-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Capitalism: A Love Story
- Thread starter ~~whimsy~~
- Start date
Supafly
Retired Mod
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
What does his body shape has to do with his point of view?
All those people hitting at him because of that are taking really cheap shots - in lack of valid arguments, maybe?
Maybe it's because he is so successful, and right-winger film-makers are not exactly making as good movies and books as he does (In sheer terms of sales) :2 cents:
What does his body shape has to do with his point of view?
All those people hitting at him because of that are taking really cheap shots - in lack of valid arguments, maybe?
Maybe it's because he is so successful, and right-winger film-makers are not exactly making as good movies and books as he does (In sheer terms of sales) :2 cents:
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
How exactly is helping people in need UNethical? :dunno:
And, if you think that government run programs that help people are "forced charity", then you would also think that taxes and everything that they help pay for is unethical as well. You know, things like public safety employees (policemen, firemen, etc), national defense, garbage pick-up, road upkeep, SCHOOLS...
How exactly is helping people in need UNethical? :dunno:
And, if you think that government run programs that help people are "forced charity", then you would also think that taxes and everything that they help pay for is unethical as well. You know, things like public safety employees (policemen, firemen, etc), national defense, garbage pick-up, road upkeep, SCHOOLS...
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
Valid arguments?
If you have seen at least one of his films and you don't see the valid arguments then it really ain't worth tryin to explain.
I bet he really smells too.
When your as fat as he is how can you really bath properly.
Unless he pays someone to wash him. With all the millions he's made on his ANTI US movies he can afford it I think.
Right wing film makers?
Valid arguments?
If you have seen at least one of his films and you don't see the valid arguments then it really ain't worth tryin to explain.
I bet he really smells too.
When your as fat as he is how can you really bath properly.
Unless he pays someone to wash him. With all the millions he's made on his ANTI US movies he can afford it I think.
Right wing film makers?
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
Sure and one of their films is the subject of an ongoing supreme court case.It was made by a guy named David Bossie:thefinger and was blocked from being shown during the last campaign on TV as it was deemed in violation of the McCain-Feingold law.Was shown in theaters though.It is Called "Hillary",and as you can imagine was not very complimentary.
The court case is going to decide how much corporate money is allowed to influence elections.Former U.S. Solicitor General under George W. Bush Ted Olson is defending the film maker.He once defended the law that said this should not be shown but times (administrations) change I guess.He is going to argue.
"What is the matter with corporations? Are they inherently evil? Corporations - just as much as individuals - are entitled to protection under the First Amendment," Olson says."
He hopefully will not be succesfull.Corporations are not the same as an individual.They have been given special status by the govt for economic purposes and should not be allowed to abuse that special status by using their vast wealth and power which results from that status to influence elections as much as they might.
http://jezebel.com/5182440/long+suffering-supreme-court-endures-hillary-the-movie
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/hillary.clinton.court/index.html
So yes Mr P there are right wing films
No they and their makers aren't as well known as ones by Moore for example.Maybe they aren't very good?:dunno:
Sure and one of their films is the subject of an ongoing supreme court case.It was made by a guy named David Bossie:thefinger and was blocked from being shown during the last campaign on TV as it was deemed in violation of the McCain-Feingold law.Was shown in theaters though.It is Called "Hillary",and as you can imagine was not very complimentary.
The court case is going to decide how much corporate money is allowed to influence elections.Former U.S. Solicitor General under George W. Bush Ted Olson is defending the film maker.He once defended the law that said this should not be shown but times (administrations) change I guess.He is going to argue.
"What is the matter with corporations? Are they inherently evil? Corporations - just as much as individuals - are entitled to protection under the First Amendment," Olson says."
He hopefully will not be succesfull.Corporations are not the same as an individual.They have been given special status by the govt for economic purposes and should not be allowed to abuse that special status by using their vast wealth and power which results from that status to influence elections as much as they might.
http://jezebel.com/5182440/long+suffering-supreme-court-endures-hillary-the-movie
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/hillary.clinton.court/index.html
So yes Mr P there are right wing films
No they and their makers aren't as well known as ones by Moore for example.Maybe they aren't very good?:dunno:
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
1) People individually differ on who is "more needy"
This is my #1 complaint with "group rights." It would be one thing if the government required you for money and then you decided who to give to. Most major, religious texts recommend a percentage. But the problem is that they decide who that is, and I take serious issues with it at times.
Like lopsided AIDS research versus ignoring the Hepatitis-C epidemic during the Clinton administration to great complaints from the scientific community.
