text:
What's capitalism?
That didn't stop Bush. And this guy was actually elected.
It would be nice if a few people had some passing understanding of economics before they began making sweeping pronouncements about the US economy. Idiots on the Left like Moore are just as stupid and ignorant because they don't understand economics as people on the Right who deny evolution.
After what, eight months in fucking office? And why is that, because the lunatics on the right are? How about we actually, oh, I don't know...give the man a fucking chance to see what he actually does before we attack him? He only inherited the worst economy in 60 years, and two goddamn wars. One of which was, not only completely unnecessary, but was also entirely illegal and fucking immoral at it's very inception. When you're the man who follows the George W. Bush Presidency, much like FDR following in the wake of destruction that Hoover left...it's going to take more than eight fucking months to fix everything. Michael Moore didn't give Obama the onslaught he did Bush(or even Clinton) because Moore is actually reasoned in his attacks...unlike so many on the far right who attack Obama merely because he is Obama.
This film's got Parmount's fingerprints all over it. That means Redstone's making a buck off it. If Moore were a serious anti-capitalist, then he would have self-financed and distributed the movie over the Internet. Instead, he's just another faux-populist out to make a buck off of the common man.
who does an incredible amount of damage to his cause.
Nobody could have done anything in eight months - especially not in the circumstances of the Presidency. I'd rather have Obama in office trying something new than one of the old Washington censors who would have repeated the mistakes of the past. So, Massawyrm is a Republican? I knew there was a reason I never liked him or his reviews...
the US economy would slowly wind down as more resources were wasted on inefficient manufacturing processes and less capital would be available for developing new technologies. We would be competing with third world countries at third world salaries.
Sept. 23, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST
by Lamerz
@Peter Franks - yes, Obama should be attacked. Bush set the stage with the massive bailout, and Obama has taken it to the next level. It amazes me that people are fine with ANY president running up a MULTI-TRILLION dollar deficit in a single year. Holy shit, the Bush years were bad enough with how much was spent on the wars. The debt was growing and growing, by hundreds of billions. People complained about mortgaging our future. Yet Obama has now run it up into the trillions, and we are supposed to be fine with that? Let me just ask ... WHAT THE FUCK????
And it was heartfelt. Good job. Freedom really is the key. I am going to re-post something I wrote in the Letterman TB about healthcare and the crux of the protest being - Freedom.
First let me say this is an answer, but not necessarily the answer: We Americans truly pride ourselves on our sense of Democracy and freedom, with the emphasis on freedom. Ask any grade (primary) schooler about what America stands for and the first answer you will get is: Freedom. It is part of our cultural heritage that we believe we are the best and freest democracy of peoples that has ever existed. There are no racial, or regional barriers to this belief - although certainly there are groups who think they are less free than they are entitled to be. Whether that is a real or imagined belief is beyond the scope of this reply. Still, the word freedom is paramount. Free to choose. Free to think. Free to act (within reason) free from government tyranny. That last part - free from government tyranny, has been drilled into us since childhood. From grade school - the most impressionable age, we are taught that America was founded because we rebelled against tyranny -gov't tyranny - British, Royal tyranny. We are a free peoples because we rejected control over our lives by a gov't only interested in making money. It is not put that way exactly, but the gist is the same. We are free because we control the government and the government does not control us. We revel in that. Pride ourselves in that. Pump and puff ourselves up over that. And it starts from first grade. Communism, and socialism are viewed much in the same prism. Anti communism did not start in the 50's or 40's or even 30's, it started near WWI. Anti-communism red scare. It struck a nerve in freedom loving America. It still does with some. Communism sucks the soul from people. It gives them no incentive to strive for greatness. Socialism is viewed -perhaps erroneously in much the same way. Giving people a handout instead of a handup, triggers knee jerk reactions in quite a few people. Combine that with a belief that gov't should not be running or involved with our most intimate affairs (forgetting that gov't already is), is a recipe for fear of and rejection of policies that would benefit most of us. We already have socialized medicine - it is called Medicare, for the elderly. We already have socialized pension plans. It is called Social Security. Both of those faced the same type of opposition, but just try and take them away now. I do not think that all opposition is motivated by deep seated mistrust of gov't, some of it has legit concerns about how it might negatively impact current health care. And how will it be paid for? I do not believe for one second that my taxes will not go up as a result if this, regardless of what Obama says. These questions and others are legitimate concerns that people have. But they are being drowned out in a knee jerk 'reject anything that smells of gov't control' wave of protest that feeds on its own fury instead of rationally listening to answers. There will be reform. Obama does not need the Republicans. However, what is happening is that moderates in his own party and Obama himself are listening to the ire, and they will craft legislation that while not suiting everyone on the left, will not go so far that we lose the freedom of choice.
Fuck the ones who made money off of capitalism but at the same time we want to have all the liberty we deserve.... wha? I hope the Mayans were right about 2012. I'm downright boared to tears of what America has become.
That's the big revelation on Oprah. Gross.
The debt does concern us, but there is a fundamental difference in Bush spending vs. Obama spending. Bush wasted trillions on wars and giveaways to Phrma, Obama is attempting to invest in America with the hope that we will receive a return on the money we are spending today. Fixing healthcare is the number 1 way to reduce to deficit in the out years.
Seriously. Clinton and Bush fuck up the economy, so Obama goes and spends us into oblivion trying to make it all better? That's the something "new" that you want? Seriously guy, 2 FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS in debt in a YEAR. And that is before nationalized health care. What do you want to bet the debt is going to be when that kicks in? Fucking people think that America has unlimited funds to do whatever the fuck it wants. Here's a clue ... we are owing more and more money every single year to countries that really don't like us a whole lot. How the fuck does that make you feel?
as it inevitably spirals downward into exactly the type of unintelligible left vs right discourse you're begging us to stop. People are impossible. The more of us there are on this planet, the less we're going to get done. Rome is burning. Michael Moore isn't going to save us...unfortunately. Too many people will be busy calling him an idiot without keeping the slightest hint of an open mind. America is screwed.
nobody could have done anything in 8 months huh??? then how come liberals blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 when he was in office for only 8 months?? can't have it both ways
You can't help thinking about the timing of the bailout - end of a Presidency, fledgling beginning of another which continued the funds dump in so many ways. These are Goldman Sachs boys through and through, most of the key players, they know how to protect their version of the status quo and just railroaded this fucking thing through. Matt Taibbi wrote an astounding piece on the powergrab that was going on, and it's everything Moore's film should have been. Likewise the PBS Frontline piece on the timeline of the crisis up to and through Bear's downfall, Lehman's collapse, allegedly the final straw. Paulson, Geithner et al basically held the entire country to ransom, leveraging the crisis mode in order to get what they wanted - fast. Passionate, angry, intelligent, and spares NO ONE for their complicity, deceit or their weakness. I'm still not sure which combination of these Obama is guilty of, but his responses and actions to this restoration of biz as usual has been disappointing. And this film was too, ultimately. But it's an attempt to present the argument, rather than a rant, and for that it ought to be seen. Like healthcare, this is NOT a partisan issue; it's a moral one. And surely those basics are still fairly universal?
Are you a fool? No one blames any one for "not stopping it." We all blame ourselves for not being properly prepared, for not realizing the threats, but I've never heard anyone say, "Bush didn't stop 9/11. What a dick." You're way off base. I hate G.W. Bush more than any President history, but I would never put that on his shoulders. 9/11 was no ones fault. That's a fucked up thing to say.
Because he got a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US" while he was gone fishing and then tried to act like no one could have ever seen it coming
