Michael Moore blames wife for lakefront mansion and all his troubles!

102 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Michael Moore, Wife Tangle Over Divorce Dollars | The Smoking Gun

The hypocrisy of this man is absolutely astounding.

-Chris
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    Maybe he can room with Gore.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256673].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
    I'm truly sorry to hear about his divorce.

    Whatever you think you know about Michael Moore, there's a whole lot more to the man than you've read or heard from media sources. He's actually a very generous and caring individual, but that doesn't make the news.

    I know him to be a man of his word and the first one to reach in his pocket to help, without being asked.

    Might not square up with what you believe, but it's a fact.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    So people like me that wish they could have enough to merely AFFORD a mansion, so we could retire in dignity, should be taxed to POVERTY and forced to be like Oliver begging for more gruel, and HE has the AUDACITY to buy such mansions and cry because someone is squandering the wealth so?

    To say he is a hypocrite is like the galaxy saying an ant is small. It just doesn't cut it. It is an understatement in the extreme. And why didn't he give her 90% in the settlement? I mean he CLAIMS that rich people can spare so much and women have it so hard, etc... Giving 90% should have been NOTHING! AND, frankly, since he claims to know nothing about how finances work, I guess he has NO debt and everything is CHEAP! SO, if he only had ONE million dollars, and gave her 90%,he would STILL be ahead!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256781].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256852].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
        Right instead we should all feel sorry for a man who claims to be for income equality from his nice mansion.
        Especially when he's bitching about her over spending and lowering his wealth.
        I suppose we should all praise Gore for his mansions because he paid a little carbon fee. After all he's making good money promoting climate change and we all know paying for carbon credits will put an end to climate change. So he's a great example for us all to aspire to.

        Both are hypocrites.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256877].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          ... who claims to be for income equality from his nice mansion.
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          ... about an issue like income equality ...
          The term usually used is "income inequality" which is commonly defined as the gap between individuals or households making most of the income in a given country and those making very little. This gap has widened dramatically in the past few decades.

          Nobody is talking about creating a society where every citizen earns the same income. Heck, even China has the second most number of billionaires with over 150 and you can't get too much more socialist than China. So, there's no hypocrisy of a man talking about reducing the income inequality gap and making a good living himself.

          Regarding the ownership of stock, Moore explained this before and to me his explaination is very believable. Of course, if you have a political bias you probably won't buy it. His explanation was that the stocks were bought by the manager of his charity foundation and when he found out what stocks this guy bought he fired the guy. The manager is now in jail. So he says he has never personally owned stocks and if you say that is a lie prove it.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262209].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            The term usually used is "income inequality" which is commonly defined as the gap between individuals or households making most of the income in a given country and those making very little. This gap has widened dramatically in the past few decades.

            Nobody is talking about creating a society where every citizen earns the same income. Heck, even China has the second most number of billionaires with over 150 and you can't get too much more socialist than China. So, there's no hypocrisy of a man talking about reducing the income inequality gap and making a good living himself.

            Regarding the ownership of stock, Moore explained this before and to me his explaination is very believable. Of course, if you have a political bias you probably won't buy it. His explanation was that the stocks were bought by the manager of his charity foundation and when he found out what stocks this guy bought he fired the guy. The manager is now in jail. So he says he has never personally owned stocks and if you say that is a lie prove it.
            Love the excuses.
            What's the excuse for him owning 6 different homes, I guess his manager bought them also and he doesn't personally own them?
            Let me ask you this are the stocks in his name or the charities name?
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262279].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              By the way Tim, I never mentioned stocks at all in this thread.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262299].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              What's the excuse for him owning 6 different homes..
              No excuse needed. He's done very well and owns several properties. So what?

              I know you didn't say anything about stocks, I was addressing others who did.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262327].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                No excuse needed. He's done very well and owns several properties. So what?

                I know you didn't say anything about stocks, I was addressing others who did.
                He's now just another one of the so called elites who is part of the problem he claims to be against.

                If you're really concerned about income inequality and think your so called side is, explain this.
                5 Years After the Crisis: Why the Income Gap Is Widening | The Fiscal Times
                Recent U.S. income inequality data published by economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty show that the top 1 percent of households by income has captured a staggering 95 percent of total income gains between 2009 and 2012, compared with 68 percent of gains between 1993 and 2012. Rather than sharing in the gains, the bottom 90 percent of households have seen income fall steeply – by an amount equivalent to 16 percent of all the income gains between 2009 and 2012. By comparison, between 1993 and 2012, the bottom 90 percent lost income equivalent to 5 percent of gains.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262353].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  If you're really concerned about income inequality and think your so called side is, explain this.
                  Because things haven't changed much. That article explains what could be done.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262374].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Because things haven't changed much. That article explains what could be done.

                    Tim, I'm (not really) surprised at the number of people in here who like to say folks on the left want to punish success - who have a problem with Mr. Moore's wealth.

                    As if he took some sort of vow of poverty and/or advocating for the poor means you have to be poor.
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262398].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Tim, I'm (not really) surprised at the number of people in here who like to say folks on the left want to punish success - who have a problem with Mr. Moore's wealth.

                      As if he took some sort of vow of poverty and/or advocating for the poor means you have to be poor.
                      Yep. I would like to see some serious changes done in this country. That's no secret. However, I like to make money like everyone else. Should I have a limit to what I want to make because I would like to see the income inequality in this country addressed? Nope. That just doesn't make any sense.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262735].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Because things haven't changed much. That article explains what could be done.
                    Yes it does.
                    My point really was that when you look at how the income gap increases regardless of which party is in charge, it has to make you start questioning things.
                    People of both parties need to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions and stop making excuses for them or saying well the other side does it.
                    Instead of listening to what they say and excepting it. Look at what they do and question it.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262462].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      My point really was ...
                      Yeah, I knew what your point was. The reality is our government is in gridlock. What is your solution Thom? I know what I would like to see done to solve the income gap. How about you?
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262731].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Yeah, I knew what your point was. The reality is our government is in gridlock. What is your solution Thom? I know what I would like to see done to solve the income gap. How about you?
                        No you still don't know my point if you think it's just about gridlock.
                        Speaking as someone with a below poverty level income, I'm not that concerned about the income gap.
                        I learned years ago that my income is up to me and the effort I put in to earn it.
                        If I had a problem with people getting rich while I'm not, I'd work harder on getting rich myself.
                        I'd much rather drag myself up to someones level, then to drag them down to mine.
                        But like I said I know my income is up to me. I'm happy at the level I'm at which is more important to me then wanting to punish people who have more.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262960].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          No you still don't know my point if you think it's just about gridlock.
                          No, I didn't think your point was about gridlock. You said what your point was and I could see it coming when you posted the article about the the income inequality increasing the last 5 years, which would obviously infer that "things haven't changed even though your guy is in charge". My remark about gridlock was in response to that. Nothing is getting done now, especially since 2010. However, that hardly shows that things never change no matter who is in power. That was my point.

                          There are those who are OK with a widening income gap and think that it's just capitalism the way it was meant to be. Then those are others who think a shrinking middle class and a widening income gap is a big problem. Plus, they see the rich as gaming the system with recent changes to campaign financing. You apparently are the former and I am the the later.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263136].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            No, I didn't think your point was about gridlock. You said what your point was and I could see it coming when you posted the article about the the income inequality increasing the last 5 years, which would obviously infer that "things haven't changed even though your guy is in charge". My remark about gridlock was in response to that. Nothing is getting done now, especially since 2010. However, that hardly shows that things never change no matter who is in power. That was my point.
                            Nope still not my point.
                            My point is people in both parties don't hold the people they elect accountable. Instead it's protect everything they do and blame the other side. Democrats and republicans have managed to divide the country in ways that where never imagined. Neither side has shown in any way that they try to bring people together. But I know, it's the other sides fault.
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            There are those who are OK with a widening income gap and think that it's just capitalism the way it was meant to be. Then those are others who think a shrinking middle class and a widening income gap is a big problem. Plus, they see the rich as gaming the system with recent changes to campaign financing. You apparently are the former and I am the the later.
                            There's some who just don't care and are happy where they are. But then as you know I believe in all people being equal and putting people into classes is just another way to divide them.
                            Sure the rich are gaming the system. Of course you need to keep in mind that more R&D politicians are rich or damn close to it then are middle class or close to that. So you got to ask, are they on their own side or yours?
                            I don't look at it as capitalism the way it was meant to be, It is what it is from the rich manipulating politicians to get what they want and keep the status quo going in their favor.

                            You don't think that both sides are using the recent campaign financing changes to their best advantage?
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263218].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
        Not to mention superlative quality sarcasm! :-)
        Signature

        Marriage, For The Best Arguments

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256887].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
        And from such a high quality source as well. On it's top right hand corner it has celebrity mug shots, featuring Paris Hilton. The New York Times and The Guardian must be in panic mode knowing they have competition like that breathing down their necks.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9256958].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
          Michael Moore is a capitalist who made his fortune by denouncing capitalism. I don't see why some people don't see through him.

          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          And from such a high quality source as well. On it's top right hand corner it has celebrity mug shots, featuring Paris Hilton. The New York Times and The Guardian must be in panic mode knowing they have competition like that breathing down their necks.
          What about Daily Mail and Yahoo!?

          Michael Moore claims wife 'spent recklessly' as they prepare for divorce trial | Mail Online

          https://ca.celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs...180308611.html
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257004].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
            What about Daily Mail...?

            Now the 60-year-old filmmaker is squabbling with his wife of 22 years, Kathleen Glynn, as they sort out their marital assets in preparation for their July divorce trial, The Smoking Gun reported on Thursday.
            Check out the "don't miss" sidebar on The Daily Mail site as well. Lots of "hard hitting journalism" there.

            ... and Yahoo!?

            First up is perhaps the most basic: when they actually separated. According to court documents, (<== the link points to The Smoking Gun)...


            PS I'm not defending Moore, I find him to be an obnoxious self-promoter, same as Alex Jones, they're just different sides of the same coin.

            I detest both Moore and Jones, both politically and personally, but still have learnt a lot about marketing by observing both of them.

            If others were to put aside their political beliefs for a moment and look objectively at both from a marketing perspective, and more importantly learn from how they became successful, perhaps they too might have a "$50 million fortune" and an Academy Award to their names.

