Two thumbs up!

[Wry Catcher]

Since you've not seen his films (I assume) how can you assert he goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies? If you have, please point out the "outright lies".
I await your reply; reviews by Fox News or the Washington Times will be ignored.

I'll say Moore goes to far. I've had the pleasure of listening to him on my radio and TV for twenty years. Believe me, you don't know comedy..and tragedy...until you listen to Michael Moore try to discuss economics. The guy just isn't that smart.

I learned a long, long time ago I could learn something from just about anyone. I'd also suggest that economics is not a hard science; imho it the softest of all the social sciences.

 

[bill777]

Since you've not seen his films (I assume) how can you assert he goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies? If you have, please point out the "outright lies".
I await your reply; reviews by Fox News or the Washington Times will be ignored.

I'll say Moore goes to far. I've had the pleasure of listening to him on my radio and TV for twenty years. Believe me, you don't know comedy..and tragedy...until you listen to Michael Moore try to discuss economics. The guy just isn't that smart.

I learned a long, long time ago I could learn something from just about anyone. I'd also suggest that economics is not a hard science; imho it the softest of all the social sciences.

I disagree, supply and demand is as basic as it gets. It isn't soft. I could spend hours enlightening you all as to what Michael Moore believes. I won't bother, unless you ask It's one thing to watch one of his movies every two or three years, it's another thing entirely to really hear what this guy is all about on a weekly basis, and he is a fool.

 

[HUGGY]

Yet it's the government's policies that create real monopolies.

That's ridiculous.

No, I'm afraid it's not. The government's onerous regulations are anti-competition and lead to monopolies. Then of course there are those that have federally sponsored monopolies like the Post Office.

How is it possible that Fed EX and UPS are in business?

I think you confuse our "government" with what has happened to the government with the influence of lobbyists. Corruption happens in every form of government. The solution is to regulate corporate money from having unchallenged access to government.

A point of reference would be the Pharms making it illegal for medicare to shop for the best drug prices.

 

[bodecea]

Yet it's the government's policies that create real monopolies.

That's ridiculous.

No, I'm afraid it's not. The government's onerous regulations are anti-competition and lead to monopolies. Then of course there are those that have federally sponsored monopolies like the Post Office.

Ahem....FedEx, UPS, etc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How to politely say this???
Well, there is, for example Enron, which most of us consider to be an example of greedy capitalists, and there are many examples of individuals and businesses where profit is a goal, but not the only goal.
See the movie or not, but be assured Moore's films have more truth than hyperbole; and as art Moore uses the artists license to prove a point by going over the top. One might excuse Limbaugh for artistic license but for he goes way beyond artistic license in his use of hate and fear.

One could say Michael Moore goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies. Such as calling the government bailouts "Capitalism," for instance.

Since you've not seen his films (I assume) how can you assert he goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies? If you have, please point out the "outright lies".
I await your reply; reviews by Fox News or the Washington Times will be ignored.

I believe I just pointed out one of his lies in the post you quoted. Calling government bailouts capitalism is a lie. Now whether he did it maliciously or simply doesn't know what capitalism really is I don't know.

But since you won't read reviews by Fox New or the Washington Times, and I don't necessarily blame you, here's one from the Mises Institute.

Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I'm afraid it's not. The government's onerous regulations are anti-competition and lead to monopolies. Then of course there are those that have federally sponsored monopolies like the Post Office.

Ahem....FedEx, UPS, etc.

Do not compete with the USPS in first class mail delivery because the federal government has granted them a monopoly in that area.

 

[bill777]

Here's one outright lie Michael Moore told. Bowling for Columbine. he walked into a bank in Michigan, and the film made you believe that he walked out immediately with a shotgun. In reality, he had to undergo the federally mandated waiting period for that gun, but Moore never pointed that out. He made it look as if he walked right out with it. I have have many more if you wanna play.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One could say Michael Moore goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies. Such as calling the government bailouts "Capitalism," for instance.

Since you've not seen his films (I assume) how can you assert he goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies? If you have, please point out the "outright lies".
I await your reply; reviews by Fox News or the Washington Times will be ignored.

I believe I just pointed out one of his lies in the post you quoted. Calling government bailouts capitalism is a lie. Now whether he did it maliciously or simply doesn't know what capitalism really is I don't know.

But since you won't read reviews by Fox New or the Washington Times, and I don't necessarily blame you, here's one from the Mises Institute.

Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute

Kevin, I've read the review. Let me quote one paragraph and comment:
"And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly — and with some generalization as I proffer this — Democrats like Moore and Republicans don't."