Fixing health care is the number 1 way to reduce the deficit? Wow. I hope by fixing you don't mean government run. Sorry, the government cannot run anything efficiently. I really do not understand how people can want government run health care. This is the same government that is going to drive social security and medicare into bankruptcy. This is the same government that wastes BILLIONS every single year on pork barrel projects. This is the same government that cannot keep a balanced budget. That cannot maintain a high quality educational system for our kids. There is so much ineptitude, waste, and corruption in government that I CANNOT understand why people want to hand over such an important function. I'm not saying that the insurance companies and pharmas are better, but there has to be another solution.
Blame your state or town, but that's not the federal government. Or your fellow citizens who vote on your town budget.
Yes, people blame Bush for 9/11. Some think Bush did it himself. But what do you expect? People equate Obama to Hitler because Obama wants to give them all HEALTHCARE.
I'm not resorting to name-calling, so sorry that you have to sink to such a level. Sorry, Lamerz, but I think you're wrong. History has shown time and time again that government spending is the best way to recover from economic depression - just look at the New Deal. Yeah, there's repercussions, but in the long run I believe it will pay off. You can't just look at how much money there is but where it's going - into new programs that provide work to citizens, who will in turn provide tax revenue and eventually decrease the deficit. Republicans seem to be so much more concerned with amounts of money and maintaining what's theirs than fixing the gaps in our social and economic structures that caused this meltdown in the first place. I'm pretty liberal, and I don't "blame" Bush for 9/11, but I certainly have read the 9/11 report and see that he was at least marginally at fault. It is well documented that we were warned about the attacks (if you haven't read the report, I suggest you do so), and he did nothing to act. Also, his reaction was not entirely responsible for putting us in a recession, but his policies certainly face-tracked us in that direction. And sorry, Raskinov, your point makes no sense. Even if people are "blaming" for that, one attack was a little bit less to deal with than two failing warfronts, a shattered economic core, a dwindling diplomatic and international reputation, and a plethora of social rights issues.
That's not a government function, that's a human one. Look at all the waste.corruption companies are guilty of. Hell, you can take it all the way down to individual families who waste food/resources.
The federal government has their hands deep into the educational system. Funding is dependent on meeting certain standards and following federal rules. But I get your point, much is run at the state and local level in education. However, that just proves my point... ineptitude runs rampant at ALL levels of government. Boo yaa...
"one attack was a little bit less to deal with"
I don't like Bush, but I think you are underestimating where we were as a country in terms of our state of mind. We were fragile/hurt/angry and Bush did do a good job of "rallying" the troops so to speak ie the U.S. citizens.
Now what followed in terms of policies/direction can be questioned, but the impact the attacks made and how Bush initially brought the country together shouldn't be dismissed for its importance.
The closest thing to "government run" healthcare in any of these bills is the public insurance option. Ironically enough the Americans most satisfied with their are the ones who receive it from Medicare and VA, two government run single payer systems. We've let the system go like this for over 3 decades and health care costs are now responsible for the majority of bankruptcies in this country. If the government doesn't step in to get these costs under control, who will. Noone is proposing a "government takeover", that's just a scare tactic, but the system needs serious reform to get these costs under control.
well, Reagan had 8 years of a presidential resume to attack, same for Clinton and W. Bush 41 had 4 years. So in the same critique you say Obama has no experience, but also complain that Moore doesn't attack his record to the extent he does of two term presidents, who's policies are tried and applied enough to be critiqued appropriately by political scientists and economists alike. WHY?
Yes, he did rally the troops, in the wrong direction. We were fragile/hurt/angry, and Bush and his administration took advantage of us in our vulnerable state.
I did quantify it with "what followed", which I did not agree with him on.
How long was he in office when this was filmed?
...in which everyone shares the wealth equally!
So well done, and all. But utterly pointless in the long run.
I wonder if you're trying an experiment to see if readers write off your review for cheap shots at Obama in your opening the way you claim that people will write off Moore for taking cheap shots at Reagan. I also have to question your obsession with having Moore bag on Obama which is different from discussing the actions of former Presidents with 6 terms between the three of them (Clinton, Bush II, Reagan) and someone who has been in office less than a year. You have good points, but your story must be targeting "conservative" readers. No one likes cheap shots, and yours are no exception.
...this sis one of your best reviews. A fantastic read.
Massawyrm, your political ideas are childish and ignorant. Ask Mom if you can watch the big boy news. Deregulation was not the cause of this. It was too much regulation of the wrong things. Socialism cannot work in a society where economic success is a valued characteristic. It can't and won't. Don't be a tool. If you can. And, Roger and Me was a very entertaining film if you forget that it was completely full of crap.
I really appreciate you TRYING to be bipartisan here but you have utterly FAILED. Moore kid-gloves Obama? The man has been in office for 7 months. The effects of his presidency have yet to be seen.
 You're just whining and crying becasue Moore fucking destroyed your fantasy jerkoff picture of Reagan, the biggest piece of shit to ever sit in the oval office. You bitch about the "cheap shots" he takes at him but in the same breath point out Moore accurately details "his record of deregulation and dismantling of the manufacturing base." You even credit Reagan for Moore's success, as if this somehow makes moore a hypocrite, which is does NOT. That's like saying MLK owes his success to racism and segregation.
 You say you want the old Moore but moore hasn't changed. He's learned and adapted. He supported Nader only to have him pull critical votes from Gore and the result was a devastating terrorist attack, 2 wars, and a bankrupt economy. We badly needed to stop the bleeding and Moore's support of Obama is a reflection of that and was the only resonable option. So I'm sorry if you can't handle Moore exposing Reagan for nearly single-handedly destroying this country, but don't disguise your tears by railing against cheap shots meant to inject humor into an unhumorous affair meant only to prevent us from slitting our wrists, or whine about unequal treatment of a president who's been in office for half a year. You need to GET OVER IT AND GET ON THE BUS.
...then let this Left-leaning Independent be the one to do it. Good job.
Isn't that fundamentally the point?
Michael Moore is a capitalist in socialist clothing! He is a multi millionaire (who dresses like a homeless guy to portray himself as the common man!) and the last I heard you have to BUY tickets to his films that are distributed by the capitalist Hollywood machine! What a self righteous asshole! Sure he has a point...too bad his tattered cap is covering it!
A butterfly emerges from a chrysalis, a moth emerges from a cocoon.
As much as I like Obama, and I do very much, he is not a liberal like myself. He is a moderate, and to be honest, I can't really complain about that. He ran as a moderate who is very in favor of bipartisanship. As much as I wish he was an idealist, he is a pragmatist. I support a public option whole-heartedly but everything tells me that it's not going to happen. It's a shame, too. It is simply a choice that we are being denied.
And I wouldn't expect Moore to attack Obama--this movie had to be mostly in the can several months ago, right? It's a little premature to attack Obama, though the role of folks like Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo and others in dooming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to fail would have been good subjects. Hadn't seen it yet, don't know if they're covered.
"pull critical votes from Gore and the result was a devastating terrorist attack, 2 wars, and a bankrupt economy." The devastating terrorist attack was going to happen regardless of who won the election. Other than that you're right.
He just plays one on TV. He's about as much a "moderate" or "center-left" politician as Neil Patrick Harris is/was a medical doctor. Or was 12 years old on Doogie Howser. He's a serious lefty--his appointments, his books, his previous statements (especially before the presidential run) all point to that. Nevertheless, I agree with one thing: he's a politician before he's an idealogue. He's going to want to seem like he's getting something done, and will make compromises no "liberal first" true believer would ever agree to.
Good review. I'm not sure the criticism of Moore treating Obama with kid gloves is completely justified seeing as how Obama was barely in office when this was shot. But I do want to see this movie even more now since I know it was reviewed fairly and received well. Thanks.
I would argue that all these bailouts were NOT capitalism. And that was the problem.
Under free market capitalism, infusions of capital don't come from the tax payers just because your poorly (or crazily, corruptly) run bank is "too big to fail".