            All things are possible.
            Signature
            Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
            So that blind people can hate them as well.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257048].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Whatever Moore's leanings, I liked some of his Documentary films, in particular Sicko.
              Signature

              Marriage, For The Best Arguments

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257079].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
              Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

              What about Daily Mail...?

              Check out the "don't miss" sidebar on The Daily Mail site as well. Lots of "hard hitting journalism" there.

              ... and Yahoo!?


              I've never heard of The Smoking Gun, but if the Daily Mail and Yahoo! are referring to it, then it must not be as bad as you made it out to be.

              And of course this appears on a celebrity news site. I don't expect The Economist to cover Michael Moore's divorce.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257249].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

            Michael Moore is a capitalist who made his fortune by denouncing capitalism. I don't see why some people don't see through him.



            What about Daily Mail and Yahoo!?

            Michael Moore claims wife 'spent recklessly' as they prepare for divorce trial | Mail Online

            https://ca.celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs...180308611.html
            It is just out and out greed! Greed isn't REALLY about wanting a lot. It is about wanting so much more than you deserve. So some of the GREEDY get angry at those that have more more and claim THOSE people are greedy and should give back. They are FINE with being fodder for a broadcast that makes others wealthy. They are FINE with "bundlers" and the like collecting money for them and taking a cut. They must know deep down that if ALL did as they the world economy would collapse in chaos. But they want to ignore ALL that! They simply WANT! I wonder when the NEXT ABSOLUTELY GOT TO HAVE IT invention comes and is declared a HUMAN RIGHT that must be paid for by all NOT for the use of all, but privately.

            Ever notice that the leaders in the poverty movements, that blame the wealthy tend to be VERY wealthy THEMSELVES? They RARELY seem to give anything back THEMSELVES.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257375].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
        Funny, how some people come in here and express the same old cynical remarks about an OP and his opinions and remarks.

        Instead of pointing to specific merits and drawbacks to what the OP says or didnt say, some just sit back and make sarcastic replies in a general and shallow way offering ZERO substance to the discussion..

        And then of course the typical cronies come up and give their BIG 'Thanks' like that is supposed to really mean something

        Its the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum...wink wink


        Now getting back to the Issue which the OP brought up. I never particularly liked Michael Moore. Someone so passionate about the issues which he is for yet it is a known fact that he has lived an extravagant Lifestyle the past few decades

        I am not judging (well maybe a little lol). If I was in the same position and had tens of millions of dollars I would probably be even more extravagant.

        People, here is the thing. When you are sooooo passionate about an issue like income equality and bring in controversy that has stirred up the status quo then your damn straight that other people are going to watch every move you make.

        If you buy a 10 million dollar Mansion people are going to call your a$$ out on it.

        And that is just Life people. Just get over it ! Cry and whine about it if you like. This has nothing to do with being biased or unbiased. It is just about people rightfully scrutinizing others who have made it their Living to Publicly lynch human beings who many times are just ALLEGED ( not tried or convicted ) to have committed Social Injustices.

        Bottom line :You talk the talk you better walk the walk !


        Rob
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257106].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          Funny, how some people come in here and express the same old cynical remarks about an OP and his opinions and remarks.

          Instead of pointing to specific merits and drawbacks to what the OP says or didnt say, some just sit back and make sarcastic replies in a general and shallow way offering ZERO substance to the discussion..

          And then of course the typical cronies come up and give their BIG 'Thanks' like that is supposed to really mean something

          Its the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum...wink wink


          Now getting back to the Issue which the OP brought up. I never particularly liked Michael Moore. Someone so passionate about the issues which he is for yet it is a known fact that he has lived an extravagant Lifestyle the past few decades

          I am not judging (well maybe a little lol). If I was in the same position and had tens of millions of dollars I would probably be even more extravagant.

          People, here is the thing. When you are sooooo passionate about an issue like income equality and bring in controversy that has stirred up the status quo then your damn straight that other people are going to watch every move you make.

          If you buy a 10 million dollar Mansion people are going to call your a$$ out on it.

          And that is just Life people. Just get over it ! Cry and whine about it if you like. This has nothing to do with being biased or unbiased. It is just about people rightfully scrutinizing others who have made it their Living to Publicly lynch human beings who many times are just ALLEGED ( not tried or convicted ) to have committed Social Injustices.

          Bottom line :You talk the talk you better walk the walk !


          Rob
          What Mr Claude, and I would include myself in saying here is that some of the comments made to posts on this forum are so far off the wall and downright stupid and ill informed and show complete ignorance of a subject, and are often biased to political leanings or distorted personal views of one sort or the other.

          There are only true facts out there and sensible answers and solutions to problems. The rest of the comments are about as relevant as the tabloid press.

          Some of us here see through these posts and try to get our points across in a sensible and balanced way only to get deluged with unbelievably stupid counter arguments. It can sometimes be entertaining for a while but ultimately frustrating! So sorry if a bit of sarcasm creeps in or we attempt to lighten them up a bit with humor but a lot of it comes from boredom, frustration and disbelief that some people are so closed minded about things or blinkered in their views.

          Take Mr Moore for example. He's a film maker and intelligent social commentary documentary maker. He got pretty rich and earned a lot of money doing it. End of story.

          You can choose to accept or not accept his docu's conclusions of course, that is up to you.

          The fact that he looks a bit like the father from Family Guy or is having a bad time with a divorce is just idle chatter worthy of the gutter press. He should be judged solely on the body of his work though.

          Perhaps I should not be so critical, this is just a public forum anyway. But at least I enjoy some of it.
          Signature

          Marriage, For The Best Arguments

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257311].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            What Mr Claude, and I would include myself in saying here is that some of the comments made to posts on this forum are so far off the wall and downright stupid and ill informed and show complete ignorance of a subject, and are often biased to political leanings or distorted personal views of one sort or the other.

            There are only true facts out there and sensible answers and solutions to problems. The rest of the comments are about as relevant as the tabloid press.

            Some of us here see through these posts and try to get our points across in a sensible and balanced way only to get deluged with unbelievably stupid counter arguments. It can sometimes be entertaining for a while but ultimately frustrating! So sorry if a bit of sarcasm creeps in or we attempt to lighten them up a bit with humor but a lot of it comes from boredom, frustration and disbelief that some people are so closed minded about things or blinkered in their views.

            Take Mr Moore for example. He's a film maker and intelligent social commentary documentary maker. He got pretty rich and earned a lot of money doing it. End of story.

            You can choose to accept or not accept his docu's conclusions of course, that is up to you.

            The fact that he looks a bit like the father from Family Guy or is having a bad time with a divorce is just idle chatter worthy of the gutter press. He should be judged solely on the body of his work though.

            Perhaps I should not be so critical, this is just a public forum anyway. But at least I enjoy some of it.
            Has he spent a lot of money on a lavish lifestyle? HECK, is he simply RICH?

            Apparently $50 million

            The New York post says his $2 million dollar home puts him in the 1%

            He is in the midst of a divorce, according to the huffington post. I won't bother looking at more. this is enough as far as I am concerned.

            I've seen many of his movies. They are biased films to drive parts of his agenda. To call it a "body of work" is an insult to the term.

            Take CUBA as an example. For MANY reasons, they need some things that are nice. Like most communist countries, they lie on BOTH sides. If moore comes in, they are certainly going t want to show him the best. It takes heat off of them, gives them some respect, and they would LOVE to have people say "Why can't the US be as good as CUBA?"! And to hear him talk, you would think all gun owners are evil people that want to kill people. I am sure most gun owners want to NEVER shoot their gun at ANYONE. IMAGINE how bad statistics would look if they DID want to just kill people.

            Although there IS some doubt about at least 1 armed guard, he DID admit to having bodyguards, and about how many film events have body guards. I wonder! HOW MANY people do you feel are body guards that AREN'T armed? WHAT are they expected to do if they aren't? No matter what the response, they are used as a kind of gun. And people HAVE been hurt by body guards. They may even have had an affect on those gun killings.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257451].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Has he spent a lot of money on a lavish lifestyle? HECK, is he simply RICH?

              Apparently $50 million

              The New York post says his $2 million dollar home puts him in the 1%

              He is in the midst of a divorce, according to the huffington post. I won't bother looking at more. this is enough as far as I am concerned.

              I've seen many of his movies. They are biased films to drive parts of his agenda. To call it a "body of work" is an insult to the term.

              Take CUBA as an example. For MANY reasons, they need some things that are nice. Like most communist countries, they lie on BOTH sides. If moore comes in, they are certainly going t want to show him the best. It takes heat off of them, gives them some respect, and they would LOVE to have people say "Why can't the US be as good as CUBA?"! And to hear him talk, you would think all gun owners are evil people that want to kill people. I am sure most gun owners want to NEVER shoot their gun at ANYONE. IMAGINE how bad statistics would look if they DID want to just kill people.

              Although there IS some doubt about at least 1 armed guard, he DID admit to having bodyguards, and about how many film events have body guards. I wonder! HOW MANY people do you feel are body guards that AREN'T armed? WHAT are they expected to do if they aren't? No matter what the response, they are used as a kind of gun. And people HAVE been hurt by body guards. They may even have had an affect on those gun killings.

              Steve
              Mr Moore is rich from his film and Documentary making. So what?

              Perhaps he had to have a bit of protection in Cuba for his visit with some US citizens because it is a volatile country, so what? Did the people get some medication and syringes for a little over the cost price? Yep, do the people of Cuba get them for the same price? Yep. Is Cuba a place I'd like to live, Nope, but for other reasons than the medical services.

              Mr Moore visited the UK and France in Sicko and the Health systems were exactly as described and as I remember.

              He is a film and documentary maker, he makes people think about the way they do things compared with others. He opens peoples eyes. That's what documentary makers strive to do!

              Does he have to endorse/promote these methods or follow them himself. Nope, entirely his choice.

              Does his personal affairs with his wife, finances, political views etc detract from his documentary making skills?

              No.

              Tom Cruise is super rich, a little arrogant, follower of a dubious cult made up by a Science Fiction writer and been divorced three times. Is it going to stop me going to see his latest film. No!
              Signature

              Marriage, For The Best Arguments

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257574].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                Mr Moore is rich from his film and Documentary making. So what?
                He talks SO much about how the rich should help the poor, etc.... To the degree that he ispushing them to be FORCED to without any care of specifics.

