Micheal Moore

Rorie · Post by **Rorie** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:37

i have realized that if i am ever going to get americans to respect me is too give up defending micheal moore on issues i just jump into with no reasoning. ok i am ready to hear the dirt on this liar. in fact on a another board which i am no longer part of. a bunch of americans did point me to the truth but at the time i ingored it. i cannot access it from there anymore as i closed my account over a sereve disagreement with the members that were american. if you have evidence of moore being a liar. let's here it. btw: i really do want to travel to the states one day but it comes down to encouragement by myself to actually travel there and money. the aussie dollars is strong against the greenback but i am currently in a habit of saving up big at this time

Post by **tulip** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:51

I wouldn't call Michael Moore a liar. He certainly is biased and therefore his argumentation in films/books is polemic and unbalanced. As I said before in one of your threads I believe, you should watch/read his works as the intended pamphlets they are.
Knowing this, you can see there is some thruth, some things are exaggerated, and there is another side which he doesn't tell. If I learned anything in my university time it's that I never believe that one man speaks the truth objectively, and I do believe that no one can really grasp the truth.

VikingBoyBilly · Post by **VikingBoyBilly** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:20

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/politics/

_mr_m_ · Post by **_mr_m_** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:52

A lot of his arguments tend to be one-sided, and he comes off as a pontificating loudmouth...at least to me, anyway.

RoboBlue · Post by **RoboBlue** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 20:28

He's certainly not as bad as Glenn Beck, who's obviously using people to make money.
From wikipedia:

In a 2010 interview in Forbes, Beck asserted that his business was not political, but is an entertainment company: "I could give a flying crap about the political process," continuing on to say that Mercury Radio Arts, his production company, is "an entertainment company".

Of course, Michael Moore could be using people's political loyalty for money, but if he is, he's at least being less obvious. :/

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:29

Michael Moore is incredibly opinionated and narrow-minded, and opinionated, narrow-minded people annoy me no matter what their politics are.

VikingBoyBilly · Post by **VikingBoyBilly** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:26

StupidBunny wrote:Michael Moore is incredibly opinionated and narrow-minded, and opinionated, narrow-minded people annoy me no matter what their politics are.

Then why do you visit the pckf?

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 0:28

Moore is a movie maker. I look at it like that.

But, the guy is right in most of what he says.
And quite honestly, why not? I see nothing wrong with his stuff. There should be more of it.

What bothers me is that he does not outright say that both the democrat and republican parties are two sides of the same coin, that they both suck. I think that one should be able to realize that through some of the movies... but it's not outright stated.

Another thing that bothers me is when Americans say that he is radical. Much of what his message is about are things that people take for granted in much of the world.

Rorie · Post by **Rorie** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 0:33

i do not even know why i went out and brought sicko. even though it did highlght the need for national health care within the united states. most of the claims he makes such as people being turned away because of not be able to afford insurance which is most cases is not true. public hospitals are there to help the poor and disavantaged whilst private hospitals are there to help the rich and powerful. i was recently turned away by a private eye surgeon. he would not say why he was refusing to help me he just told me to get the hell out all cuz i have no medical coverage. in australia we have this universal health insurance program called medicare and it is surposed to cover australians for some but not all health care expenses. but one good thing about it cuz i am on the disability pension. i get my medicines at a subsided rate. i have a appointment in melbourne monday at a public hospital that deals with eye and ear problems. i will be pushing all my options to insure that my eyes get the best treatment that the government will pay for

thehackercat · Post by **thehackercat** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:55

Commander Spleen · Post by **Commander Spleen** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:07

I don't know much about Michael Moore and his... policies, rhetoric, whatever. This is in response to THC's rantage.

While I agree with the general sentiment of 1. and 2., 3. assumes that the only alternative to capitalism is some flavour of communism in which everything is government regulated, owned and controlled. Australia is an example of this middle ground with its welfare system. I don't know what the situation is in that regard in the United States, but it works pretty well here.

Of course, giving people money doesn't entirely guarantee their well-being either, and some people will inevitably 'abuse' the system. But I find this preferable to having a lot of people floating around without the basic necessities of life and a stable platform from which to seek a greater lifestyle should they choose it, when the resources exist to ensure this doesn't happen.

What I find troublesome about a purely capitalistic environment is that the needs of individuals become less important than the needs of corporations. The 'greater good' is the economy. Then you end up with obscene amounts of money poured into "bail outs" when things go wrong.