That being said, it's catchy. Mike's gotta eat (I mean, seriously, he really does have to eat, and a lot, all the time) and it's a good title. "Quasi-Capitalistic Oligopolies and Corrupt Government Interference and Corporate Welfare: A Love Story" isn't nearly as catchy.
Because it's usually the first comment. There's also always some idiot that points out him being wealthy from his success, and that somehow makes him a hypocrite because once he accidentally got paid for his films he should have given it all away or stopped pretending to be a regular guy. And some people like to point out that he's fat, like it's some sort of damning revelation that makes his documentaries less true.
Completely discredits him.
Sept. 23, 2009, 11:35 a.m. CST
by toadkillerdog
By your own words "will make compromises no "liberal first" true believer would ever agree to. "
 So that makes him a pragmatic politician not wedded to ideology, hence, not a liberal true believer who would sacrifice all for his ideology.
 So your point is what exactly?
Massa,
 I've only been coming to this site for a few years now, but you have got to be my favorite reviewer. And for someone like me who generally has a knee jerk "Fuck republicans" attitude, that's saying something. I keep finding myself sending your reviews to my even leftier-than-me girlfriend with captions like "Look, republicans ARE human too! And funny!" This and your Milk review should be used as proof that we're not as different as FOX and CNN would like us to believe. Keep it up man.
Would it have? I'm no Truther here, but it seems like taking seriously reports titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States," rather than ignoring them, might have prevented 9-11. Maybe.
May I ask why you "wholeheartedly disagree" with an economic bill of rights as a solution to our woes (even though by your own admission Moore makes a compelling argument for it), and what solution you may have that would work? Just wondering. By the way, for the uninitiated:
 The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
 The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
 The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
 The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
 The right of every family to a decent home
 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
 The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
 The right to a good education
...that those who should be called to answer for what they have done have been allowed to slink into the shadows (of their palm-tree studded beach front home payed for with our sweat and tears) and policy to protect us from the same events happenign again is being lobbyed out by those who have control.
Banks should neevr have been allowed to blend their risk taking and their more mundane practices: Clinton ditched Glass Seagull and allowed banks to turn themselves inot casinos. Casinos that we have paid for and our children will pay dearly for...why is he still allowed to advise us on policy? Gordon Brown sold Britain's Gold Reserves when gold was at its cheapest and cost the British economy billions - and he was the goddamn Chancellor of the Exchequer. And guess what? After that almighty clusterfuck the Labour Government didn't fire him, or send him back to school to learn some economics. No. They made him Prime Minister. And his deregulation has lead Briatin to the brink of financial disaster.
We have stopped caering about who is in control because thos ein control want us divided so that our attention is directed laterally rather than vertically. When did we all lose our gumption? Or is it the drip, drip effect of outdated Capitalism. Read this and start having a good think:
The New Capitalism
There's next year, and then there's the next decade. Economic conditions in 2009 will be treacherous. There'll be a formal recession in most developed economies, and the economic contraction is highly likely to be more severe in the UK than almost anywhere else.
Companies and consumers will continue to tighten their belts. There'll be a sharp rise in unemployment. The extraordinary volatility we've experienced in the price of sterling, commodities, energy, shares and capital - which makes it so hard for businesses and investors to plan - is unlikely to dissipate.
Many businesses, especially big ones, will become unviable - and will present the Government with an appalling dilemma of which ones to put on life support. So it's understandable that most of us, including ministers, central bankers and regulators, are planning for the next few months. We're building the economic equivalent of bomb shelters and mobile hospitals.
But this is no downturn like any we've seen since the Second World War, for two reasons: it's global; and its primary cause is the pricking of a massive debt bubble.
We borrowed too much, especially in the US and the UK. And the process of paying the money back is not only leading to a fall in living standards but is also precipitating very significant changes in how the global financial economy operates.
Capitalism is changing in fundamental ways. For many years to come, what's happening will affect the relationship between business and government, between taxpayers and the private sector, between employers and employees, between investors and companies.
Arguably the global economic crisis will turn out to be more significant for us and other developed economies than the collapse of communism. A New Capitalism is likely to emerge from the rubble. And although it's impossible to be precise about how the reconstructed economy will operate, parts of its outline are taking shape. What lies ahead can be determined from an understanding of what's gone wrong with the existing model.
This, in itself, is no reason for gloom or despair. For many, the New Capitalism may well seem fairer and less alienating than the model of the past 30 years, in that the system's salvation may require it to be kinder, gentler, less divisive, less of a casino in which the winner takes all.
Here are some of the numbers that tell us what's gone wrong. For the UK, if you aggregate together consumer, corporate and public-sector debt, the ratio of our borrowings to our annual economic output is a bit over 300%, or over £4000bn. That's a similar ratio of debt to GDP as that of the US, and it's a record. Over the past decade, we borrowed and we borrowed and we borrowed: we assumed that the day when we had to pay it back would never arrive, that there would always be an opportunity to roll over the debt.
Households borrowed too much, £1200bn on mortgages alone…read the rest of this article at www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/16_12_09_new_capitalism1.pdf
He refused to greenlight Bin Laden when asked to by the CIA. That was way BEFORE 9/11. It's the Democrats fault so many New Yorkers died.
Yeah. OK. Unless you know that it was a satellite tape video that was unproven to actually be bin Laden, or that forces were not prepared at the time to make a strike, or that bin Laden wouldn't have been replaced by another higher up if he did die, or that we had no idea he was capable of attacking inside the U.S. before the report that landed on Bush's desk, or the fact that Clinton was distracted by a ridiculous Republican witchhunt over consensual sex.
Without having seen one second of this film I'm certain that I can concur that it will be one of the most important films for us all to watch no matter what side of the fence we are on because it puts to the forefront who the true "enemy of the state" is, the corrupted global corporate infrastructure. I find it both embarrasing and ultimately concerning that we live in a nation where our government leaders are at each others throats due entirely to the fact that they have placed their desires into the wellbeing of their own pockets opposed to the that of the people. Those of you who stand non-partisan or at least can see both sides without (much) bias can see clearly that there can never be bi-partisanship in a system that is controlled by corporate powers who dangle juicy treats over both parties leaving them to do whatever it takes to be the ones who can benefit most from catering to their desires. When we live in a country that is in such great financial turmoil and see that stimulus money is going mostly towards corporations instead of the people who can no longer afford to purchase from them and now healthcare reform being focused more on the insurance companies than the actual broken design of health care itself which focuses more on feeding addictions with prescription drugs than offering meaningful treatments due to it being more profitable then we know that we are a nation in utter peril. The American people on all sides of the fence need to fight to reform their own parties and demand that they focus on what should be the true priority of a government which is to successfully lead a nation by ensuring fairness, growth, structure and freedoms that should only be limited to the expectation that those freedoms aren't risking the well-beings of others or inspiring actions that can lead to societal breakdown. A nation as advanced as ours should be willing to do whatever it takes to break free from outdated traditions for the sake of evolutionary movement towards demanding the development of a social structure which promotes advancements in wellness, science and technology meant to bring the world together in escaping from wars caused by inbalance in the distribution of wealth and resources. The world is like a giant rubics cube and we can continue to be satisfied having only gotten one side completed or we can use our knowledge and patience to finally complete the puzzle and see a world that exists as it should be in harmony. We will either expand as a race of humanity or continue to fall from our inequities.
...is what goes on behind closed doors. All this shit that people are arguing about is distracting us from what will really happen. Something bad is headed for this country. But yeah, it was actually Bush Sr. fault for 9/11. We trained their fucking army. We sold them weapons. They knew all along they were going to turn it around on us. While we were told we were gaining "allies", we were just making enemies. So right or left, it doesn't matter. These issues are weapons of mass distraction.
And I'm guessing he considers the Obama presidency too young for the kind of approbation he could aim at those in office for 8 years...as opposed to 8 months. I can see that, while I can also understand your wish he HAD gone after our current POTUS.
But a pragmatic politician. That is, if he can get it, I'm pretty sure he'll swing far, far left. Failing that, he'll get the next best thing, having a politician's instinct for compromise, if necessary.