                Perhaps he had to have a bit of protection in Cuba for his visit with some US citizens because it is a volatile country, so what?
                It was a KEY part of "SICKO". The bodyguards are primarily in the US!

                Did the people get some medication and syringes for a little over the cost price? Yep, do the people of Cuba get them for the same price? Yep
                Again, no real specifics.

                Is Cuba a place I'd like to live, Nope, but for other reasons than the medical services.
                WHY NOT? People seem to think it is a paradise!

                Mr Moore visited the UK and France in Sicko and the Health systems were exactly as described and as I remember.
                And he could have visited medicare and medicaid people, as well as VAs here. If you want a poll area that can give you a view in a certain way, you probably can. People having had surgery or visiting a doctor gets rid of a lot that would speak against it. I heard of a doctor in Canada that is getting sued to close his clinic because it is concierge. People like him because the wait time is a lot shorter.

                He is a film and documentary maker, he makes people think about the way they do things compared with others. He opens peoples eyes. That's what documentary makers strive to do!
                And VERY biased.

                Does he have to endorse/promote these methods or follow them himself. Nope, entirely his choice.
                He DOES endorse/promote them! Such people SHOULD follow them themselves.

                Does his personal affairs with his wife, finances, political views etc detract from his documentary making skills?
                YEP!

                Tom Cruise is super rich, a little arrogant, follower of a dubious cult made up by a Science Fiction writer and been divorced three times. Is it going to stop me going to see his latest film. No!
                That is 100% different! He DOES believe in it, and go there. HEY, I don't like it, but BIG DEAL! I DON'T care about that.

                If he were fighting for an amendment requiring that the US finance scientology, and demanding that all join, I would be the FIRST out there to say BOYCOTT HIS FILMS, etc... It is TOTALLY different!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257643].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  He talks SO much about how the rich should help the poor, etc.... To the degree that he ispushing them to be FORCED to without any care of specifics.



                  It was a KEY part of "SICKO". The bodyguards are primarily in the US!



                  Again, no real specifics.



                  WHY NOT? People seem to think it is a paradise!



                  And he could have visited medicare and medicaid people, as well as VAs here. If you want a poll area that can give you a view in a certain way, you probably can. People having had surgery or visiting a doctor gets rid of a lot that would speak against it. I heard of a doctor in Canada that is getting sued to close his clinic because it is concierge. People like him because the wait time is a lot shorter.



                  And VERY biased.



                  He DOES endorse/promote them! Such people SHOULD follow them themselves.



                  YEP!



                  That is 100% different! He DOES believe in it, and go there. HEY, I don't like it, but BIG DEAL! I DON'T care about that.

                  If he were fighting for an amendment requiring that the US finance scientology, and demanding that all join, I would be the FIRST out there to say BOYCOTT HIS FILMS, etc... It is TOTALLY different!

                  Steve
                  Tom Cruise is just an actor with opinions and beliefs. Moore is a Director and film-maker of fictional and factual films and has his own real life ones

                  They both turn out stuff and promote it. It makes them money. Tom Cruise does not say that the contents of his films are reflecting real life and try and live by it, nor does Moore, he just presents facts for people to make up their own minds. he merely promotes his product upon its release.

                  He does not want to run or change the world, it's just a job for both of them!
                  Signature

                  Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257755].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                    He does not want to run or change the world, it's just a job for both of them!
                    And you know this because...
                    Signature

                    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257768].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      I think it's sad people married for 23 years are going to court to squabble over where they spent their millions. Such a rough life.
                      Signature
                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                      I'm going to work on being less condescending
                      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257777].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                      And you know this because...
                      I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. He puts out something, promotes it, sells some copies and vanishes till the next one. If what he produces does change the way people think and the world then he made a good and powerful documentary on a subject!
                      Signature

                      Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257911].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                    I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
                    And a lack of evidence constitutes proof?

                    There's no evidence you can read my mind, so I guess you can.

                    Seems to me many of his "efforts" have been about trying to effect change. He's known as a social critic and political activist. That, and some of his films, are all about effecting change.

                    Perhaps you're not seeing what you don't want to see?
                    Signature

                    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257946].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                      And a lack of evidence constitutes proof?

                      There's no evidence you can read my mind, so I guess you can.

                      Seems to me many of his "efforts" have been about trying to effect change. He's known as a social critic and political activist. That, and some of his films, are all about effecting change.

                      Perhaps you're not seeing what you don't want to see?
                      I had considered that, but he's not exactly running for office and comes up with diverse documentarys on an array of subjects. If his agenda and methodology is to effect change then he has not been very successful thus far.
                      Signature

                      Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257958].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                        I had considered that, but he's not exactly running for office and comes up with diverse documentarys on an array of subjects. If his agenda and methodology is to effect change then he has not been very successful thus far.
                        OK, I guess. His effectiveness isn't really a measure of his desire to effect change though. This is a guy who said that...

                        ...Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people via a television broadcast prior to election day.
                        - Source
                        Seems pretty clear to me that trying to change the world has been a big part of his agenda.
                        Signature

                        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257980].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post



                  And VERY biased.

                  really? That seems to be going around a lot lately


                  that and the little green man
                  Signature
                  ---------------
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262742].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I don't have a problem with Moore's wealth. He earned it through his own endeavors and hard work.

                    Instead of owning his success - he likes to excuse it. Some interesting stuff (can't vouch for the truth of it all) on the link below:

                    Surprising facts about the filmmaker Michael Moore, from the book ”Do As I Say (Not As I Do)” — News of Interest.TV

                    The term 'income inequality' has become a 'rant phrase' - there's nothing wrong with incomes not being equal. Some people are smarter - some work harder - some have more education - some have more opportunity...some are just damned lucky. Their income won't be "equal" - so what?
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                    I'm going to work on being less condescending
                    (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262838].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      Not saying she was just a gold digger
                      If you look at the photo of them on one of the links posted early in this thread - they look like they are well matched. And that's all I have to say on the matter
                      Signature
                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                      I'm going to work on being less condescending
                      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262843].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      I don't have a problem with Moore's wealth. He earned it through his own endeavors and hard work.

                      Instead of owning his success - he likes to excuse it. Some interesting stuff (can't vouch for the truth of it all) on the link below:

                      Some people have a problem when they become wealthy. Their self image doesn't match their income. It isn't even a matter of not thinking they deserve the money.

                      But it isn't who they are. Some self destruct, usually younger people, or instant gainers like some celebrities. In some it strains relationships, because the problems the rich have are so foreign to them.

                      Maybe Moore is simply a person that doesn't identify with other wealthy people, or the 1%.
                      But his work and celebrity are such that he generates wealth anyway.

                      I've seen his documentaries. He has a genuine affinity for the working poor. It's obvious.
                      But what does he do, now that he has wealth, and knows how to generate more?
                      How would that change anyone?

                      Just a thought.
                      Signature
                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262966].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                        Some people have a problem when they become wealthy. Their self image doesn't match their income. It isn't even a matter of not thinking they deserve the money.

                        But it isn't who they are. Some self destruct, usually younger people, or instant gainers like some celebrities. In some it strains relationships, because the problems the rich have are so foreign to them.

                        Maybe Moore is simply a person that doesn't identify with other wealthy people, or the 1%.
                        But his work and celebrity are such that he generates wealth anyway.


                        I've seen his documentaries. He has a genuine affinity for the working poor. It's obvious.
                        But what does he do, now that he has wealth, and knows how to generate more?
                        How would that change anyone?

                        Just a thought.
                        Best explanation I've heard yet. Don't know if it's true or not, but it's defiantly worth considering.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263030].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            What Mr Claude, and I would include myself in saying here is that some of the comments made to posts on this forum are so far off the wall and downright stupid and ill informed and show complete ignorance of a subject, and are often biased to political leanings or distorted personal views of one sort or the other.
            That would also be an opinion. Which we are all entitled. Some in this forum have also said that if you don't like a thread, or the forum, then don't participate

            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            There are only true facts out there and sensible answers and solutions to problems. The rest of the comments are about as relevant as the tabloid press.
            It's also a "fact" that MANY true facts are only as true as the source putting them out, or as true as the reader believes.

            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Some of us here see through these posts and try to get our points across in a sensible and balanced way only to get deluged with unbelievably stupid counter arguments. It can sometimes be entertaining for a while but ultimately frustrating! So sorry if a bit of sarcasm creeps in or we attempt to lighten them up a bit with humor but a lot of it comes from boredom, frustration and disbelief that some people are so closed minded about things or blinkered in their views.
            Well, in my own opinion, when you have a post that's about someone like Michael Moore - an entertainer - the entire conversation is likely to be "entertaining" in and of itself. We're not talking rocket science or healing the world here. Sarcasm is always fine. My wife says I am the king of sarcasm - I don't know where she came up with that though

            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Take Mr Moore for example. He's a film maker and intelligent social commentary documentary maker. He got pretty rich and earned a lot of money doing it. End of story.

            You can choose to accept or not accept his docu's conclusions of course, that is up to you.

            The fact that he looks a bit like the father from Family Guy or is having a bad time with a divorce is just idle chatter worthy of the gutter press. He should be judged solely on the body of his work though.

            Perhaps I should not be so critical, this is just a public forum anyway. But at least I enjoy some of it.
            I find the rest of the info about Mr. Moore irrelevant. He's a public figure. Like any of them, they get targeted. He could have chosen another line of work if it bothered him. And if it doesn't bother him, then it shouldn't bother anybody else.

            As for his documentaries - I've never seen them so I have no opinion
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257788].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              That would also be an opinion. Which we are all entitled. Some in this forum have also said that if you don't like a thread, or the forum, then don't participate



              It's also a "fact" that MANY true facts are only as true as the source putting them out, or as true as the reader believes.



              Well, in my own opinion, when you have a post that's about someone like Michael Moore - an entertainer - the entire conversation is likely to be "entertaining" in and of itself. We're not talking rocket science or healing the world here. Sarcasm is always fine. My wife says I am the king of sarcasm - I don't know where she came up with that though



              I find the rest of the info about Mr. Moore irrelevant. He's a public figure. Like any of them, they get targeted. He could have chosen another line of work if it bothered him. And if it doesn't bother him, then it shouldn't bother anybody else.