An extreme, perhaps exceptional example, but it definitely reflects our society's priorities. At a more microcosmic scale, everyday people spend ridiculous amounts of money on things that do not contribute to the societal progress or individual success. Take poker machines for example.

So you can't tell me that capitalism is a 'perfect' system. Perhaps it's the best we've put into practice so far, but it's by far not the best there'll ever be.

DHeadshot · Post by **DHeadshot** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:33

thehackercat wrote:Premise two: There are certain truths that are evident simply by God's natural law, and require no court, cabinet, or congress to uphold. These include the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. (Also added in recent years are the rights of womens' suffrage, equal civil rights across the nation, and 18-year-old suffrage).

That took an amendment to be included.

thehackercat wrote:1) A free-enterprise system (typically known as a Capitalist state), is based not on the gathering of wealth, but on success being directly proportional to progress, and therefore survival.

Capitalism is defined as a system based on the pursuit of wealth for its own sake - that's what makes it different from simply a merchant economy. However, since we all know this doesn't work as a system, there have been numerous attempts to find alternatives. Sadly, these generally manifested as forms of communism, which doesn't work either.

RoboBlue · Post by **RoboBlue** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:42

thehackercat wrote: So, keeping all of these points in mind, I present MY reasons that Michael Moore is wrong (at least on some accounts).

1) A free-enterprise system (typically known as a Capitalist state), is based not on the gathering of wealth, but on success being directly proportional to progress, and therefore survival.

2) Therefore, a Capitalist state running a free-enterprise system encourages both COMPETITION and the INNOVATION required thereof. This means that EVERYONE has a stake in the success of the nation as a whole. People will strive to build a better product (therefore benefiting themselves AND the population). They will also compete with other people. The people will know which product is better, and when they support IT, it becomes the norm. (Sort of a natural selection of industries; the strongest survive.) This insures the great advancement of technology in a country. It is also why the United States of America went from Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Base in about 70 years, and has led the world in the Industrial Revolution, as well as led the world financially in Wall Street.

3) In contrast, a centralized state (typically known as a Socialist state, though definitions vary) ensures that all resources are regulated by the central government. This eliminates the incentive to succeed, because there is little competition. If no one has a stake in the success of the market, industry, etc, then it will collapse, ESPECIALLY if handled by a strong federal government.

I agree with Spleen about #3, you're assuming that the only possible socialist solution is to turn all power in everything over to the government.

As far as #2 goes, I'm not sure if you're asserting that we need a completely free system (no regulation) or not, but I'd like to point out that when many of the regulations were removed, companies made some very risky and even stupid decisions; They then had to be bailed out with taxpayer money.

For #1, I'm not sure I understand you. If the gathering of wealth isn't considered "success", for a capitalist entity (a person or a corporation), what is, and who's succeeding in today's market?

EpiclyUnepic · Post by **EpiclyUnepic** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 13:34

Well for me, what ive learned in life there can't be a more true statement than the following; one way is not the right way.

Theres too many beliefs and ways in the world for there to be one absolute truth. So my overall response to michael moore, lovers and haters is this; to each their own

I just listen, i'm not wise enough to speak yet.

thehackercat · Post by **thehackercat** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 20:14

Commander Spleen wrote:I don't know much about Michael Moore and his... policies, rhetoric, whatever. This is in response to THC's rantage.

While I agree with the general sentiment of 1. and 2., 3. assumes that the only alternative to capitalism is some flavour of communism in which everything is government regulated, owned and controlled. Australia is an example of this middle ground with its welfare system. I don't know what the situation is in that regard in the United States, but it works pretty well here.

Of course, giving people money doesn't entirely guarantee their well-being either, and some people will inevitably 'abuse' the system. But I find this preferable to having a lot of people floating around without the basic necessities of life and a stable platform from which to seek a greater lifestyle should they choose it, when the resources exist to ensure this doesn't happen.

I didn't really make that clear. I know there are middle grounds, an example being my own country, believe it or not. The New Deal, along with many medical and disability pensions added since then, are a centralized operation.

The intent of these systems is a good one, perhaps even a noble one. But the way we're going about it is wrong. The only successful welfare system is one with the purpose of helping individuals get BACK ON THEIR FEET, not giving them a ride for the rest of their lives. There are exceptions to the rule, obviously, such as people with chronic illness. But if exceptions are made and well regulated, the rule would be a good one to follow.

Welfare and nationalization are one of the largest gaping wounds in this country, not because of their nature, but because of their methodology.