Moore, in my opinion, doesn't offer government as a father figure, nor does he suggest "warehouses of federal workers...running our lives is the optimal plan" In fact the review you post makes many assumptions about what Moore and others feel and desire without any evidence or examples.
Consider that right wing propagandists use wedge issues to divide Americans (yes, IMO). Abortion, individual rights (gay rights and equal rights for women), the Second Amendment, taxes, crime and punishment and taxes. Much if not all of it framed in emotional argument with liberal doses of hate and fear.
Moore uses humor along with hyperbole to make his point; a counterpoint to the conservative chic on the airwaves. He does not offer solutions so much as offer us an opportunity to think (THINK) about the problems of our age.

 

[bill777]

As someone who has heard Michael Moore on local talk radio, for many years, let me tell you....without a doubt Moore believes in Government as a father figure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since you've not seen his films (I assume) how can you assert he goes too far in his use of half-truths and outright lies? If you have, please point out the "outright lies".
I await your reply; reviews by Fox News or the Washington Times will be ignored.

I believe I just pointed out one of his lies in the post you quoted. Calling government bailouts capitalism is a lie. Now whether he did it maliciously or simply doesn't know what capitalism really is I don't know.

But since you won't read reviews by Fox New or the Washington Times, and I don't necessarily blame you, here's one from the Mises Institute.

Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute

Kevin, I've read the review. Let me quote one paragraph and comment:
"And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly — and with some generalization as I proffer this — Democrats like Moore and Republicans don't."

Moore, in my opinion, doesn't offer government as a father figure, nor does he suggest "warehouses of federal workers...running our lives is the optimal plan" In fact the review you post makes many assumptions about what Moore and others feel and desire without any evidence or examples.
Consider that right wing propagandists use wedge issues to divide Americans (yes, IMO). Abortion, individual rights (gay rights and equal rights for women), the Second Amendment, taxes, crime and punishment and taxes. Much if not all of it framed in emotional argument with liberal doses of hate and fear.
Moore uses humor along with hyperbole to make his point; a counterpoint to the conservative chic on the airwaves. He does not offer solutions so much as offer us an opportunity to think (THINK) about the problems of our age.

Do you deny then that he is anti-free market? Because if he is anti-free market then the opposite is to have government control of the market. That would mean that he is indeed for federal workers running our economy.

 

[bill777]

Kevin, you just won.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe I just pointed out one of his lies in the post you quoted. Calling government bailouts capitalism is a lie. Now whether he did it maliciously or simply doesn't know what capitalism really is I don't know.

But since you won't read reviews by Fox New or the Washington Times, and I don't necessarily blame you, here's one from the Mises Institute.

Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute

Kevin, I've read the review. Let me quote one paragraph and comment:
"And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly — and with some generalization as I proffer this — Democrats like Moore and Republicans don't."

Moore, in my opinion, doesn't offer government as a father figure, nor does he suggest "warehouses of federal workers...running our lives is the optimal plan" In fact the review you post makes many assumptions about what Moore and others feel and desire without any evidence or examples.
Consider that right wing propagandists use wedge issues to divide Americans (yes, IMO). Abortion, individual rights (gay rights and equal rights for women), the Second Amendment, taxes, crime and punishment and taxes. Much if not all of it framed in emotional argument with liberal doses of hate and fear.
Moore uses humor along with hyperbole to make his point; a counterpoint to the conservative chic on the airwaves. He does not offer solutions so much as offer us an opportunity to think (THINK) about the problems of our age.

Do you deny then that he is anti-free market? Because if he is anti-free market then the opposite is to have government control of the market. That would mean that he is indeed for federal workers running our economy.

I don't know if he is anti-free market (whatever that means; if you're suggesting lassie faire capitalism, count me in as anti-free market. I don't want my family eating meat under buyer beware conditions).
The problem, Kevin, is you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either or, not here, not in China, France, the UK or any developed nation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Kevin, you just won.

It's not about winning or losing; it's about critical thinking, problem definition and problem solving. Much of which seems to be concentrated on my side of the aisle. Too many on your side post idiotgrams framed by bias and built on a foundation of talking points.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, I've read the review. Let me quote one paragraph and comment:
"And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly — and with some generalization as I proffer this — Democrats like Moore and Republicans don't."