              As for his documentaries - I've never seen them so I have no opinion
              Facts are usually things that are agreed on by verification, research, testing, consensus etc. I don't usually argue with stuff that is reported on the spur of the moment as it's accuracy may not be correct. That's when opinions should be put forward but it is just that, opinions based on speculation and what if's on reportage that can be unreliable and inaccurate.

              People who argue against already established facts and blatantly obvious solutions to problems I'm afraid get my goat and thats what I am talking about.

              Example: Two weeks ago the scientific community announced that the poles were melting, it was irreversible and sea levels would rise 1.6 meters by the end of the century.

              So positive, helpful debate would be:

              How do we build effective sea walls
              Any way of slowing it down or reducing it
              Can we pull together and do something about it etc

              Negative debate would be:

              Deny it
              Blame the government

              Moore is both an entertainer and more recently a provider of information on topical subjects, and a good promoter of what he puts out.. Thats all.

              As you rightly point out, his personal opinions wealth and private life are irrelevant!
              Signature

              Marriage, For The Best Arguments

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257900].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post


                Example: Two weeks ago the scientific community announced that the poles were melting, it was irreversible and sea levels would rise 1.6 meters by the end of the century.
                Oh yeah, the same scientific community that said 40 years ago that we'd be in an ice-age by now. The same scientific community that later said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, when in reality, the Arctic ice cap grew by 29% just from 2012 to 2013.

                And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

                When your "established facts" have a history of being wildly incorrect, then it's just silly to assume that those "established facts" won't be contested.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9260035].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                  The Daily Mail of course being the go-to shop for scientific news.

                  A media outlet so low down the food chain it "steals" stories from Newscorp's low-brow tabloids.

                  News Corp accuses Daily Mail of plagiarism
                  Signature
                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9260782].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                    The Daily Mail of course being the go-to shop for scientific news.

                    A media outlet so low down the food chain it "steals" stories from Newscorp's low-brow tabloids.

                    News Corp accuses Daily Mail of plagiarism
                    I agree the Daily Mail is about a good a source as the Kos or Think Progressive.
                    I'd rather use the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
                    Arctic sea ice extent declined at a typical rate through May, but extent remained below average for the period of satellite observations. While Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a near average rate, extent was at a record high, and above average in nearly every Antarctic sea ice sector.
                    Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261580].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                    The Daily Mail of course being the go-to shop for scientific news.

                    A media outlet so low down the food chain it "steals" stories from Newscorp's low-brow tabloids.

                    News Corp accuses Daily Mail of plagiarism

                    I linked to that article on purpose to see if it'd be read or dismissed. It actually gets it's info for this article from NASA, NSIDC, and The BBC.

                    Just showing that facts are sometimes dismissed based on the messenger, without engaging intellectually. Yes even "established facts" from "established resources".
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261799].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                      I linked to that article on purpose to see if it'd be read or dismissed. It actually gets it's info for this article from NASA, NSIDC, and The BBC.

                      Just showing that facts are sometimes dismissed based on the messenger, without engaging intellectually. Yes even "established facts" from "established resources".
                      Here's what I find interesting about the whole climate change issue.
                      I don't think anyone would disagree that man contributes to climate changes.But if you don't buy into man made climate change, or agree with the their 'methods' of fixing it, you're labeled a denier
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261813].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Oh yeah, the same scientific community that said 40 years ago that we'd be in an ice-age by now. The same scientific community that later said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, when in reality, the Arctic ice cap grew by 29% just from 2012 to 2013.

                  And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

                  When your "established facts" have a history of being wildly incorrect, then it's just silly to assume that those "established facts" won't be contested.
                  Just to be clear, 40 years ago was pure speculation.

                  Secondly. Slight variations in the speed of the demise or the odd re-surgance does not detract from the facts derived by consensus of EXPERT opinion based on very precise measurements, observations and analysis (using technology only dreamed about 40 years ago) it is going to happen.

                  But of course, you and I will be long dead before the full effects are felt and your children will be in old age.

                  The future of your grandchildren and the human race as a whole though is another matter.

                  Loss of fresh water, loss of land, food crops (due to hotter weather too). It's going to be so much fun.

                  And, all because we bred like rabbits and let our population grow too big for the earth to sustain it. And continued to burn fossil fuels.

                  So your response is to be one of the deniers.

                  Actually the Earth will eventually clean itself. It will reduce the population to a fraction of what we had so our effects will be negligible. Eventually the Co2 and Methane gasses will fall back to earth and a more liveable planet may return. Perhaps who's left will have learned the lessons.
                  Signature

                  Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262918].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                    So your response is to be one of the deniers.
                    No my response is to be a realist - and no so easily swayed by the billion dollar green energy shake-down shysters you've fallen for. Do I think there's climate change occurring? - Yes - so I'm not a denier. I just don't believe it's nearly as severe as many are so gullibly led to believe.

                    In my opinion, the damage being done by the fear-mongoring green machine, is much more severe than any global climate change that is happening right now.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263279].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                      No my response is to be a realist - and no so easily swayed by the billion dollar green energy shake-down shysters you've fallen for. Do I think there's climate change occurring? - Yes - so I'm not a denier. I just don't believe it's nearly as severe as many are so gullibly led to believe.

                      In my opinion, the damage being done by the fear-mongoring green machine, is much more severe than any global climate change that is happening right now.

                      Tim, I guess we should pop the champagne.

                      Gavy has moved on from flat-out denial of man-made climate change to OK yes it's happening but get this...

                      ... he doesn't think it's as bad as the (as he put it)...

                      ..."fear-mongering green machine" makes it out to be and (get this also) the the damage being done by the fear-mongering green machine,...

                      ... is much more severe than any global climate change that is happening right now."


                      LOL!

                      IMHO with that attitude, he may as well continue to be a denier because the effect is the same - but gosh-darnit, I can't question his sanity anymore on that subject.

                      Should we raise a glass for Gary?
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9264468].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        IMO with that attitude, he may as well continue to be a denier because the effect is the same - but gosh-darnit, I can't question his sanity anymore on that subject.

                        Should we raise a glass for Gary?
                        Fixed that for you.
                        Signature

                        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9264576].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author garyv
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                        IMHO with that attitude, he may as well continue to be a denier because the effect is the same - but gosh-darnit, I can't question his sanity anymore on that subject.

                        Should we raise a glass for Gary?
                        Oh no, you can continue to question my sanity... that's fine with me. - I'll be the crazy guy running your Prius over with my gas guzzling, tree killing, ozone damaging SuperTruck F-650 XUV.

                        Meanwhile you can continue forking over money to people like Al Gore - (and Michael Moore), and then later wonder where Al Gore's 200 million dollar net worth came from.

                        Modern day snake-oil salesmen, and people are still falling for it.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9265116].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                          Oh no, you can continue to question my sanity... that's fine with me. - I'll be the crazy guy running your Prius over with my gas guzzling, tree killing, ozone damaging SuperTruck F-650 XUV.

                          Meanwhile you can continue forking over money to people like Al Gore - (and Michael Moore), and then later wonder where Al Gore's 200 million dollar net worth came from.

                          Modern day snake-oil salesmen, and people are still falling for it.


                          Nice move to not be a flat-out man made climate change denier since you know that would land you in the realm of people to not be taken seriously about just about anything else.

                          The only money I ever forked over to Moore or Gore was for Moore's book "Dude Where's My Country?" It was hilarious and worth every dime.

                          But with all due respect...

                          ... saying climate change isn't a big problem now or ever going to be a big problem in the future is just as ridiculous as climate change denial itself but you go right ahead and wallow proudly in your denial.


                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9265270].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          Funny, how some people come in here and express the same old cynical remarks about an OP and his opinions and remarks.

          Instead of pointing to specific merits and drawbacks to what the OP says or didnt say, some just sit back and make sarcastic replies in a general and shallow way offering ZERO substance to the discussion..

          And then of course the typical cronies come up and give their BIG 'Thanks' like that is supposed to really mean something

          Rob
          You mean like your expressing to me?

          I'm not going to "debate" nonsensical angry posts. But you have a point. I shouldn't post, unless I'm really adding something.

          On this Forum, I see "Attack, attack, attack" so often, that I sometimes slip and post a sarcastic remark. I'm not sure why. I respond to posts here, that I would always ignore in a social setting. But I think we're all like that.

          I'm very judgmental. But then we all are...including you...or we wouldn't be posting our opinions about people we don't really know...to people we don't really know.

          This is Sunday morning. I wonder what normal people are doing right now?
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258724].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        It the high standard...
        You're right, very intelligent.
        Signature

        I

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257191].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
        Next time you at your library, go check out a couple of his films. Highly recommended are the movies 'Roger and Me', and 'Capitalism: A Love Story'. Then you might understand where we are coming from.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257855].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        What impresses me most is the unbiased, reasonable, intelligent, objective posting that I see here. It the high standard that I've come to expect from the Off Topic Forum.
        Who said that posts had to be unbiased? That's an impossibility anyway.

        Those on here who think they give an "unbiased" opinion are usually more biased than anyone else. - Just because someone gives an opinion that is different than yours, that doesn't make their opinion any less intelligent than your opinion.

        Listen to other opinions, and then debate. If you feel someone's opinion is too stupid for you to debate, then just leave it alone, and let it expose itself as being stupid. But just saying that it's stupid is not only a waste of time, but assumes that everyone else reading isn't smart enough to figure that out.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9260005].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Who said that posts had to be unbiased? That's an impossibility anyway.
          Not entirely true, but I see your point. In practice, probably true. Opinions are biased by their nature. Facts aren't.


          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Those on here who think they give an "unbiased" opinion are usually more biased than anyone else. - Just because someone gives an opinion that is different than yours, that doesn't make their opinion any less intelligent than your opinion.
          Really? I don't know, I see some incredibly silly things posted on this forum.

          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Listen to other opinions, and then debate. If you feel someone's opinion is too stupid for you to debate, then just leave it alone, and let it expose itself as being stupid. But just saying that it's stupid is not only a waste of time, but assumes that everyone else reading isn't smart enough to figure that out.
          I actually agree with this. Just posting that you think something is stupid, is a waste of everyone's time. I get it. For example.....