Which is fine. I think ideology tempered with pragmatism is a good thing.
good job
And why would he need to? There are plenty of liberals and Democrats in the house and senate who have done a lot of damage he could go after. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. Politicians of every stripe that have questionable loyalties, allegiances, and lobbyists. And a long history thereof. We are reaping the results of those folks, not Obama. At least, not yet. ;)
Sept. 23, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST
by kevinwillis.net
I'm pretty sure neither Bush nor Clinton were flying the planes.

Why is it so hard to blame the people actually responsible?
Sept. 23, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST
by HoboCode
Maybe, kevin, because ultimately we can't really do anything to prevent terrorism. If someone wants to blow up our buildings, trains, etc they are going to find a way, and no amount of bombing of Afghanistan or any other shithole can change that fact. If you think otherwise you are delusional. All we can really do is look at how WE could have prevented it because that's something that IS in our power to do.
going after both sides of the Congress he's hitting the right targets. Presidents are at best moderately influential, at worse completely ineffectual.
But we can sure as heck say the guy who set off the bomb is the one primarily responsible.
Odds idiots will try to rationally debate that idiot = 100%. Seriously...if you try and debate with a moron troll...what does that make you? Trying to have a real conversation with that shit bird is like talking to a stump. Please don't feed trolls!
is that if he fucks up with this MASSIVE spending, I don't know that the U.S. will even be around as we know it by the end the next decade. This is not a partisan argument. The fact that Bush spent us into oblivion does not excuse Obama from then doing the same... on an even larger scale. I completely understand what people are saying about Obama needing to 'prime the pump' but I think that's hardly what he is doing. I also think much of his spending is based upon totally erroneous tax income projections. Things might recover, but not in the way they think. There is no going back to the way things were. People have tightened up and decided to pay off credit cards and stop living in debt. THAT'S NOT WHAT OBAMA, THE RIGHT, THE FUCKING LEFT, THE BANKS, AND THE FED ALL EXPECTED YOU TO DO! At least not for long. I think their entire reality, present and future, depends upon all of us going back to the way things were at some point so they can keep spending, even if we can or should not.
 I'm sorry, I no longer trust either side. Both seem to be in the pockets of special corporate or public (unions, police, teachers, pension funds) interests. Both seem to have no clue that the American taxpayer is not an ATM machine with no limit. It sounds like this doc presents that sort of argument and for Moore doing that, I seriously could fucking hug the guy, even as much as I DESPISED him before this doc came out. WE THE PEOPLE need to come together to reform the entire system and kick out special and corporate interests and replace them with OUR interests, the people who vote. The right ONLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ULTRA-WEALTHY BUSINESS owners and the bible belt and Rush listeners are their willfully ignorant and ever-faithful sheep. The left, meanwhile, ONLY WANT TO CREATE MORE AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS AT HITHERTO UNSEEN INEFFICIENCIES because hey... we can always take a bigger slice of your paycheck, what do you need all that money for, anyway? Don't you care about your fellow man, you heartless prick?! Yes, I do. It's called charity and volunteer work. What I DON'T care about is Vito, the guy who runs the union and has the Dems in his pocket and is into pay-to-play for taxpayer funded road repairs... or the 900 COPS PER SQUARE MILE in New Jersey, to whom taxpayers are beholden for life through pensions and other taxpayer funded benefits... because hey, you can NEVER fire or cut jobs that were created by Democrat funded programs. No... once those programs start, no matter how bureaucratically insane and inefficient they become, no matter HOW MUCH money they're wasting with little or nothing to show for it, no matter how unnecessary some of the employees have become, you can NEVER cut those programs or any of their jobs, even though YOUR company can lay you off whenever it wants. If only people would realize THIS is the problem on both sides: waste, inefficiency, downright arrogance, and 'convictions' that are only informed by how much money they stand to gain from special interests. It's not a right/left issue. I'm POSITIVE that we can do public health care and all of the other good things a society should do for the less fortunate or to provide some kind of social net... but not the way this country does it. Perhaps this kind of waste and downfall is an inevitability of any government and we're just at the tipping point before the downfall of the U.S. It could be unstoppable, who knows? But for everyone to NOT acknowledge the vast majority of us need to stop bickering over left vs. right and come together to fight the real enemies - corruption, rampant overspending, greed, and inefficiency... well then this country honestly deserves what is coming to it.
Your title is much more awesome!
...of the recent economic collapse. "The fat cats did it"? Seriously?
Government intervention in the form of perceived government-backing of high risk loans created the housing bubble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were holding almost a third of the entire US debt.
We have never practiced truely Free Market Capitalism in this country. Government intervention in the private sector hurts markets is not free market. I don't believe we need to hear arguments for socialism, I believe we need to try true capitalism for a change.
Fat Cats did it - is not even remotely close to the truth. Government did it - and your solution is to hear arguments for MORE government, Massa?
Massawyrm, you've nailed what is terribly wrong with the current debate in this country. I probably agree with you very little on policy, but damn it's nice to hear a reasonable voice from the other side. Great points, great review.
Yes, racism. Why else did I not see a single face of color in that crowd of thousands? Sure, this is a type of"populist" rage, we're seeing. But a lot of their movement is compelled by unfounded racist fears of Obama (because of his ethnicity) stealing their tax-dollars and spreading it out to blacks and immigants. And Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck are the ones galvanizing these hate mobs. The same type of hate mobs that shouted over the personal testimonies of their fellow Americans during the healthcare town meetings. It's one thing to protest political leaders like Obama (and yet, where were these mobs when Bush was president since he shat all over their rights too?). Hek, people are protesting the G20 right now, partly because of Obama's world economic policies, and they should be protesing! (But there are no tea-baggers there, ironically). But it's another thing when they spit in the face of average folks, expressing their genuine health-care woes. These mobs are vile racist hypocrites and just plain fucking stupid.
The government did it? HA! Who controls the government? THE FAT CATS. Are you retarded? The ignorance of you movie nerds never ceases to amaze me. I thought maybe you geeks would be a little smarter than the average dumbed-down ignoramus American. Well looking at this talk back I WAS WRONG!
Most people can't even pay off their own personal debt. Worry about that first.
thank god not EVERYONE on this site is politically brain dead. Too bad 1 out of a 1000 isn't good enough to save this fucked up and doomed country.
I would be embarassed to be on their side.
jesus christ give the guy some time to make his changes,and if u see that they dont work,then crucify him.
To de-regulate the banking sector. So yes, its the fat cats.
Massawyrm is full of shit. The GOP has given us zombie Reaganomics and deregulation so that your dog and baby can die of melamine poisoning because they want smaller government and now this fucker wants to blame everything on Obama. Sorry, Crapola Boy, but George W. made all this shit happen and Obama has to be the janitorial crew. Did you see Crank 2? You know that scene where the guy gets a rifle up his butt? It should happen to you. Your guys created all of these problems and it is going to take a while for us to overcome them. Think about that, fat ass.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. WAKE THE FUCK UP. Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 http://tinyurl.com/lwpwvz
Sept. 23, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST
by knowthyself
But to be fair repubs and dems both passed the bill and that never should have happened in the first plac.e
..the more they abuse that freedom. Regulate them up the ass.
for him to "clean up Bush's mess" are fucking retarded. If you weren't so fat and lazy and took responsibility for being aware of current events you'd know that Obama is continuing Bush's policies in almost every way, and broke almost all his campaign promises. Give him more time?!?!? tO DO WHAT? Watch the USA circle the drain while he laughs? You Democrats are MORONS
Sept. 23, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST
by knowthyself
Obama's efforts are working. What's the problem again?
By closing G-bay? By disclosing torture done on them? How exactly is he continuing Bush policies? Seems like a 180 to me. Once those tax cuts expire we can cut down that debt. Good times are coming folks. Obama is leading the way.
How much is Alex Jones and Prison Planet paying you these days?
Funny how physically responsible conservatives always seem to over look this fact. Mmmm I wonder why? I guess when the president lines your pockets you just shut up and let his team do whatever they want.
The whole premise was built on Mike trying to get an interview with Rog, and being denied time after time. Troubling thing about that though is it was later shown that he didn't just meet with Roger, he met with him multiple times. He's not a documentarian, he's a scam artist. I loved TV Nation growing up, but I can't support a man who sold out his credibility before I even hit puberty.
I wish all conservatives were as open minded and as thoughtful as you. You really hit the nail on the head about these rich white pundits pitting us little guys against each other with their talking points all the while that the rich elite are fukking us and selling our country down the river for their own greed. You are also right that many conservatives will not see this movie because of their biases. But, I must admit that I would never read a book by Ann Coulter, even if I have read her online articles from time to time.
Liberals watch Family Guy. Republicans watch Fox News. He gets paid from both sides.
The word is FISCALLY. -facepalm-
Don't kill me now.
You're either misinformed, a pathetic liar, stupid, or a combination of the three. Moore ran into Roger Smith at shareholders meeting he crashed in 1987, OVER A YEAR BEFORE ROGER AND ME STARTED FILMING, and they didn't EVEN discuss the topic of the film.
 You can masturbate to the Moore hit piece called Manufacturing Dissent all you want but it's still a crock of shit.

