirations.
Besides, assigning blame of these things to one person or even one party is disengenuous. We can blame govt or corporations or even money, but the real problem is that the apathy of the populace of this country.
I wish I had a realistic solution, but I don't. I suspect that it will have get so bad that everyone is effected to some point before real change is made in the system, and even then I doubt I would like the change that happens.
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Jul 29, 2004 10:20:50 GMT -7
True Eric, quite true. I give you the farm example because it's hits close to home for both of us, but it is analogous to what is happening accross the board, Mom and Pop, closing the family business and taking jobs at minimum wage, without benefits at a big box store.
This has long been a trend, but the last three years have seen something quite new and far more damaging to economic opportunity.
The Bush administration has been pushing changes in the federal tax code, anti-trust policy initiatives, and "liberalizing" amendments to state corporate codes that now allow corporations and dynastic families to accumulate and hold land and capital in ways that will increasingly deprive unpriviledged individuals, however driven and enterprising from ever getting their hands on either.
The past three years have seen changes in these areas that are unprecedentedly favorable to those who hold inherited wealth and that stack the deck decidedly against those who would hope to achieve prosperity through diligence and intelligence.
Our nation was founded on an ideology that land and capital should be, not only alienable, but generationally alienated, (meaning passed on to others), free from dead hand control in perpetuity. The founding idea was that each generation should have an equal opportunity to access land and capital and apply them to economic use.
These are not my pet ideas, they are ideas laid down in the American economic blueprints, to wit: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Two cornerstone elements in this were estate taxation and the finite lifetime of the corporation. Both were designed to assure that land and capital devolve to those able to apply their labor and ingenuity thereto rather than bottling them up under the perpetual control of a few key families.
There is a joke that the first generation makes the fortune, the second generation builds on it, and the third generation fritters it away. But the joke is actually drawn from practical and positive American experience. The second generation with the benefit of economic security is able to act with care and prudence to build on the gambles taken by the first. The third, removed from the struggles endured by the first, takes wealth and priviledge for granted, and is thus not compelled to work to build the family fortune.
Heretofore, the economic policy of the United States has been designed to sever the idle third generation from inherited wealth unless that generation continues to work to apply it economically.
The Bush adminstration has taken key steps that will allow dynastic families to accumulate wealth in ways that make our current class of wealthy families look puny. With no countervailing element to cause disseisin, both corporations and aristocratic families will be able to acquire larger and larger shares of the national wealth, and sequester it out of reach of the middle and lower classes.
In America, we expect people to earn their fortunes, not live a life of ease and inherited wealth. What Bush is doing is insulating the "third generation" and those who follow it from having to earn their living.
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on Jul 29, 2004 10:30:50 GMT -7
Tom, in regard to your first post, I don't know whether you are aiming at Moore, or O'Reilly, but regardless, they are both entertainers. Their antics should be taken no more seriously than tonight's World Wrestling matchup smackdown.wwe.com/preview.html
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 29, 2004 10:47:47 GMT -7
Chris, as an outsider I am a bit alarmed that the big red button/phone/whatever is likely to be in the hands of WWF-class leaders.
Mr.Bush, regardless of his sparkling repartee, at least has the forsight & gumption to do what he thinks is necessary to safeguard your (and MY) country, and the rest of the gutless world. I'm not worried about the lack of WMD in Iraq -- they were there at one point & the future threat was apparently real enough. Mr Bush fixed that problem & he removed that evil bast@rd from power. Too bad he has to eat crow over the ostensible reason for his pre-emtive attack -- the result was worth it.
It looks like we are now about to face a similar problem with Iran. Will Mr Kerry fix that bunch of criminals before they smack Isreal &/or their neighbours, or us? To me it doesn't look like it, but if he wins, I hope that he is strong enough to deal with the problem -- the UN certainly won't deal with it.
It may be WWF-class entertainment, but a h*ll of a lot of serious stuff is involved, & not just for the USA.
|
|
|
Post by HB on Jul 29, 2004 16:42:40 GMT -7
"When you get people worked up to hate, they'll let you spend huge amounts of money on arms. Read The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. [11] Read The Permanent War Complex by Seymour Melman. [10] CIA covert actions have the function of keeping the world hostile and unstable.... We can't take care of the poor, we can't take care of the old, but we can spend millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize Nicaragua.... Why arms instead of schools? .... They can make gigantic profits off the nuclear arms race because of the hysteria, and the paranoia, and the secrecy. And that's why they're committed to building more and more and more weapons, is because they're committed to making a profit. And that's what the propaganda, and that's what the hysteria is all about. Now people say, `What can I do?'.... The youth did rise up and stop the Vietnam war.... www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 29, 2004 18:28:04 GMT -7
Chris, I have no statistical data, only anecdotal. I have chatted with some or overheard conversations of what I would consider wealthy people, ranchers and farmers.
Most of them fault govt in general, but I haven't heard any fault Bush, if anything they are realtively pleased at the effort to reduce the death tax. Some of the people are 4th generation on the same place and are looking to see another generation on.