          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Oh yeah, the same scientific community that said 40 years ago that we'd be in an ice-age by now. The same scientific community that later said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, when in reality, the Arctic ice cap grew by 29% just from 2012 to 2013.

          When your "established facts" have a history of being wildly incorrect, then it's just silly to assume that those "established facts" won't be contested
          .
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          If you feel someone's opinion is too stupid for you to debate, then just leave it alone, and let it expose itself as being stupid. .
          Done.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261511].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by garyv View Post

            Who said that posts had to be unbiased? That's an impossibility anyway.

            Those on here who think they give an "unbiased" opinion are usually more biased than anyone else. - Just because someone gives an opinion that is different than yours, that doesn't make their opinion any less intelligent than your opinion.

            Listen to other opinions, and then debate. If you feel someone's opinion is too stupid for you to debate, then just leave it alone, and let it expose itself as being stupid. But just saying that it's stupid is not only a waste of time, but assumes that everyone else reading isn't smart enough to figure that out.
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            Not entirely true, but I see your point. In practice, probably true. Opinions are biased by their nature. Facts aren't.



            Really? I don't know, I see some incredibly silly things posted here.



            I actually agree with this. Just posting that you think something is stupid, is a waste of everyone's time. I get it. For example.....





            Done.
            LOL - so now we're debating what opinions are worth debating - and whether or not to debate them.

            I get a kick out of this place sometimes
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261542].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              LOL - so now we're debating what opinions are worth debating - and whether or not to debate them.

              I get a kick out of this place sometimes
              I wasn't debating. I was being sarcastic, pompous, narrow minded, and dismissive. I though it was clear.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261623].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                I wasn't debating. I was being sarcastic.

                Ah, that makes sense.

                So was I, by the way.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261637].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              LOL - so now we're debating what opinions are worth debating - and whether or not to debate them.

              I get a kick out of this place sometimes
              Are you being dismissive of our right to debate about debating? Why not debate our debate about debating? I think that you'll find that I'm a real Master-Debater...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    I actually see Michael Moore as a great example of how enterprise can reap rewards. It actually helps drive me to achieve my end objective -- to produce documentaries. Whatever your point of view or objective, if you put it to action consistently present it in understandable ways, it has a good chance of delivering profitable results. At least, a better chance than not trying at all which has around 0% probability of success. Individuals with radically different points of view from Michael Moore (eg Glenn Beck) have also reaped rewards by consistently building on their enterprise and effectively broadcasting their message. I've come across his stances on medical care, but when did Michael Moore say he believes in "income equality"?
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257221].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      I've come across his stances on medical care, but when did Michael Moore say he believes in "income equality"?
      Micheal Moore telling CNBC to get on the top 1%...


      Micheal Moore is in the top 1% but he denies it...


      Micheal Moore penned a blog post that he has since deleted titled --> "Life Among the 1%" Wooops...but he told Piers he is not a top 1% guy.

      Article: Life Among The 1% ...a Letter From Michael Moore | OpEdNews

      Michael Moore Explaining Occupy Wall Street...

      4:00 Massive worldwide movement against banks, Wall Street, cities
      4:38 Divide the pie fairly


      Going off on the richest Americansn banks etc. and being parroted by the peeps that did not behave well in the parks...

      3:15 Talking about perp walking top 1%
      3:41 Tax the rich to death
      4:08 They are thieves and gangsters


      In 2005 Michael Moore owned shares of Haliburton, Boeing, Sonoco, Bank One, Ely Lilly and Best Foods! Haliburton, Bank One, Eli Lilly and Sonoco...hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

      After all, in 2005, Peter Schweizer in his book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" included a copy of Moore's schedule D from one of his tax filings showing that the schlockumentarian at one point owned almost 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 shares of Sonoco, more than 4,000 shares of Best Foods, more than 3,000 shares of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 shares of Bank One, and more than 2,000 shares of Halliburton.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ixzz3421C6b7v/


      Here is Michael trying to explain how he came about owning pharmaceutical stock, Haliburton and the others..




      Michael was telling people at the 99% rallies that he does not own stock and they should not either! Wow...

      "I don't own a single share of stock, and I have never owned a single share of stock. I don't support this. [Pointing at NYSE] This is a rigged casino. I don't know why anybody would put their hard-earned money into this, especially after what happened in this last decade. ... Who's making this money? Who's dividing this pie up so that the 1% get the majority of it?"

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/...-invest-in-it/


      Michael Moore is an income equality trumpeter and an anti-1% guy --> and he is in the top 1%. He can get rich his way which is not a problem...but he rails on the rest of the 1% class, conservatives and big business to make his money.

      This hypocrite is very difficult to take seriously to say the least.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258112].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        Micheal Moore telling CNBC to get on the top 1%...
        <snip>
        He does trip over himself for sure and there are a lot self-contradictions and inconsistencies in his narrative. I don't honestly have a clear picture of what "change" he's angling for. His message seems as vague as that of Occupy Wall Street.

        However, is saying get on the 1% the same as saying we should go around trying to make income equal? I also say, go on the 1% who loot taxpayers' money, the banks, insurance companies, who buy politicians and game elections, enriching themselves on public coffers while at the same time trumpeting small government. But, I do NOT believe in redistributing wealth. Going after organized crime doesn't mean one opposes free enterprise.
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258143].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

          However, is saying get on the 1% the same as saying we should go around trying to make income equal? I also say, go on the 1% who loot taxpayers' money, the banks, insurance companies, who buy politicians and game elections, enriching themselves on public coffers while at the same time trumpeting small government. But, I do NOT believe in redistributing wealth. Going after organized crime doesn't mean one opposes free enterprise.
          Yes, Michael wants to "democratize" the financial system...that is his term for taxing the rich out of most of their money and redistributing it to the 99%.

          Big business, the stock market, insurance companies, and the banking system is not "organized crime". Let us not forget it is big labor and the unions that are influencing politicians.

          Gaming elections? Only 3 of the top 23 donors from 1989-2014 lean Republican...

          Rank Organization Total '89-'14 Dem % Repub % Tilt
          1 ActBlue $102,669,137 99% 0%
          2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $61,819,929 80% 1%
          3 National Education Assn $58,988,290 56% 4%
          4 AT&T Inc $57,026,335 41% 57%
          5 National Assn of Realtors $55,559,528 41% 44%
          6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $45,572,151 91% 2%
          7 Goldman Sachs $45,270,985 53% 44%
          8 United Auto Workers $41,923,428 71% 0%
          9 Carpenters & Joiners Union $41,577,299 71% 9%
          10 Service Employees International Union $38,711,298 84% 2%
          11 Laborers Union $38,401,420 83% 7%
          12 American Federation of Teachers $37,271,825 89% 0%
          13 Communications Workers of America $36,472,773 86% 0%
          14 Teamsters Union $36,355,957 88% 5%
          15 JPMorgan Chase & Co $35,122,566 47% 51%
          16 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $34,172,703 86% 0%
          17 United Parcel Service $32,687,492 35% 64%
          18 Citigroup Inc $32,519,262 48% 50%
          19 National Auto Dealers Assn $32,267,410 31% 68%
          20 EMILY's List $31,892,295 98% 0%
          21 American Bankers Assn $31,629,002 36% 63%
          22 AFL-CIO $31,597,075 60% 3%
          23 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,407,747 98% 1%

          https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
          Remember what happened in Madison when the union supporters did not get their way...they decided to mess up the Wisconsin government for months.



          2011 Wisconsin protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Scott Walker is the guy that turned a huge budget deficit into a budget surplus...even Politifact admits he made a 3.77 billion dollar turnaround in Wisconsin.

          Gov. Scott Walker says he turned $3.6 billion deficit into a $500 million surplus | PolitiFact Wisconsin

          Famous Michael Moore quote...

          Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.
          Michael Moore is "not sure we have equality for opportunity" and he sayswe use a "Soviet form of Capitalism" and he thinks "Wall Street wants consumers and citizens to have as few choices as possible" and Americans "have no fair shot anymore".

          Check 10:15


          Like I said before... Michael's term for "income equality" is "democratize" the financial system. The guy does not believe in the system, and let us not forget that he thinks Capitalism is an evil.

          Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.
          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258179].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            <snip>

            Big business, the stock market, insurance companies, and the banking system is not "organized crime". Let us not forget it is big labor and the unions that are influencing politicians. <snip>
            Let's get real. Not all of any if it is organized crime, but elements of it -- bad players -- certainly are organized crime. That is what the bailouts were all about.
            Signature

            Project HERE.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258221].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
              Banned
              Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

              Let's get real. Not all of any if it is organized crime, but elements of it -- bad players -- certainly are organized crime. That is what the bailouts were all about.
              Their are criminals in every element of society, and you will find plenty of criminals in the 99%, in state government, and in federal government. Bailouts are not automatically organized crime...

              The Panic of 1792 - 13 States bailed out

              The nation's first president was in his first term when the U.S. ran into its first financial panic.

              In 1791, the federal government assumed obligations that such states as Massachusetts and South Carolina owed from the Revolutionary War, part of a larger deal that included moving the national capital from New York to Philadelphia to Washington. Taking on the states' obligations added about $18 million to a total U.S. domestic debt of $65 million -- debt securities that proved attractive to financial speculators.

              Government Bailouts: A U.S. Tradition Dating to Hamilton - WSJ
              The Panic of 1819

              The century that followed was punctuated by financial instability. There was the panic of 1819, during which states passed laws delaying foreclosures on real estate and personal property.
              The Great Depression

              By 1933, four years after the infamous stock-market crash, about 1,000 American homeowners a day were losing their houses to the bank. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Congress created the Home Owners' Loan Corp., an ambitious government agency designed to prevent foreclosures on an enormous scale.

              The agency bought defaulted mortgages from banks, then refinanced them at lower rates for fixed, 15-year terms. Over the three years it accepted applications, the agency was swamped with 1.9 million requests; about half of the applicants had monthly incomes of between $50 and $150.
              Savings and Loan Crisis

              From 1986 through 1995, about half of the 3,234 S&Ls in the U.S. closed, leaving federal insurers stuck with tens of billions of dollars in bad loans. In 1989, after eight months of debate, Congress created the Resolution Trust Corp. to make depositors whole, investigate allegations of wrongdoing and deal with the husks of the S&L industry.
              Government Bailouts: A U.S. Tradition Dating to Hamilton - WSJ

              The root cause of the financial crisis?