because he is rich. Yes, he is rich, but he is also willing to take a serious tax increase in order to pay for the programs he suggests. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is passing tax cuts while starting an unnecessary expensive war of choice.
because he is rich. Yes, he is rich, but he is also willing to take a serious tax increase in order to pay for the programs he suggests. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is passing tax cuts while starting an unnecessary expensive war of choice.
Moore probably finished production on the film early last year several months into Obama's presidency. I know Moore is not happy about Obama's continuation of Bush's policies of bailing out Wall Street.
Is we needed the bail out and the stimulus package. We really did.
got cut off there, but hey it worked for Centuries, perhaps that?.....fuck it I would rather see absolute Anarchy before Socialism, human nature causes it not to work, looks great on paper but socialism isn't a viable optionnot to work, looks great on paper but socilism isnt a viable option
something is wrong with the talkback post got cut off there, but hey it worked for Centuries, perhaps that?.....fuck it I would rather see absolute Anarchy before Socialism, human nature causes it not to work, looks great on paper but socialism isn't a viable option
You actually made a post that didn't have the word "racism" in it. Way to go!
in his hit song, Man In The Mirror.
And because of your post I'm not going to derisively insult our friends on the Right in your talkback. I'll do that in Herc's.
Sept. 23, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
I swear I could recognize your comments there. LOLOLOLLLLLL
Same old Garbage
 by billybobjimbob (movies profile) Sep 23, 2009
 Moore makes millions on capitalism and then rails against it.
 The dumb/ignorant and lazy that pay to see his garbage get what they deserve.
 Moore is a master at making money and stirring class warfare and is laughing all the way to the bank as the ignorant eat it up.
 He is the epitomy of capitalism and those that liek the guy are too dumb to realize they are being played
 Overall Grade: F
 Story: F
 Acting: F
 Direction: F
 Visuals: D
When was the last time you heard a lefty fret about "even-handedness" when dealing with political disagreement? Moore certainly never does this. Don't be a puss Massa. And of course propaganda is convincing. That's the point, you only present the facts that support your argument and most people(ignorant of other facts) will agree with you. Republicans already have to deal having opposing viewpoints shoved in their faces much more than Dems do thanks to the MSM. We have Fox News but they have everything else. You've obviously already accepted the left's meta-thesis that things are "unbalanced" in favor of the right... Why not just admit that you're tired of being abused for saying what you believe and just become a lefty yourself?
is the latest corporate-designed attack narrative?
 Can someone please check Fox News for me?
Looks like a fake review BSB. Or did you chnage the name?
apparently Goldman Sachs employees were his 2nd highest contributors, and Moore wants to make sure Obama knows he'll be watching.
Unique point of view, well explained. I even forced myself to skim through the talkback to get to the bottom to post this.
As I stated above. Bashing Moore for being a capitalist becasue he profits on his films is like bashing Martin Luther King, Jr. for benefiting from racism and segregation.
... motherfucker burned to the ground while partisan assholes stood around bickering. Their corporate overloards laughed themselves silly as they quietly moved their assets to China. One market down, two to go. One world coporatocracy here we come.
 Oh and please welcome a truly visionary thinker with unprecedented powers of insight to your motley midst. I give you the mighty: SK229. Give the boy a hand now c'mon ya'll...
That was a "User Review" at Yahoo movies. Worthless, but amusing.
An island of shit in a sea of piss is STILL an island of shit, no matter how big and intimidating that churning sea of piss really is.
I always have HuffPost open alongside AICN. Arianna ain't no pauper, nor are the people she runs with. And she's way farther to the Left than most of us Libs.
 To get rich is glorious. But I think our economy is, unfortunately, managed by a kind of scumbag rich. Assholes run the show. They pay off politicians as easily as a trucker pays a hooker at The Point.
 Yeah. Skyway Moaters, and SK229, they got it right. Our nation, our financial security, the foundation of our country and culture ... all being cannibalized while we bicker in the service of our respective parties.
 Maybe Ralph Nader ain't so crazy after all.
This movie wasn't just completed yesterday. Obama just got elected when this movie was finished shooting.
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". What's happened to your sarcasm detector?
That's without a doubt.
 I know Moore put this in the can a while back, but even if that's not the case, I can see the value of not weakening Obama with a scathing criticism so early in his tenure. The man has SO MANY enemies - why give them ammunition?
Glen Beck and Sean Hannity are on the radio and television 5 days a week hours at a time repeating and beating the same tired talking points endlessly into the tiny brains of their puppets . Who's the real propagandist?!
He gets totally pwned at 7:40 by someone who actually knows what he's talking about:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIzs5bSAE2c
I'm fucking sick and tired of all the damn name calling. Stereotypes don't solve problems. Disrespect doesn't solve problems. Laughing at people doesn't solve problems. What's left of our republic is going to disintegrate if we don't start looking at each other as fellow citizens who all are theoretically an integral part of the government. Democrats and Republicans aren't forever and neither existed when we founded this nation. Locking on to personalities isn't going to get us anywhere either. They wanted to make Washington king and he knew the dangers of the cult of personality. Let's knock it off with getting wrapped up in hating Reagan or Clinton or whatever the fuck. Ideas are what is important here.
after claiming all those ten thousand dollar rewards you must have claimed from moore for proving all the lies he put in farenheit yeah?
I think Obama is refreshing the US image around the world. But I think his supporters should chill and take criticism better. Not everyone thinks like you and you spent a lot of time Bush bashing(which was one of the best ways to spend time back then).
...by how CIVIL these Moore talkbacks have been, generally speaking. People are debating the actual relevant issues with reason and intellectual honesty, and not wasting time on the distractions and straw men. And it never really digresses into personal attacks until one of the mouth breathers like Coughling or Immoral_Fail shows up and tries to bait people with BS. I'm as guilty as anyone of feeding the trolls (and acting as one, abyss-gazes-also style) but if this sort of constructive discussion can happen in an AICN talkback, it gives me hope that the country can act like adults long enough to figure out this mess. Thanks, TB, for once it feels really good to be proven wrong on AICN.
 And Massa, your reviews get better and better. Nice work.
an honest republican, i thought you guys had gone the way of the dodo bird, but i've got to disagree about attacking Obama in order to appear "fair and balanced" in order to draw in the right wing crowd. I loathe Rush, Beck, Hannity and O'Reily; but i at least listen to their opposing viewpoints occasionally if only to hear for myself what the other side is saying. Unfortunately, it seems to me that far too many conservatives never get the story straight from the horses mouth,but through the skewed interpretation of the republican mouth pieces.
that is the extent of obama's presidency.there is NO REASON for moore to jump on a man who hasn't even been pres a full year let alone a term.he inherited the problem from bush.and while he also authorized a bailout realistically-what fuckin choice did he have/ be the pres to let a major american corp and the banking system fail?please-accept the fact-he is president .you have to live w/it.
I do not believe that Moore should ATTACK Obama for the sake of balance. Moore presents evidence in the film (tangentially) that reminds the audience of Obama's role in the first bailout - which Moore HEAVILY criticizes. He publicly supported it (especially at the debates), he made backroom calls and deals to help get it the votes, and Goldman Sacs, one of the film's chief targets was one of Obama's major contributors. Moore presents all this, but doesn't take the same tack he does with any of the other political figures - especially Dowd. When you see it you'll understand. It's not about attack; it's about watching him pull a punch.
... just kidding Mr.Plague, couldn't resist...
Love Air America. Don't listen much, since I cancelled my XM radio, however. Missed Al Franken's show, once they cancelled. Jerry Springer put me to sleep. Rachel Maddow was good. Always liked Janeane Garofalo. Etc.

Read all sorts of left wing books. Watch CNN. MSNBC. Read AICN TalkBacks. I've seen most of Moore's movies (missed Sicko). Also read his book, Dude, Where's My Country (admittedly, I bought it for $1 out of the remainder bin, but still). Straight from the horses mouth is always the best place to go.