I have to wonder is this the dynastic wealth that needs to be dispersed to the people? In fact I have to wonder what business it is of anyone, govt or private, what a person or family chooses to do with its money? What tenet of liberty is that based on?
I support in no measure complete wealth redistibution. that is no more than what some of these taxes are.
|
|
|
Post by Cablemender on Jul 29, 2004 19:37:23 GMT -7
I was aiming at Moore in my comment in the other thread where I took back my chicken remark. See, I believe Moore has every right to make his movie for whatever motivation suits him. What grates me, though, is when he assembles very selective footage, puts the title "documentary" rather than "commentary" on it, then tries to peddle it as the truth. If Moore stood up and said, "Look, I don't like this President, I'm in favor of voting him out, so much so I collected some footage to show you why," that would be one thing. But Moore isn't doing that. What he's doing is pretending to have the exclusive truth, and is showing it because the administration is somehow hiding it, which adds an entirely new dimension of fertilizer to the soil. When much of Moore's movie was debunked even by people who aren't in the Bush camp, such as Richard Clarke, it seems to fall on deaf ears. I hear a number of people say things like Ron Reagan did, that this administration is obfuscating, not being straight with people, yet when you ask people to give you an example they can't. I've had a post up for nearly 24 hours asking that question and have had no one list a single one. Now, if this is such a problem, as Moore and others contend, it ought to be easy to make a short list of the most eggregious violations of our trust. The fact that they aren't readily apparent should speak to the varactity of Moore's claims. I also keep hearing the manta that Bush "lied" to us about WMDs. If you go to the link below, you will see that he wasn't the least bit obtuse in telling the American people what information he was using, and where he got it from. I listed those intelligence agencies so many times at FL I wish I'd made a macro. The Russians, the British Intellegence, the Spanish Intelligence Service, Israeli Intellegence, Interpol, and the Turkish Foreign Intelligence service, to name some. You all saw Colin Powell go to the UN, and not a one of those country's delegates went to a microphone or a reporter and said, "This guy has it completely wrong." There is a reason for that: they all agreed with him. No one at that meeting felt they were lied to, rather they wanted to sit and wait for Hussein to come around. A comfortable position to take when your legislators don't have to evacuate their office spaces, and your postal service doesn't have to incorporate a bio-weapons lab, and your citizens have to look over their shoulder at the sound of a passenger jet going by. To the issue of Bush lying and offering a false premise for war, there is no clearer statement than his own words. Here is the link to the 2003 SOTU Address. I challenge you to go read it and see for yourself if he was merely trying to go collect weapons, or to eliminate the possibility that someone known to have them, and known to be antagonistic to America and a friend to terrorists worldwide, might enable our enemies to hit us increasingly harder. A plan which was widely approved by our legislature, even those of the opposite political party. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.htmlI would also remind you of another lesson history taught us. This same situation of enabling terrorists was presented before in the form of hijackings and terror threats more than 20 years ago. We knew then who the countries were who aided them, and we did nothing of substance to stop them. What happened? We tried to do it the UN way, and that led to countries, who knew full well that the UN is powerless, to continue supporting terrorists, continue to grow bolder and more aggressive. Ask someone from Lebanon if they think the UN does a good job when they are in charge of keeping the peace. While we might like to solve every issue with diplomacy, we also have to realize not every dictator on the planet will be responsive. Some will even milk the system as Saddam did, playing along just enough to keep himself in a position to continue his reign of terror and his status among those nations who support his kind of regime. At some point, a stand has to be taken or we can expect nothing more than more WTC, more Khobar barracks, more USS COLEs, more threats, more interruptions in our enterprises, and more hatred toward us. In that environment, it's only a matter of time before some 92-virgin-seeking fanatic kills more people than those who lost their lives in Iraq in a single attack. Many people in this country differ on whether or not that was a good decision, or it wasn't. That is good debate, democracy in words and print. Where that ceases, though, is when people try to lever political gain by playing to those differing opinions with distortions of the motivations that were behind the decisons made by the leaders we freely elected. When that happens, democracy is weakened, not strengthened, because it causes people to distrust anyone to decide anything. And whose cause would it be to turn us into that?
|
|
|
Post by MadWags on Jul 30, 2004 1:58:33 GMT -7
I am agreeing with Cablemender 100%. You sir have hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by stetto on Jul 30, 2004 3:14:54 GMT -7
Really good post, Tom. It's too bad a lot of us can't set aside our partisan bias long enough to give clear thinking and common sense our full attention.
|
|
|
Post by HB on Jul 30, 2004 3:38:10 GMT -7
GEORGE BUSH SENIOR was the director of the CIA and son like father is a traitor lying thief!!! Kerry is just the bail out in case [people are getting wiser... Them rich folks are cautious.. Kerrys wife is from Africa?? I DO NOT TRUST RICH WHITE PEOPLE FROM AFRICA!!!!!!!! DO YOU? Cley
|
|
|
Post by stetto on Jul 30, 2004 3:47:22 GMT -7
Heh heh heh, like I said, it's just too bad...
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 30, 2004 3:50:08 GMT -7
Amen
|
|