              PREVENTING A RECURRENCE of the financial crisis we face today does not require new regulation of the financial system. What is required instead is an appreciation of the fact--as much as lawmakers would like to avoid it--that U.S. housing policies are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Other players--greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers--all played a part, but they were only following the economic incentives that government policy laid out for them. If we are really serious about preventing a recurrence of this crisis, rather than increasing the power of the government over the economy, our first order of business should be to correct the destructive housing policies of the U.S. government

              The True Origins of This Financial Crisis | The American Spectator
              Credit Default Swaps probably did not help matters...

              A CDS is nothing more than a contract in which one party (the protection seller) agrees to reimburse another party (the protection buyer) against default on a financial obligation by a third party (the reference entity). In Figure 1, the reference entity is A, the protection buyer is B, and the protection seller is C.

              http://www.aei.org/article/economics...-not-to-blame/
              Credit Default Swap industry is receding...

              Five years after almost blowing up the global economy and eight years after making fortunes for Wall Street traders, the credit-default swap market is quietly fading. Rules introduced in the wake of the financial crisis by U.S. and European regulators have led investment banks to withdraw from the market and made trading credit-default swaps and other derivatives more expensive. And with the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates near historic lows, fewer borrowers have defaulted, which means less demand for debt insurance. As a result, outstanding credit-default swaps on individual companies declined by about half, to $13.2 trillion, from 2007 through June 2013, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Dealers once offered $5 billion trades; now $500 million is more typical.

              http://www.businessweek.com/articles...hrinks-by-half
              You want to talk about organized crime...look no further than the Obamacare payoffs. You remember, the Louisiana purchase and the others... Wow, sure looks like a lot of D up in this payoff bit!

              December 23, 2009 - 11:11am — Capitol Notebook
              It's been said that laws are like sausages - it's best not to see them being made. If ever that applied to the product of any legislative body, it applies doubly so to the debate over Obamacare.

              And when it comes to the Senate's version of the bill to take over 1/6th of the American economy, we're talking about some expensive sausage.

              Via the Washington Examiner, here's a list of some of the payoffs to senators in exchange for their votes for the bill:

              Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. -- Up to $300 million in additional federal money to pay for the state of Louisiana's share of the proposed expansion of Medicaid.

              Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. -- A commitment that the federal government will permanently pay for Medicaid expansion in the Cornhusker State at a cost of about $100 million.

              Sens. Ben Nelson and Carl Levin, D-Mich. -- A provision that shelters Mutual of Omaha in Nebraska and Blue Cross Blue Shield in Michigan from a proposed $10 billion annual fee on the health insurance industry.

              Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. -- Dodd, facing a re-election battle with low poll numbers, inserted a $100 million grant tailored to a proposal for a new hospital at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

              Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. -- A 2.2 percent increase in federal coverage of Medicaid expansion, worth about $600 million over a decade.

              Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. -- A special provision that will exempt about 800,000 senior citizens in the Sunshine State from any of the proposed cuts to the Medicaid Advantage program.

              Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a chief architect of the health care bill inserted language in the bill to provide services and benefits, including Medicare, for a group of Montana miners exposed to asbestos.

              And this is BEFORE the bill goes to the conference committee...and has to go back to the House, where it is sure to rack up a longer list of payoffs. Especially now since all the other senators and representatives have seen how "cheap" their own votes were the first time around.

              The payoffs in the Senate Obamacare bill | Christian Coalition of America
              The multimillion-dollar deals cut with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and others to win the 60 votes needed for the historic health care reform bill gave President Barack Obama the margin he needed to fulfill a central campaign promise — but may also have upped the ante for future presidential horse trading.

              With the bill hanging in the balance, Nelson won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal critics have dubbed the Cornhusker Kickback is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years.

              Before a close vote last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) won an even larger break for her state — an estimated $300 million in extra federal spending, in a move opponents derided as the Louisiana Purchase.

              Some critics branded the special deals as functionally equivalent to the kind of earmarks Obama crusaded against as a senator — and a quantum leap from eleventh-hour deals Obama’s predecessors have cut.

              ObamaCare: 'New frontier in pork barrel politics' | Human Events
              Organized crimes...don't you think?

              So who are going to be the "organized criminals" when states like Illinois and California collapse under the pressure of pensions, healthcare and other promised benefits?

              Who are the "organized criminals" when a person or business files bankruptcy?

              Who are the "organized criminals" when a person files for unemployment?

              Who are the "organized criminals" when a person collects welfare and/or food stamps?

              Who are the "organized criminals" when someone takes Section 8 housing?

              Who are the "organized criminals" when a low income person uses medicaid or free Obamacare? How about an Obama phone?

              Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts.

              Sure their is bad policy and bad actors in every sector...but you can't make blanket statements about entire industries.

              We all know it's time to cut government spending so that we can get the debt and deficit under control. I believe we should focus on that moreso than the the private sector as I know we can find lots of corruption, wasted money, lazyness and inefficiencies in the federal and state governments.

              The housing policy needs to be tightened up bigtime. Some people are buying homes today have no clue on what it takes to keep a home properly, nor do they have the money to pay for the basic maintenance on the home, let alone keep up on the payments and pay it off one day. So what happens to many of these home...it goes to he**, devalues the neighborhood, and then it's defaultamundo!

              I used to be 100% against term limits --> but now I am 100% for term limits to get some of these destructive, antique, power hungry fools out of office! I want an improvement in policy...not more stupid and harmful policy!

              Cheers

              -don
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258307].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                <snip>

                Sure their is bad policy and bad actors in every sector...but you can't make blanket statements about entire industries.<snip>
                Nor was I. That said, I think Iceland had the right approach for perpetrators of massive-scale organized crime in banking:
                BBC News - Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses
                Signature

                Project HERE.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258326].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                Their are criminals in every element of society, and you will find plenty of criminals in the 99%, in state government, and in federal government. Bailouts are not automatically organized crime...

                The Panic of 1792 - 13 States bailed out



                The Panic of 1819



                The Great Depression



                Savings and Loan Crisis



                Government Bailouts: A U.S. Tradition Dating to Hamilton - WSJ

                The root cause of the financial crisis?



                Credit Default Swaps probably did not help matters...



                Credit Default Swap industry is receding...



                You want to talk about organized crime...look no further than the Obamacare payoffs. You remember, the Louisiana purchase and the others... Wow, sure looks like a lot of D up in this payoff bit!





                Organized crimes...don't you think?

                So who are going to be the "organized criminals" when states like Illinois and California collapse under the pressure of pensions, healthcare and other promised benefits?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person or business files bankruptcy?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person files for unemployment?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person collects welfare and/or food stamps?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when someone takes Section 8 housing?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a low income person uses medicaid or free Obamacare? How about an Obama phone?

                Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts.

                Sure their is bad policy and bad actors in every sector...but you can't make blanket statements about entire industries.

                We all know it's time to cut government spending so that we can get the debt and deficit under control. I believe we should focus on that moreso than the the private sector as I know we can find lots of corruption, wasted money, lazyness and inefficiencies in the federal and state governments.

                The housing policy needs to be tightened up bigtime. Some people are buying homes today have no clue on what it takes to keep a home properly, nor do they have the money to pay for the basic maintenance on the home, let alone keep up on the payments and pay it off one day. So what happens to many of these home...it goes to he**, devalues the neighborhood, and then it's defaultamundo!

                I used to be 100% against term limits --> but now I am 100% for term limits to get some of these destructive, antique, power hungry fools out of office! I want an improvement in policy...not more stupid and harmful policy!

                Cheers

                -don
                You have a wide definition of organized crime.

                You said...

                "You want to talk about organized crime...look no further than the Obamacare payoffs[/B]. You remember, the Louisiana purchase and the others... Wow, sure looks like a lot of D up in this payoff bit!"


                I say...

                Those sweeteners were used to get the initial vote of some democrats to support the legislation but most if not all of those deals were extracted from the final law when the dems went back and amended the law with a process called reconciliation which needs only 51 votes instead of 60.

                I heard some folks were extremely angry about the double cross.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258808].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  I think Michael Moore was a man with something to say - and the backing and courage to say it. He's been totallly corrupted by wealth, fame and his own ego.

                  The attention he got from doing that led to him becoming a blowhard spouting nonsense left and right....and then only left. He's turned into a caricature of himself in my opinion - and I admired the man at one time.

                  I've watched interviews where he claimed he was not materialistic and had no interesting in the trappings of wealth. I've heard him diss those who invest in stocks or have money grow through investments or who inherit wealth.

                  Like so many on the fringes of political left or right - he's a liar who talks out of one side of his mouth and lives out of the other.


                  You said...
                  Standard - never mind what the thread is about.....turn it to your politics and find a way to diss those who don't agree with you. Wow, that's new and different.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                  I'm going to work on being less condescending
                  (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258840].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    I think Michael Moore was a man with something to say - and the backing and courage to say it. He's been totallly corrupted by wealth, fame and his own ego.

                    The attention he got from doing that led to him becoming a blowhard spouting nonsense left and right....and then only left. He's turned into a caricature of himself in my opinion - and I admired the man at one time.

                    I've watched interviews where he claimed he was not materialistic and had no interesting in the trappings of wealth. I've heard him diss those who invest in stocks or have money grow through investments or who inherit wealth.

                    Like so many on the fringes of political left or right - he's a liar who talks out of one side of his mouth and lives out of the other.




                    Standard - never mind what the thread is about.....turn it to your politics and find a way to diss those who don't agree with you. Wow, that's new and different.
                    Wow, I never saw him unbiased or humble. Do you have an example of what he did at that time?

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258929].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      Steve -

                      Early in his career he was very humble sounding, at least, in various interviews. Interesting synopsis of Moore here:

                      After Lying About His Wealth on National TV, Michael Moore Admits He's A One Percenter | NewsBusters

                      In the past few years he has gotten more arrogant, more narcisisstic-sounding and he's lost the humor that was part of his appeal. I used to find him interesting - now I think he's boorish.