2) The money often doesn't go to the "needy," but much of it to the agency
This is my #2 complaint with "group rights" as well. It starts during into an agency with overhead and waste. With "individual" choice, you can change your money to another organization. Think the United Way is wasteful? Take it to someone else. With the government, you don't.
As I always say, I don't have a problem with the government when it asks for half of my sandwich to feed the poor. I have a problem when they come back later and ask for the other half to pay for what they have built to support their "noble" endeavor.
Years upon years of government contracting has taught me that waste is rampant. I am regularly cited (and hated, for the standard I set) for being very thrifty when I do any work for the government -- from billables to expenses. When I travel for the government, you'll see me at a Motel 6 or Super 8, and sharing the room as well as the car.
Libertarian-Capitalists aren't against social and safety services, they are against blindly labelling and funding anything and everything someone says they are. Just because it's a "public good" doesn't mean it has to be completely controlled (much less funded) by the government.
Because ...
1) People individually differ on who is "more needy"
This is my #1 complaint with "group rights." It would be one thing if the government required you for money and then you decided who to give to. Most major, religious texts recommend a percentage. But the problem is that they decide who that is, and I take serious issues with it at times.
Like lopsided AIDS research versus ignoring the Hepatitis-C epidemic during the Clinton administration to great complaints from the scientific community.
2) The money often doesn't go to the "needy," but much of it to the agency
This is my #2 complaint with "group rights" as well. It starts during into an agency with overhead and waste. With "individual" choice, you can change your money to another organization. Think the United Way is wasteful? Take it to someone else. With the government, you don't.
As I always say, I don't have a problem with the government when it asks for half of my sandwich to feed the poor. I have a problem when they come back later and ask for the other half to pay for what they have built to support their "noble" endeavor.
Years upon years of government contracting has taught me that waste is rampant. I am regularly cited (and hated, for the standard I set) for being very thrifty when I do any work for the government -- from billables to expenses. When I travel for the government, you'll see me at a Motel 6 or Super 8, and sharing the room as well as the car.
The problem is that the "public safety" argument is overused. Roads and bridges are currently an infrastructure upkeep nightmare in the US and we are totally screwing ourselves with it. We should have invested that money into mass transit. Right there, individual power with the dollar makes that happen, "group rights" doesn't.
Libertarian-Capitalists aren't against social and safety services, they are against blindly labelling and funding anything and everything someone says they are. Just because it's a "public good" doesn't mean it has to be completely controlled (much less funded) by the government.
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
If people are forced into virtual slavery for somebody else’s economic benefit, and if masses of people are exploited by the few so they can gain wealth while the people that labor are given no reasonable choice other than to not work so they can starve and loose everything they have, then their really is no freedom to our lives. The laws are made, and rightfully so, that I can't go out murder somebody when I feel like it. The government has a right, and an obligation, to protect people from other people that would do them harm, especially when they can't reasonably do it themselves. Yet when that principle is allied in an economic sense people like you can never seem to grasp that concept. Why is it so hard to understand that one shouldn't be able to do whatever he pleases to get ahead in life when it would hurt others when it is done?
As far as the constitution and the founders are concerned. Socialism is an economic concept not a necessarily a form of government like a democratic-republic. There is nothing in the constitution that says that we can't have it, especially considering virtually all business above a mom and pop shop run interstate and international commerce in some way. Of course all our founding fathers also lived in an 18th century agrarian society where there were no big business, no real public education, where medical care was closer to the stone age than it now so that virtually didn't exist, primitive law enforcement, no and no fire departments. It wasn't like they knew in a century big multi-national corporations would pop up that would both cause the harm they have to people, the harm they have on the environment, and have the vast influence they have over politics. There was no medical care they could give to everybody because it plain didn't exist. I believe if they lived in a time where it was as advanced as it is now reasonably and free medical care would be considered a right. I feel the same about education. The government is supposed to restrain itself, but it also is supposed to protect people from the depredations we face out of our own "state of nature" as you have said. Human nature make it so that includes the downside of the economy that comes from that state of nature where we people are apt to screw over everybody else to take care of only themselves.
If people are forced into virtual slavery for somebody else’s economic benefit, and if masses of people are exploited by the few so they can gain wealth while the people that labor are given no reasonable choice other than to not work so they can starve and loose everything they have, then their really is no freedom to our lives. The laws are made, and rightfully so, that I can't go out murder somebody when I feel like it. The government has a right, and an obligation, to protect people from other people that would do them harm, especially when they can't reasonably do it themselves. Yet when that principle is allied in an economic sense people like you can never seem to grasp that concept. Why is it so hard to understand that one shouldn't be able to do whatever he pleases to get ahead in life when it would hurt others when it is done?