I love Limbaugh. Can't stand Hannity. Can barely tolerate O'Rielly. Love Dennis Miller. I remember listening to Limbaugh try and dismiss the amazing performance of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 but comparing it the box office numbers for Spiderman 2. Uh . . . comparing apples and potatoes, there. Compare it to another popular documentaries, and you see it knocked the ball out of the park. But I'm rambling. Props to Massawyrm for his review. However, if AICN wants a real rock-ribbed conservative to represent, they need to hire me. Just saying.
celebrating his anti-capitalist movie. BTW, Mr. Moore, if you were a Cuban Citizen making anti-government and anti-communist movies about your hero Castro, you've be jailed or killed...
i've been a stockbroker for 18 years and i understand WAY more than the rest of u 1 fact-WE HAD TO BAIL THEM OUT!if we let those banks fail or fall,the effects would have been felt in this country for at least the next 100 years.i am not mad @ either bush or obama for that.the real problem is the deregulation of the markets-done by both reagan and clinton-that's what ha s screwed this economy. as a broker in the 90's it was ridiculous how easy and LEGAL it was to basically steal money-from the rich AND the poor AND the middle class.obama's correct on one thing-health care reform will put billions back into the system.but there are so many other things that can be done-like ending the ridiculous war on drugs which we will never "win" and costs upwards of 15-20 billion a year.to end these useless wars which we will never win and which will end up costing trillions.as for goldman sachs supporting obama-of course they did and opf course he took their cash.he had no choice in that.goldman sachs are the real problem in all of this .any one ever question why they made a profit of several billion while all the other financial co's were failing?insider trading scheme's,reg d offerings ,ipo's that where artificially inflated.that's where the proiblem is but w/out severe regulation,it will never be fixed.
"THAT'S what I'm talkin' about when I talk about AMERICA!"
 -Peter Gibbons
while i respect moore and his films,he is wrong to criticize the bailout.while it sucks that we had to do it,as stated before we had no choice
Many of which were corrupt to the core, so they continue to go on being mismanaged and corrupt, largely unencumbered, until the tax payer is called upon to bail them out again.

That being said, ending the war on drugs--and especially marijuana, which has medicinal uses, and is less destructive than alcohol--makes a lot of sense to me.
... Monsieur _plague ?
you're missing the point, probably because you haven't seen the film yet.
let's call the bailout an abortion. a very necessary abortion. Moore's film is about careless unprotected sex necessitating the abortion. you dig?
not only do i dig-i completely understand-that's what i was saying(though maybe not as clearly as i could've)the bailout was an necessary abortion.the real problem are companies liek goldman sachs or the fact that 4 banks control 99% of the banking system.can't wait for this flick!
not saying it was a good thing and ur right-these companies are totally mismanaged.but sometimes u have to suck it up and fix after u've stabilized the situation.and ur right-weed being illegal is ridiculous and costs this country waaaaayyy to much money when we could legalize,tax and use those funds to stabilize healthcare
is it more anti-exploitation??
How'd that slip by the rest of the libs writing for this site? Seriously! I'm outraged!
"I CAN'T READ YOUR CRAZY MOON LANGUAGE!"
 -The Tick
 Nah, j/k... it's not a talkback until someone lobs F-bombs. Thanks for simulating my natural habitat.
would be racist, and who would watch a film by a racist?
I'm neither Rep nor Dem; I voted blue in the last election because I couldn't bear another 4 years of what had come before, and while I did feel the pride of helping make history, I still stuck to my guns: wait and see. I have appreciated Moore's work without always agreeing with it; and I've lamented that things have degenerated to a reactionary shouting match between the loudest voice forcing their scripted talking points down everyone's throats, and the ability for those of different persuasions to intelligently discuss issues civilly agree to disagree seems to be gone. In any case, I hope your piece is read by everyone on the left and the right equally, for an example of an intelligent, passionate yet rancor-free screed. (And FYI, while I have beliefs that lean both left and right, I'm no fan of the extreme left Acorn/MoveOn folks, but at the same time, the Republican party will never have any credibility in my eyes as long as it continues to take it up the ass from, and be controlled by, the radical Christian right. Sorry, no offense.) For myself, I wasn't planning to see this movie, but now I'm going to--neither as the choir nor as a witch burner. So you achieved that much, for what it's worth. Good job.
Sept. 23, 2009, 6:46 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
Tonight. Look sharp.
All I can say is it was a waste of time. Why would Massawyrm 1 think this movie is going to change any Republican or conservative views to match anything Moore wants is ridiculous and laughable. What you don't undersand Massawyrm 1 is that if we give this power to the Government to control all private business in the form of regulations which when broken do nothing but give countless amounts of money to trial lawyers like John Edwards and who are in the liberals pockets is outrageous. Who is going to watch over the Government once they have this newfound power?
Wall Street Bonuses Hit Record $39 Billion for 2007 (Update3)By Christine Harper

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street's five biggest firms are paying a record $39 billion in bonuses for 2007, a year when three of the companies suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. together awarded $65.6 billion in compensation and benefits last year to their 186,000 employees. That means year-end bonuses, at 60 percent of the total, exceeded the $36 billion distributed in 2006 when the industry reported all-time high profits.

The New York-based firms, which shed 25 percent of their equity value during 2007, have said they're eliminating at least 6,200 jobs amid mounting losses from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. The payouts come as the U.S. economy slows, with unemployment rising, retail sales declining and new home foreclosures surging to a record.

`To many people, it will be shocking and questionable,'' said Jeanne Branthover, managing director of Boyden Global Executive Search in New York. ``People in New York in the world of investment banking will understand it. It's critical that pay is still there or you're going to lose really good people.'

The industry's bonuses are larger than the gross domestic products of Sri Lanka, Lebanon or Bulgaria, and the average bonus of $219,198 is more than four times higher than the median U.S. household income in 2006, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.----

http://tinyurl.com/4ye4s6

Remember kids - This isn't a failure of the free market: It's Victory!
MM said on Howard Stern that a guy tried to throw hot coffee on him once, but his special forces body guard jumped in front to save him. The guard received second degree burns and the man was arrested. Wouldn't this have been news? I can't find anything online. Can anyone else?
I've heard this argument about Moore, Robbins, et alia. Here's why it's faulty: nothing is stopping them from voluntarily sending checks to the Treasury Department or from living on 100k a year and giving the rest to charity. Also, Moore's a hypocrite because he's working with Viacom. He very easily could have found a more socially responsible partner for the distribution of his work.
From what I understand, Moore put Obama on notice that if things don't change on Wall Street, the next time out the gloves are off.
Shopkeeper: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse! Homer: Ooh, that's bad. Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt! Homer: That's good. Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed. Homer: That's bad. Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings. Homer: That's good! Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate. [Homer looks puzzled] Shopkeeper: ...That's bad. Homer: Can I go now?
If you're gonna have a catastrophic illness, better to have it at the beginning of the fiscal quarter than later. Just sayin'.
Massa, I don't think we're capable of reasoned debate in this country. Sorry. Thanks for trying.
 CENSUS WORKER HANGED: Bill Sparkman Found With "Fed" Marked On Body

By Devlin Bartlett and Jeffrey MacMurray
9/23/09 5:20PM

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery, and a law enforcement official told The Associated Press the word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.
Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment.
Investigators have said little about the case. The law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, said Wednesday the man was found hanging from a tree and the word "fed" was written on the dead man's chest. The official did not say what type of instrument was used to write the word.
FBI spokesman David Beyer said the bureau is helping state police with the case.
"Our job is to determine if there was foul play involved – and that's part of the investigation – and if there was foul play involved, whether that is related to his employment as a census worker," said Beyer.
Beyer declined to confirm or discuss any details about the crime scene.
Lucindia Scurry-Johnson, assistant director of the Census Bureau's southern office in Charlotte, N.C., said law enforcement officers have told the agency the matter is "an apparent homicide" but nothing else.
Story continues below
Census employees were told Sparkman's truck was found nearby, and a computer he was using for work was found inside it, she said. He worked part-time for the Census, usually conducting interviews once or twice a month.
Sparkman has worked for the Census since 2003, spanning five counties in the surrounding area. Much of his recent work had been in Clay County, officials said.
Door-to-door operations have been suspended in Clay County pending a resolution of the investigation, Scurry-Johnson said.
The U.S. Census Bureau is overseen by the Commerce Department.
"We are deeply saddened by the loss of our co-worker," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers are with William Sparkman's son, other family and friends."
Locke called him "a shining example of the hardworking men and women employed by the Census Bureau."
___
McMurray reported from Lexington, Ky.
 Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html