                      I don't blame Moore for enjoying wealth - but why lie about it? He came from working class and reached wealth and fame. It's the American Dream so why lie about enjoying the wealth you found? Because he went from revealing hard truths to being a crusader for the left telling others how they "should" live and spend their money....and he didn't want to live that way himself.
                      Signature
                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                      I'm going to work on being less condescending
                      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258960].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  You have a wide definition of organized crime.

                  You said...

                  "You want to talk about organized crime...look no further than the Obamacare payoffs[/B]. You remember, the Louisiana purchase and the others... Wow, sure looks like a lot of D up in this payoff bit!"


                  I say...

                  Those sweeteners were used to get the initial vote of some democrats to support the legislation but most if not all of those deals were extracted from the final law when the dems went back and amended the law with a process called reconciliation which needs only 51 votes instead of 60.

                  I heard some folks were extremely angry about the double cross.
                  So you ADMIT they BOUGHT votes!!!!!!! It doesn't matter WHERE the money was spent, IT WAS! You want to not pay? 1tell the truth. 2 kill the votes. 3 openly remove ALL "sweeteners" 4 vote again!!!!!

                  Isn't Michelle AGAINST sweeteners?


                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258916].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  You have a wide definition of organized crime.

                  Not! You seem to have a have a very biased definition of organized crime.

                  Those sweeteners

                  Sweeteners? You must mean corruption and unfairness.

                  were used to get the initial vote of some democrats

                  I call that a payoff and/or corruption.

                  to support the legislation but most if not all of those deals were extracted from the final law

                  Wrong...we all know Landrieu took the $300 million Louisiana Purchase, Dodd got his $100 million, the Kerry amendment and others went through too.

                  when the dems went back and amended the law with a process called reconciliation which needs only 51 votes instead of 60.

                  More corruption IMHO...and many/most of the payoffs stuck. In-fact payoffs and concessions are still being made!

                  I heard some folks were extremely angry about the double cross.

                  The American public was double crossed, railroaded, bamboozled etc. etc. We are the people that are angry!
                  Nancy said it all right here...seriously, do you really think this is how government is supposed to work?


                  BS


                  More BS


                  Need to hear that BS repeated?


                  Get a load of this boatload of BS...and I thought Nancy said we needed to pass the bill to see what's in the bill. Good grief...get these people out of our government!


                  Obamacare is a supremely perfect example of how government is NOT supposed to work!

                  Obama's 50 Most Beautiful Lobbyists..(unregistered)...

                  They say D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people, but K Street can be D.C. for beautiful people -- or people whose navigation of ethics rules is a sight to behold.

                  http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2533713
                  Even The Guardian reports on the transparency nonsense...

                  Rescind President Obama's 'Transparency Award' now
                  The Obama administration's record on secrecy and surveillance is a disgrace and should not be sanitised by unearned prizes.

                  http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...sparency-award
                  And how about Jonathon Turley...not exactly a Fox News darling...

                  Across the categories of information and 99 agencies, last year was the worst on record for the government. In that year, the Obama Administration cited undefined national security reasons for withholding information roughly 8,500 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama’s first year when the rationale was used some 3,658 times. It is not just the Defense Department and the CIA which covered most of the claims, but also the Agriculture Department’s Farm Service Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency did twice and the National Park Service which also claimed national security exemptions.

                  The use of the oft-abused “deliberative process” exception was used by the Obama Administration a record 81,752 times. The government censored materials overall in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. For an additional 196,034 requests, the government simply said no information was available or the request was improper or required payment for production.
                  Reporters are also complaining about a wholesale blocking of media requests — part of the dismal record on press freedoms that has resulted in the United States ranking 64th in the world. That was a drop of 13 spots under Obama. For a recent column, click here.

                  http://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/17...-to-documents/
                  Cheers

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9259257].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                    Nancy said it all right here...seriously, do you really think this is how government is supposed to work?

                    Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube

                    BS

                    Obama Promises To Lower Health Insurance Premiums by $2,500 Per Year - YouTube

                    More BS

                    Obama You can keep your doctor - YouTube

                    Need to hear that BS repeated?

                    "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube

                    Get a load of this boatload of BS...and I thought Nancy said we needed to pass the bill to see what's in the bill. Good grief...get these people out of our government!

                    Barack Obama "Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk" - YouTube

                    Obamacare is a supremely perfect example of how government is NOT supposed to work!

                    Obama's 50 Most Beautiful Lobbyists..(unregistered)...



                    Even The Guardian reports on the transparency nonsense...



                    And how about Jonathon Turley...not exactly a Fox News darling...




                    Cheers

                    -don

                    Sorry about the Ayn Rand linkage. I apologize for that.


                    The Nebraska Cornhusker deal was removed from the ACA via reconciliation but you're right about the rest of the "sweeteners" which you call unfair payoffs etc.

                    Even Fox News said so.

                    'Cornhusker' Out, More Deals In: Health Care Bill Gives Special Treatment | Fox News

                    I say if the congress allows those sweeteners I don't have a problem with it at least not for this law. For example, thanks to Katrina, Louisiana could use the extra funds.

                    At least the so-called payoffs did not going to individuals.

                    According to the movie Lincoln, Lincoln authorized his people to offer cushy jobs all over the country to legislators in order to secure their votes for legislation to outlaw slavery once and for all.

                    It's obvious you don't like how the ACA was passed and is it safe to assume you don't like the law itself right?

                    If you don't like the law can you tell me what you have a problem with within the law or maybe its the entire law itself.

                    Thanks!
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262163].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      I say if the congress allows those sweeteners I don't have a problem with it at least not for this law.
                      But if it was a law you didn't like you would have a problem with them?
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262176].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                Their are criminals in every element of society, and you will find plenty of criminals in the 99%, in state government, and in federal government. Bailouts are not automatically organized crime...

                The Panic of 1792 - 13 States bailed out



                The Panic of 1819



                The Great Depression



                Savings and Loan Crisis



                Government Bailouts: A U.S. Tradition Dating to Hamilton - WSJ

                The root cause of the financial crisis?



                Credit Default Swaps probably did not help matters...



                Credit Default Swap industry is receding...



                You want to talk about organized crime...look no further than the Obamacare payoffs. You remember, the Louisiana purchase and the others... Wow, sure looks like a lot of D up in this payoff bit!





                Organized crimes...don't you think?

                So who are going to be the "organized criminals" when states like Illinois and California collapse under the pressure of pensions, healthcare and other promised benefits?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person or business files bankruptcy?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person files for unemployment?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a person collects welfare and/or food stamps?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when someone takes Section 8 housing?

                Who are the "organized criminals" when a low income person uses medicaid or free Obamacare? How about an Obama phone?

                Bailouts, bailouts and more bailouts.

                Sure their is bad policy and bad actors in every sector...but you can't make blanket statements about entire industries.

                We all know it's time to cut government spending so that we can get the debt and deficit under control. I believe we should focus on that moreso than the the private sector as I know we can find lots of corruption, wasted money, lazyness and inefficiencies in the federal and state governments.

                The housing policy needs to be tightened up bigtime. Some people are buying homes today have no clue on what it takes to keep a home properly, nor do they have the money to pay for the basic maintenance on the home, let alone keep up on the payments and pay it off one day. So what happens to many of these home...it goes to he**, devalues the neighborhood, and then it's defaultamundo!

                I used to be 100% against term limits --> but now I am 100% for term limits to get some of these destructive, antique, power hungry fools out of office! I want an improvement in policy...not more stupid and harmful policy!

                Cheers

                -don

                You said...


                "I want an improvement in policy...not more stupid and harmful policy!"


                I say...

                What would you call an improvement in economic policy?

                Shoveling even more money via the tax code, at the already wealthy and the large corporations?

                Correct me if I'm wrong but I think everything I've heard from you in a few threads leads me to believe you to be - as far as economic policy is concerned a...

                big Ayn Rand fan.

                What would you call an improvement in policy because the already wealthy in America have gotten what many of them wanted over the last 30 years?

                1: Would you like the top tax rate for individuals dropped even further to supposedly help the job creators create even more jobs?

                2: Would you like the rate for passive income to be lowered?


                What would you call an improvement in economic policy?


                I'd love to know.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258830].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  What would you call an improvement in economic policy?

                  Balance the budgets, reduce the debt, reduce the deficits, stop spending on unnecessary programs, fix many departments of government so they do what they were originally intended to do, consider combining or abolishing departments, consider sending some programs to the states, fix the IRS, stop printing so much money, etc. etc. etc.

                  Shoveling even more money via the tax code, at the already wealthy and the large corporations?

                  You must be kidding! I would consider ripping up that messy monstrosity and starting over. I would consider a flat tax system or a value added tax system, or a much less messy and a lot smaller version of what we have now.

                  Correct me if I'm wrong but I think everything I've heard from you in a few threads leads me to believe you to be - as far as economic policy is concerned a...

                  big Ayn Rand fan.

                  Really? I did not realize I have posted on many economic threads. No, I have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I follow Ayn Rand. I believe my policy ideas have been crafted from my life from working in private sector, working in government, and working since 1996 as a small business owner. I have friends and relatives that are both rich and poor so I have lived my life seeing both sides of the equation. I have lived in the big states and the small states, the red states and the blue states, and I have lived in very ethnically (and economically) diverse communities so I believe that I have ideas and philosophies that do not come from any one party or position.

                  What would you call an improvement in policy because the already wealthy in America have gotten what many of them wanted over the last 30 years?

                  You asked this same question above and I have answered it. The end result I want to see is a less complex tax code, less giant loopholes, lower health care costs, reduced federal government size, reduced insurance rates, less money wasted on criminal justice, less money wasted on stupid regulations and policies, better programs that help the needy lift themselves up instead of making them more dependent, better education system, etc. This of course is not all federal government stuff and I think we could make big improvements at the local, state, and federal levels and that would lead to positive changes in the private sector once new rules, regulations and codes are written.

                  1: Would you like the top tax rate for individuals dropped even further to supposedly help the job creators create even more jobs?

                  I would like to see an end to giant, wealthy, healthy corporations getting huge tax breaks, but I would also like to see change the other end of the tax code as well. I know people that use and abuse the low end of the tax code, the EIC, and government programs so I believe their has to be a better way. I mentioned above that I would not be opposed to a major change in the tax structure, and I would consider flat and value added tax systems as well.