As far as the constitution and the founders are concerned. Socialism is an economic concept not a necessarily a form of government like a democratic-republic. There is nothing in the constitution that says that we can't have it, especially considering virtually all business above a mom and pop shop run interstate and international commerce in some way. Of course all our founding fathers also lived in an 18th century agrarian society where there were no big business, no real public education, where medical care was closer to the stone age than it now so that virtually didn't exist, primitive law enforcement, no and no fire departments. It wasn't like they knew in a century big multi-national corporations would pop up that would both cause the harm they have to people, the harm they have on the environment, and have the vast influence they have over politics. There was no medical care they could give to everybody because it plain didn't exist. I believe if they lived in a time where it was as advanced as it is now reasonably and free medical care would be considered a right. I feel the same about education. The government is supposed to restrain itself, but it also is supposed to protect people from the depredations we face out of our own "state of nature" as you have said. Human nature make it so that includes the downside of the economy that comes from that state of nature where we people are apt to screw over everybody else to take care of only themselves.
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
If you don't like what you see in this country, start your own business. It's as simple as that. And yes, it really is.
Do you really think everyone is out to screw everyone else?
Or worse yet, that the government will remove any screwing (much less not do it)?
I'd prefer the people who alleged screw me just influence the laws, not make them.
With freedom comes responsibility. We have to remain educated and self-sufficient to remain free.
Whether it's spiritual, self-help or personal finance literature, they all warn about vices and materialistic tendencies. A lot of what I see out of people is them bitching that they cannot afford things they don't need, or worse yet, what they bought when they should have been saving. Debt is an issue Americans are just now starting to wake up to, along with the money multiplier in the grand scheme of things.
Our economy has been driven by "keeping up with the Jones." I live the poorest on my block and damn if I don't pay the highest taxes. How's that "fair"?
I get fucked in every direction. I get to save for my retirement in the private sector while others not only squander their money and lives, but the money I'm sending to the government for their retirement as well.
But I recognize that freedom isn't about "fair." It's about "free." Everyone has an excuse. I just don't make mine.
Who lets you do that to you? Really? Who does? You do! With freedom comes responsibility.
If you don't like what you see in this country, start your own business. It's as simple as that. And yes, it really is.
Do you really think everyone is out to screw everyone else?
Or worse yet, that the government will remove any screwing (much less not do it)?
I'd prefer the people who alleged screw me just influence the laws, not make them.
But there is a huge difference between a "public good" that individuals choose to contribute to and a "public commons" that everyone is forced to support, where individual choice is removed.
With freedom comes responsibility. We have to remain educated and self-sufficient to remain free.
Whether it's spiritual, self-help or personal finance literature, they all warn about vices and materialistic tendencies. A lot of what I see out of people is them bitching that they cannot afford things they don't need, or worse yet, what they bought when they should have been saving. Debt is an issue Americans are just now starting to wake up to, along with the money multiplier in the grand scheme of things.
Our economy has been driven by "keeping up with the Jones." I live the poorest on my block and damn if I don't pay the highest taxes. How's that "fair"?
I get fucked in every direction. I get to save for my retirement in the private sector while others not only squander their money and lives, but the money I'm sending to the government for their retirement as well.
But I recognize that freedom isn't about "fair." It's about "free." Everyone has an excuse. I just don't make mine.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
Key word..."MORE needy". Just because somebody is more needy than someone else, doesn't mean that the "someone else" in that situation isn't still needy themselves. For example, homeless people who don't have a place to live are arguably more needy than an elderly person who can't afford a flu shot, but that doesn't mean that the elderly person isn't needy.
But, you make a good point by saying that people have different opinions on who or what they consider to be more needy, because it all has to do with individual morals, values and beliefs.
I used to work for a third party fundraiser that was contracted to raise money for various charities and non-profit organizations. I know aaaaall about how the agencies who raise money keep a large percentage of the money that's donated. But, without those agencies, hardly any money would be raised in the first place and no help to the needy would be able to be given at all. It's sort of a Catch 22, and it's rather scummy (in my opinion) for agencies to be keeping larger amounts of money than the charities they are hired to help, but it's sadly necessary in order for the truly needy to receive properly funded assitance.
The argument is overused because it's true and it makes a valid point. Our tax dollars are forcibly taken from citizens and used to provide services that, arguably, provide the needy with assistance. Police officers are there for people who need protection. EMTs are there for people who need medical help. Firefighters are there for people who need to put out a large fire (and, in some cases, get a stupid cat out of a tree), etc.