Are you kidding me? All these clowns come out and say the recession is over and you believe them? Why? Because the media is run by the corporations who benefit by lying and manipulating you into buying stocks before the the bubble pops again? Oh wait that's a reason not to believe the mainstream propaganda. My bad. And last time I checked Guantanimo bay was still open and the CIA was still torturing people in other secret prisons around the world. And Obama supports the renditions and holding prisoners without due process. And the torture CONTINUES despite what you lemmings were told on CNN. The Federal government has been lying to you clowns for decades, when the fuck will you wake up? Will you finally wake up when the new speculative bubble the banks are creating with your tax money pops, the market crashes again, and Obama says we need a new stimulus? Will that finally wake you dumbed down zombies up? I could go on and on. Does anyone give a fuck, or would you just rather be spoon fed a steady diet of dellusional cotton candy la la fairy tale land by Obama and his teleprompter? So there's a "jobless recovery" and the banks are making billions again by printing trillions of dollars the pubic is liable for. Yes TRILLIONS its not 700 billion like every single fucking establishment whore braindead talking suit has told you. Google "bloomberg 23.7 trillion." Yes 23.7 Trillion. With a fucking T. This is change? The rich getting richer and the unemployment going up and our wages going down? How the fuck is this different than George Bush? Nothing has fucking changed, Wall Street has begun inflating a new speculative bubble with credit default swaps and derivatives, the exact same scam that brought us to the edge of the abyss last year. Obama hasn't changed jack shit. "Economic Duplicity: Recession and Record Profits" http://tinyurl.com/mzgxdq
... let's just assume you're correct for moment. What's the answer? What should be done that "will" be effective, "will" make a difference? Just let things go on as they are? How is anything going to change? Do you not agree that change is needed? Do you believe that 'de'-regulation is the answer? That the "free" market will sort itself out and everyone will benefit? Is it ok with you that 1% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth? "I got mine" so everyone who isn't making it must be stupid and lazy?
 There's a famous quote by Albert Einstein I urge you consider: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result."
http://tinyurl.com/mt6bj8 SUCKERS
and fucking Reuters, NOT prisonplanet, fuckface.
You made some fair points.
 So, what do you propose to fix every one of those problems?
 And were you around the past 8 years decrying the lies coming from Washington? Because I'll bet whomever you're screaming at was.
It's hopless. Fuck it. Let the motherfucker burn. Time for a bloody coup. Last man standing. survival of the fittest. What were we thinking?
...but if this is really how Massa is saying it is...then I'll give it a chance. Personally, I feel that the problem with trying to find the one person to blame for the whole mess, is that it was a group effort. You could blame Dubbya, and you'd be part right...but it was the mix of all the other clowns before him to. I think it's fair to not lay into Obama considering the timing of making the film...but the guy does nothing but blame the last guy. Fine...some of it's warranted, but if you didn't want to take ownership of the mess (and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to do that), then don't run for president...it's part of the job. OK...I keep typing like anyone cares...
Just because he's been kidnapped by crazed conservatives doesn't make it any less so. I don't remember Jesus turning a profit on the fish and wine. I don't recall Jesus asking the lepers for a fucking co-pay. And he was pretty damn pissed at the capitalists in the temple.
... US presidents have relatively little influence compared to multibillion dollar corporations, their lobbys, their congressional lackeys and their bought and paid for "news" organization and propaganda media outlets. The pres can get on board and set the tone, start some wars to benefit their corpoarate buddies and masters, but not much else.
 If they try to take a progressive stand, the overlords just spread a few million around to their congressional operatives and shut that sucker down.
...hated the tax collectors in the temple...but I'm not sure what that proves...
... US presidents have relatively little influence compared to multibillion dollar corporations, their lobbys, their congressional lackeys and their bought and paid for "news" organizations and propaganda media outlets.
 The pres can get on board and set the tone, start some wars to benefit their corpoarate buddies and masters, but not much else.
 If they try to take a progressive stand, the overlords just spread a few million around to their congressional operatives and shut that sucker down.
... the "mechanics" of this site! Sorry for the "DP" {;-+
Yeah...they're a big part of it too. As far as "news" outlets are concerned...yeah...there's some shady shit with just about all of them. People cry that Fox is corrupt, but will swallow everything MSNBC puts out. It doesn't make sense. Personally I would like to give most presidents the benefit of the doubt...meaning that I don't think these guys are evil mustache twirling guys bent on destroying the world..or even the country. I think the only president who really wanted the presidency as a stepping stone for personal use was Jimmy Carter. I really think Bush thought he was doing the right thing, just as I think Obama thinks he's got it right. I guess I don't know the point I'm trying to make here...who knows...those big corporations should have been allowed to fail...it would have hurt for everyone...but maybe the off chance of someone starting up a decent honest business would replace the assholes there now. The government is no good organization to ensure that...
All the more reason, I say, to give Obama more power.
Sept. 23, 2009, 10:15 p.m. CST
by Lesbianna_Winterlude
just as Limbaugh gives Conservatives one. They should each be ignored at all cost.
Sept. 23, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
Not calling Obama an ape critical, but critical nonetheless.
Folks, there's no such thing as benevolent fascism. Giving more power to the very idiots (in both aisles--which is Moore's moronic proposal) who caused all this chaos is not the answer.
At the moment, I d settle for for him to stop seeking bipartisan support from corrupt assholes and just get on with what he needs to get on with. "More power" for any politician is deeply scary proposition IMO.
 I'm firmly in Obama's camp at this point, and might actually trust *him* with more, but getting the lobbyists out and reigning in obcenely enormous campaign spending would get us about 80% of the way towards a functioning legislature and wouldn't mean giving 'more power' to ANYONE.
Okay I have to admit that "more power" post was kinda intended as tongue in cheek, a little bait for the 'other side'.
 Even with Obama I believe in balance of power and checks and balances. Too bad no one is checking Congress (and all levels of government for that matter) prostituting themselves to special interests.
Sept. 23, 2009, 10:37 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
The Real Housewives of Atlanta. They don't put up with no bullshit. Nuh-uh honey!
The fact is that he usually nails it, and so-called conservatives hate him for it: "Blah blah blah, I can't hear you! You're saying things I don't want to be true so you must be LYING!" - or some other equally irrational reponse. And if you think MM is in any way comparable to that evil bastard Limbaugh, you are fucking HIGH.
The fact is that he usually nails it, and so-called conservatives hate him for it: "Blah blah blah, I can't hear you! You're saying things I don't want to be true so you must be LYING!" - or some other equally irrational reponse. And if you think MM is in any way comparable to that evil bastard Limbaugh, you are fucking HIGH.
I knew you were kidding. The sad thing is that many people don't see the danger in giving these people more power. Rival companies give us choice of assholes (when they aren't paying off politicians to pass laws requiring citizens to buy their products) whereas we have NO choice at all once the government steps in.
I continue to hear people ask why Obama would spend so much (somehow even dwarfing Bush's socialist spending). The answer is simple: The Cloward-Piven Strategy.
This double posting business os driving me nuts. What up wid dat Harry? No love for smartphones?
... didn't catch the "tounge-in-cheek". Damn these Chinese irony detectors!
I conflated your post with cheyne_stoking_DMS's! *SHUDDER*. my bad dude, SINCERELY!
No worries.
Sept. 23, 2009, 11:04 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
in his hit song, Stranger In Moscow.
 God I miss him.
... is an edit function too much to ask?
Think this has been explained in ample detail, re timing of production, length of his term so far. And think Moore and others have commented on whether or not he is on the right path and how weak he/Democrats have been in terms of getting the Financial Services Industry in line since last year.
 I am a huge fan of Bill Maher and he has also been very critical of Obama and the Democrats, not having balls etc.