Moore, in my opinion, doesn't offer government as a father figure, nor does he suggest "warehouses of federal workers...running our lives is the optimal plan" In fact the review you post makes many assumptions about what Moore and others feel and desire without any evidence or examples.
Consider that right wing propagandists use wedge issues to divide Americans (yes, IMO). Abortion, individual rights (gay rights and equal rights for women), the Second Amendment, taxes, crime and punishment and taxes. Much if not all of it framed in emotional argument with liberal doses of hate and fear.
Moore uses humor along with hyperbole to make his point; a counterpoint to the conservative chic on the airwaves. He does not offer solutions so much as offer us an opportunity to think (THINK) about the problems of our age.

Do you deny then that he is anti-free market? Because if he is anti-free market then the opposite is to have government control of the market. That would mean that he is indeed for federal workers running our economy.

I don't know if he is anti-free market (whatever that means; if you're suggesting lassie faire capitalism, count me in as anti-free market. I don't want my family eating meat under buyer beware conditions).
The problem, Kevin, is you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either or, not here, not in China, France, the UK or any developed nation.

The point of contention comes from the Mises article and it states:

"He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan."

Now you say Moore doesn't want federal workers remotely running our lives, but that's exactly what he does want. You say you don't know what anti-free market would mean, it would mean that you do not accept that the market is able to regulate itself and allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. Now, if you are anti-free market you do believe in federal workers running your life because you believe the market needs regulated. Therefore, you need federal workers to regulate it. Clearly Michael Moore believes regulation of the market is a good thing, and therefore the claim made in the article was correct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you deny then that he is anti-free market? Because if he is anti-free market then the opposite is to have government control of the market. That would mean that he is indeed for federal workers running our economy.

I don't know if he is anti-free market (whatever that means; if you're suggesting lassie faire capitalism, count me in as anti-free market. I don't want my family eating meat under buyer beware conditions).
The problem, Kevin, is you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either or, not here, not in China, France, the UK or any developed nation.

The point of contention comes from the Mises article and it states:

"He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan."

Now you say Moore doesn't want federal workers remotely running our lives, but that's exactly what he does want. You say you don't know what anti-free market would mean, it would mean that you do not accept that the market is able to regulate itself and allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. Now, if you are anti-free market you do believe in federal workers running your life because you believe the market needs regulated. Therefore, you need federal workers to regulate it. Clearly Michael Moore believes regulation of the market is a good thing, and therefore the claim made in the article was correct.

Kevin, "clearly"? Please, don't tell me what I believe, or even what Moore believes. Try and tell us what you believe - and leave the talking points home. I no more want federal workers running my life than I want insurance company employees running my life. But the fact remains, I have some control over federal bureaucrats (my vote) and zero control over insurance adjusters - less when insurance adjusters have lobbyists bribing members of Congress to do their bidding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know if he is anti-free market (whatever that means; if you're suggesting lassie faire capitalism, count me in as anti-free market. I don't want my family eating meat under buyer beware conditions).
The problem, Kevin, is you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either or, not here, not in China, France, the UK or any developed nation.

The point of contention comes from the Mises article and it states:

"He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan."

Now you say Moore doesn't want federal workers remotely running our lives, but that's exactly what he does want. You say you don't know what anti-free market would mean, it would mean that you do not accept that the market is able to regulate itself and allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. Now, if you are anti-free market you do believe in federal workers running your life because you believe the market needs regulated. Therefore, you need federal workers to regulate it. Clearly Michael Moore believes regulation of the market is a good thing, and therefore the claim made in the article was correct.

Kevin, "clearly"? Please, don't tell me what I believe, or even what Moore believes. Try and tell us what you believe - and leave the talking points home. I no more want federal workers running my life than I want insurance company employees running my life. But the fact remains, I have some control over federal bureaucrats (my vote) and zero control over insurance adjusters - less when insurance adjusters have lobbyists bribing members of Congress to do their bidding.

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

 

[garyd]

Wry, the notion that you have any control whatever of federal bureaucrats who, thanks to the merit system and unions, for all practiacl purposes can be fired only for shooting their bosses is so rediculous as to defy both logic and common sense.

 

[Harry Dresden]

UPS has said for years that they can deliver first class mail for less than half what the post office charges.

no they cant...where did you ever hear this bull.........geezus...

 

[garyd]

You being tongue in chee or do you actaully have some info?

 

[Harry Dresden]

UPS has said for years that they can deliver first class mail for less than half what the post office charges.

Lysander Spooner setup his own Post Office in the 1800's that undercut the USPS and forced their prices down, and was still successful. Eventually the federal government forced it to close, however. We need to legalize competition in that field.

if you want 10 different people opening your mail box Kevin ....go for it....when things never show up.....its not that it was never delivered....one of those 10 is a thief.....and there is a 95% chance it wont be the USPS guy.....