Our tax dollars are also used for other things, but I don't think that applies to the topic at hand.
Key word..."MORE needy". Just because somebody is more needy than someone else, doesn't mean that the "someone else" in that situation isn't still needy themselves. For example, homeless people who don't have a place to live are arguably more needy than an elderly person who can't afford a flu shot, but that doesn't mean that the elderly person isn't needy.
But, you make a good point by saying that people have different opinions on who or what they consider to be more needy, because it all has to do with individual morals, values and beliefs.
I used to work for a third party fundraiser that was contracted to raise money for various charities and non-profit organizations. I know aaaaall about how the agencies who raise money keep a large percentage of the money that's donated. But, without those agencies, hardly any money would be raised in the first place and no help to the needy would be able to be given at all. It's sort of a Catch 22, and it's rather scummy (in my opinion) for agencies to be keeping larger amounts of money than the charities they are hired to help, but it's sadly necessary in order for the truly needy to receive properly funded assitance.
The argument is overused because it's true and it makes a valid point. Our tax dollars are forcibly taken from citizens and used to provide services that, arguably, provide the needy with assistance. Police officers are there for people who need protection. EMTs are there for people who need medical help. Firefighters are there for people who need to put out a large fire (and, in some cases, get a stupid cat out of a tree
), etc.Our tax dollars are also used for other things, but I don't think that applies to the topic at hand.
busenbust
^^^^
Agreed. For the masses - and that's no bad thing. Unfortunately, he/it never really makes a difference.
Surely there are some things here we can all agree on.
GM was run by a gang of greedy incompetents.
Nobody is forced to go to see this movie.
The current healthcare system can be capricious, ineffective and is in some need of reform.
Mr Moore is fat.
Last year it came to light that a small group of Wall St types shafted millions of people for billions of dollars. They have gone largely unpunished and have continued to carry on pretty much as usual. If our elected betters don't see fit to go after them then satire and insult seem to just a bout all you have left.
Revisiting the issue of free speech in these forums again and again when someone says something you don't like is pointless.
America has a lot of people killed by gunfire compared to other 'western style' democracies.
From where I'm sat, it seems like Mr Moore knocks out a movie every three years or so. This hardly seems like a wave of indoctrination. His movies all seem to have a similar feel: serious then funny, then serious, then emotional, then funny, then serious again, then funny, then a revisit to someone from the start of the movie. The end, roll credits.
Like him or loathe him; he can entertain and hold the attention. On the way home from his movies you usually have something to talk about.
I can still remember sitting watching the 9/11 movie and squirming while he showed the footage of President Bush recieving the news of the terrorist attacks. You can debate the segment all day but you can not deny that in the ways that he wants to present his views he is a talented film maker.
GM was run by a gang of greedy incompetents.
Nobody is forced to go to see this movie.
The current healthcare system can be capricious, ineffective and is in some need of reform.
Mr Moore is fat.
Last year it came to light that a small group of Wall St types shafted millions of people for billions of dollars. They have gone largely unpunished and have continued to carry on pretty much as usual. If our elected betters don't see fit to go after them then satire and insult seem to just a bout all you have left.
Revisiting the issue of free speech in these forums again and again when someone says something you don't like is pointless.
America has a lot of people killed by gunfire compared to other 'western style' democracies.
From where I'm sat, it seems like Mr Moore knocks out a movie every three years or so. This hardly seems like a wave of indoctrination. His movies all seem to have a similar feel: serious then funny, then serious, then emotional, then funny, then serious again, then funny, then a revisit to someone from the start of the movie. The end, roll credits.
Like him or loathe him; he can entertain and hold the attention. On the way home from his movies you usually have something to talk about.
I can still remember sitting watching the 9/11 movie and squirming while he showed the footage of President Bush recieving the news of the terrorist attacks. You can debate the segment all day but you can not deny that in the ways that he wants to present his views he is a talented film maker.
busenbust
^^^^
Nice post:thumbsup:
Re. the economic situation. This was meant to be - and indeed was - the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Any yet news reports today (officially sanctioned by the IMF and 'statistics') talk of Germany, France and UK coming out of recession. I suppose if you throw enough money (billions upon billions) at a problem...but even still.
Learn from their mistakes? You gotta be kidding me! Here we go again. And the Bond Market did not bat an eye-lid.
Johann Splooge
Closed Account
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story -- by Michael Moore
Michael Moore should do a movie on pornstars that would stir up emotions. Pornstars like Stephanie Swift asking for money.
Michael Moore should do a movie on pornstars that would stir up emotions. Pornstars like Stephanie Swift asking for money.
Similar threads