                  2: Would you like the rate for passive income to be lowered?

                  I think we should scrap the whole code and start over. The rates need to be low enough to stimulate investments, promote research and development and grow small business etc.

                  What would you call an improvement in economic policy?

                  This is the third time you have asked the same question in this post! Sorry, I am not going to answer it a third time. It would take me days, weeks or months to layout my vision for economic policy change and I just don't have that kind of time to commit to this thread.
                  Cheers

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9259099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    This...

    "...his wife of 22"

    Well what the hell did he think would happen.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257280].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      This...

      "...his wife of 22"

      Well what the hell did he think would happen.
      Hey, "nearly 23"!
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257285].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      This...

      "...his wife of 22"

      Well what the hell did he think would happen.
      Not sure if you were just trying to be funny, but in case not...

      ...his wife of 22 years, she's in her mid-50's.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9257309].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    The US does go after some of the bad apples in the financial sectors, the recently convicted Martoma will probably get 15 years or more.

    Former SAC Capital trader Mathew Martoma becomes the 79th person convicted as part of a sweeping Wall Street insider trading crackdown

    Mathew Martoma, the former hedge fund trader charged with what federal prosecutors called the most lucrative insider trading scheme in U.S. history, was found guilty on Thursday. Martoma, who once earned millions of dollars working for Steven A. Cohen’s hedge fund SAC Capital, faces decades in prison, but will likely serve less than that.

    The guilty verdict, which was delivered by a 12-member jury in a federal court in lower Manhattan, is the latest blow for SAC Capital, which last fall pleaded guilty to fraud charges and agreed to pay a $1.8 billion in the largest insider trading fine in U.S. history. As part of a settlement with the government, SAC agreed to shut down its investment advisory business and turn itself into a so-called “family office” to manage Cohen’s multibillion-dollar wealth.

    Former SAC Capital’s Mathew Martoma Found Guilty of Insider Trading - TIME
    The biggest problem in the US is low quality and/or greedy bankers and others in the financial sectors that make bad decisions, exploit loopholes, follow bad policy and regulations, and lawfully signup bad customers and make bad deals. In the US being bad at something does automatically not land you in jail. Greed does not usually land you in jail either...unless you are caught breaking specifics laws that have stiff enough penalties to put you behind bars.

    You might want to take a look at the Criminal Justice System --> another part of the US government that needs some improvement. Most of us know that money buys you the best (or more) legal assistance...and the more you buy the better chance you have of getting a lesser charge or lesser penalty.

    Unfortunately, this can happen on all sorts of adjudicated cases civil, or criminal -> from parking tickets, to white collar crime, to homicide raps, to child custody and divorce settlements.

    Cheers,

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    And WHY is Michael Moore saying all that about exchanges? Exchanges are just that! You exchange one things for another. And the stock exchange really DOESN'T know who is making money!

    Oh SURE a person could sell a billion dollars worth of stock. They have a billion dollars, RIGHT? What if the stock cost $2 billion? They LOST a billion, RIGHT? Suppose it is one of the BILLIONS of trades sold in streetname? OK, you tracked it down to a broker, right? Suppose THAT person runs a fund?

    OK, tracking isn't that easy, and they can't track value of many bonds or stocks. If a stock makes money, the money comes FROM the company(if it is a buyback, etc...) or is profit(paid as a dividend), or from the SELLER! The stock exchange is out of the picture! With bonds, the money comes from the bonds producer. The stock exchange is out of the picture! Even with contracts and the like, SAME THING! There IS a minor fee that comes out of the commission, that is now pretty low, but I believe that is really it.

    And what of the average bank? Well, they are SUPPOSED to be careful. Clinton gave them the go ahead to be more risky after overturning glass steagle. It was put in place in 1933, right after the crash of 1929. 1929 was just the beginning, it lasted until 1933.

    Why don't these guys go after the bank that is the REAL culprit, the Federal Reserve BANK? The one simply called "the FED"! As for the risks from the other banks? They should go after the US government for overturning glass steagle! BTW the federal government is ALSO supposed to be AUDITING BANKS! Remember "it's a wonderful life"? It all starts when theylose money, and the auditor is expected to come and audit the books.

    What's so special about the federal reserve? They have NEVER been audited, and REFUSE to be! They CREATE the money out of thin air! They charge, even the government, interest and costs. THEY set the fed funds rate and regulate the low end of various rates.

    But the idea that chase, or charles schwab is why the jobless don't have as much money as soros is RIDICULOUS!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258372].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, $50-$150 a month THEN was a LOT more than it is now! $50 at the beginning of this century would be, IIRC well over $2500 today. So $50 back then was probably a good amount of money!

    HOW does a $10 BILLION dollar fee on insurance companies make insurance cheaper? The whole idea of this, no matter HOW you view it, was SUPPOSED to BE,according to all ads and pleas for support, TO LOWER THE COST!!!!!!

    A $10 billion dollar fee means they have to make $10 billion more to break even. If they have 10 million customers, the prices have to increase an average of OVER $1000 EACH! Why OVER? To keep up with profit margins, account for late payments, and cover dropped customers, etc... EVEN if we have single payer, the cost MUST be lowered. Having free, or lower cost insurance, will raise usage, and we can't just keep spending.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I don't remember him taking a vow of poverty but I do find his ownership of certain stocks quite interesting. (if true)

    Regarding his content, sure he hypes a lot but IMHO for the most part, his docs are interesting, thought provoking and help inform people of major problems in American society.

    Lots of American people don't like him simply because he has a habit of embarrassing America - and I think it's for the better.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258745].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I don't remember him taking a vow of poverty but I do find his ownership of certain stocks quite interesting. (if true)
      I guess you didn't watch the video above where he explained that. He used an excuse that HE isn't allowed to use, because he denies and refutes it for others!!!!

      Regarding his content, sure he hypes a lot but IMHO for the most part, his docs are interesting, thought provoking and help inform people of major problems in American society.

      Lots of people don't like him simply because he has a habit of embarrassing America - and I think it's for the better.
      OK what city do YOU live in? I`m sure I could find dirt on IT and make it look horrible. You CLAIM I would be doing you SERVICE! Hey, I could "truthfully" save Copenhagen was horrible. And PROVE it with video. Never mind that most of it seems good! I've been there, seen both, and the Danes seem to laugh at the contrast.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9258799].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nmchant
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

    Michael Moore, Wife Tangle Over Divorce Dollars | The Smoking Gun

    The hypocrisy of this man is absolutely astounding.

    -Chris


    I believe Michael Moore is a CIA shill.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9260583].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by nmchant View Post



      I believe Michael Moore is a CIA shill.
      He isn't. However, he does employ ninja bodyguards and (odd sources tell me) is under the protection of the Yakuza, so something very strange may be going on.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9261122].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I don't know Moore = but I think it's sad to see a marriage of 22 years break up, no matter whose it is. That's a long time. I can't imagine Michael being immune to hard feelings over it.

    I know gold digging women who stay with a guy for a lonnnnnnnnng time as long as they are being supported and having the life they want. Then one day they get a bug about something and are gone, taking half of the marriage/money with them. Not saying she was just a gold digger, but this guy might have been taken right from the get. That would be less sad than if it had been a great marriage that is dissolving after all that time.

    At least, either way, she can take half and he won't have to live with relatives to survive when all is said and done.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9262835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Lanfear - look at science without the media. Desertification and population. The only places going abnormally hot and dry are the areas that are desertificated -- which is purely caused by overpopulation. If you cut carbon in heat, you kill the plants. Not a good idea. When politicians face facts and decide to do the right thing instead of trying to get media to rev up enough fear to get more money out of our pockets for nothing........they will start reforestation (and not with GMO trees). Until that happens, things are going to slide. It might already be too late......and if it is, it's not just the grandkid's problem........it's ours....20 years. Come back in 20 years to this thread for our "hey you were right" "told you so" conclusion the thread.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263098].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Lanfear - look at science without the media. Desertification and population. The only places going abnormally hot and dry are the areas that are desertificated -- which is purely caused by overpopulation. If you cut carbon in heat, you kill the plants. Not a good idea. When politicians face facts and decide to do the right thing instead of trying to get media to rev up enough fear to get more money out of our pockets for nothing........they will start reforestation (and not with GMO trees). Until that happens, things are going to slide. It might already be too late......and if it is, it's not just the grandkid's problem........it's ours....20 years. Come back in 20 years to this thread for our "hey you were right" "told you so" conclusion the thread.
      I fear it's already too late though, but re-forestation is something we can do. Leave trees alone and replant and try to let the population dwindle a bit. In some countries we are seeing aging communities. People having less children for all sorts of reasons.

      I must say I laugh at the governments doing stuff like imposing green taxes, so it's alright to keep on keeping on as long as you pay more taxes. Doing the right thing is discouraging it outlawing it, stopping it or changing it completely. Being proactive in coming up with alternatives or encouraging others to invent them is the key.

      As for cutting carbon emissions. The norm (aside from the big natural earth changes) is what it was before we learned to use fire and burn the fossil fuels. So cutting back or stopping our emissions should return things to balance eventually. But your right, we must be careful how we do it but the quicker the better because the heat effects are not fully raging as yet.

      Oh yes, I never implied it was just a problem for the grandchildren, only hinting that they might not be around. We will be dead and buried, our kids will be old so why should we care (he said sarcastically) :-)
      Signature

      Marriage, For The Best Arguments

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
















    Mike loves money but hates capitalism.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      [IMG]http://www.tobytoons<snip>
      LOL. I think there should be a forum rule to issue coffee spillage warnings. Do you happen to make documentaries yourself? If not, you'd definitely be good at it.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9263189].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Boy has this thread has gone off the deep end. What does global warming have to do with Michael Moore being a hypocrite?

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9264104].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    If only Mr. Moore would have called capitalism or used the word- U-Capitalism (Unfettered-Capitalism - or maybe U-Cap) many of the criticisms flug his way could not be.

    I'm sure his problem is with Unfettered Capitalism and not capitalism itself and it seems like many people have a problem distinguishing between the two.

    V-Cap, (Vulture Capitalism) would also be easily understood by the public.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9264433].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Somehow this thread has wandered from Michael Moore to politicized climate change debate.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9265367].message }}

Trending Topics