I watched Michael Jackson's response to the Martin Bashir doc on Youtube, it's called something like, "The Footage you were never meant to see," and is hosted by Maury Povich. Holy fucking shit... I thought Bashir's doc was hilarious and an indictment at the time, but now? That dude is SCUM of the highest possible order. Never mind talking out the side of your mouth, that dude's head spins and completely changes faces like a He-Man figure and he's got a whole separate mouth in the back of his head. I just couldn't believe how badly he lied right to Jackson's face, only to turn around and say the most horrendous shit about him. Also, it's absolutely amazing how Bashir's doc cut Jackson's responses up to go for maximum weirdness. There were instances that if you literally let the tape run for an extra five seconds, his answers come off as not just normal, but kind of funny and self-aware. I still think Jackson was strange, (how could he not be with that upbringing?), but after watching and reading a lot of stuff that didn't seem so readily available while he was alive (or, like everyone else, I didn't look for it and was satisfied with the sensationalism... and believed it), it's also amazing how normal he could be in the middle of all that media-induced batshit insanity. I also HATE THE FUCKING MEDIA as a result. The best was the way they ended the doc, with Bashir asking, "Do you sometimes despair of human nature?," and Jackson thinking for a moment and saying, "Yes. No matter what you try to do, no matter how good your intentions are, people twist things and criticize you, etc." He goes on, but man... what a nice rebuke to Bashir's bullshit and a perfect way to end it. Too bad people don't watch that version, instead. It's pretty instructive of how the media twisted everything Jackson ever said or did for their own sensationalistic purposes.
Is he writing a book or something? I gotta go to sleep.
Absolutely my friend. I watched that, and Geraldo's interview, and was completely deprogrammed from the Bashir/tabloid media mind conditioning.
 Truly MJ was not only innocent, but a gentle man embodying pure innocence.
 Martin Bashir, as you saw with your own eyes, is evil. How else to describe him? He deliberately manipulated someone who trusted him, in order to destroy his life. For ratings? For a slot on 20/fucking/20?
 Bastard cocksmoker.
Agree its not the entirey of the party, but its obvious that the party of Lincolin has been overshadowed by that wing of your party. Christian fundamentalists are the reason Bush got elected.
 What would need to happen is for the smart Lincolin Republicans to speak out more (same issue for Islam in regards to their fundamentalists) but can't see this happening because politicians want to get elected, their integrity becomes second place.
Think you are right, said above am a big fan of Bill Maher and he called Obama and the democrats out on that. They need to grow some balls and govern, as they were elected to do so. Maher mentioned that although Bush is stupid and made a lot of mistakes, he at least had convinction and showed it rather than trying to be loved by everyone (which of course can never happen).
--------------------------------- Skyway Moaters... let's just assume you're correct for moment. What's the answer? What should be done that "will" be effective, "will" make a difference? Just let things go on as they are? How is anything going to change? Do you not agree that change is needed? Do you believe that 'de'-regulation is the answer? That the "free" market will sort itself out and everyone will benefit? Is it ok with you that 1% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth? "I got mine" so everyone who isn't making it must be stupid and lazy? There's a famous quote by Albert Einstein I urge you consider: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result." --------------------------------- Skyway Moaters, To answer your question above as to what can be done, you have to understand there are already many many rules and regulations in place as well as Government involvment and scrutiny which thanks to people like Barney Frank exhasborated the problem by creating the sub prime mess int he first place. THe US Government forced lenders to give out loans for housing to people they knew could not afford them.. Why oh why do you and others want to give the Government more control? THe solution is to de-regulate and allow the free-market to run its course as they can make proper and right decisions to keep the compnaies running efficiently and that they are making a profit to stay in business. What Michael Moore wants is a full on Government run Socialist bordering on "Cuban" Communism rulling the USA where every aspect of your life is controlled by the Government. This would turn me into a Libertarian if that would ever happen if the Republicans keep putting up people like John Mcain to run..
Moore may want Cuba, not 100% sure of that, but not many people do.
 What we can see is that Keynesian policy, managed capitalism (With regulation), won't get as high growth rates (as Friedman style), but reduces the chances of busts/recessions/depressions. Will also ensure a fairer distribution of wealth.
 Free-market (friedman appraoch) sounds good in theory, but the market is far from efficent, does not provide for certain services (Which we expect from a moral stand point, golden rule etc), and the players in the market are humans, not robots, humans being emotional and often irrational beings.
Sept. 24, 2009, 12:48 a.m. CST
by Darth_Inedible
...don't spend your days doing bellyflops into the piss lagoon and then complain about the smell of shit.
The United States of America has the most even "Distribution of Wealth" of all the world. Most Latin American countries for example have 5% Rich and 80% poor (compared to US standards) with as little as 15% middle class if not lower. Europe has a better system than Latin America does however 1 in 6 patients that get treated at an NHS hosptial gets misdiagnosed and treated. RIch vs poor exist however there is a middle class in significant numbers however it is the rich that sustain the Government via disproportionate taxes. Then you have Communist Cuba, Comminust China, soon to be Venezuela and KGB controld Russia... The United States without a dout has the largest and wealthiest middle class of all the nations around the world. And we the people are in control of our Government currently, not the other way around. I may not be an economist, nor am I the smarttest person int he world. However common sense and paying attention to all that has happened tells me I don't want to see the Government screwing things up further than they already are. I do not want to see my taxes squandered on Liberal environmentalist projects and I do not want to see redistribution of wealth forced by the Government. The largest contributors to charity are conservatives, not liberals. Take a look at how much the Vice President gives to charity as an example. The liberal media wants you to believe the US is divided on health care.. It is more like over 80% of the US is happy with what they have.. So make it a Government run system and how many will be happy?? I doubt over 80%.. As for our current system, I want to see the Government not taking over any more business's.. THey already control too much and the more they control, the harder it will be to take the country back from a growing and wreckless spending Government putting us further in debt.
Keynesian policy (and the Fed) cause economic "bubbles" and collapses. We never would have had the "crisis" without GSE's (yes, folks, GOVERNMENT sponsored entities) and ACORN forcing banks to make bad loans and (worse) instituting a faulty loan rating system (making A rated loans out of no-credit, low-income loans). Compounding the mess was the fact that Wall Street started packaging out what most of them thought were "government backed, high rated" loans. Eventually, people are going to ask the casino for their chips... Keynesian policies are the backbone of this whole mess. To say we need MORE of it is the definition of insanity.
 Furthermore, Keynesian policies extended the Great Depression (it lasted a decade) due to FDR's dictatorial and rather whimsical control of the not-so-free market. What pulled us out of the whole thing was the need for manufacturing (due to WWII), which allowed our nation to become industrialized to such a high level that the infrastructure was laid in advance for the future. Had FDR left things alone the depression would have ended far sooner by most economists estimates.
...whenever Obama goes off of the teleprompter he shows how sarcastic and mean-spirited he really is. In an interview in which he was shown a cover of "US" magazine with Jessica Simpson on it, he commented on her weight. When Jay Leno asked Obama about his bowling scores, Obama insulted the members of the Special Olympics, his comment about Nancy Reagan (which was inacurate, by the way) etc. Politics aside, several past Presidents are said to have been nice in person. Bill Clinton is said to have been a nice guy and would go out of his way to charm someone, and George W. Bush is said to be nice in person (he would just tend to freeze up when on camera), but Obama is just plain mean spirited, his un-presidential off the teleprompter comments show that.
No matter what the guy says he gts hated for it.
 But seriously, how can people actually get mad when someone offers them health care? I'm far too Canadian to even comprehend that position.
How is this about Obama's charisma (or lack of it)? Most politicians are snakes, in my opinion. In that, Obama is no different than anyone else. What concerns me about him is his tendency toward statism in all things (and the uneasy feeling that The Cloward-Piven Strategy is in effect; a rather frightening concept by any measure, though it was a matter of time before some "true believer" hated the country enough to burn it to the ground).
 Regardless, this isn't about Obama as much as it is about Moore's film and its suppositions.
That, Adelai, is my problem with it. That, and the "penalty" proposed which would, in effect, cause companies to ditch private insurers in favor of the public "option". I don't know about you, but I like my healthcare. I like the ability to choose my own doctor and to determine a course of action without a bureaucrat in Washington determining how they will treat me. Because that's what will happen under the current bill.
And I have to ask: what on earth is wrong with you? I didn't like it much either, but your review was just out of control. A rant, to be blunt. Over the edge. What was going on in your head at the time? Did you cover your monitor in enraged spittle while furiously typing it?
Must. Find. Review. lol.
"...half-baked, poorly constructed piece of ultra-hippie, atheist, eco-extremist garbage.
 Yeah. I fucking said it."
 God bless you, Massa. I love it. It was over the top. It was from the soul. However, if Happy Feet got you this worked up, you should see this video that's being shown to schools. Your eyes will bleed.
 http://www. storyof stuff. com/
 remove the spaces.
100% honesty? I wrote that review 48 hours after I quit smoking. That might have had a tad to do with it.
Cause that would suck! I had a similar incident with a film related article (someone else wrote it, but it concerned me) and the fallout fucked me up pretty good. Whackiest emails ever... both in support and calling me all kinds of names. Best to keep your mouth shut sometimes, I guess! A lesson it's not fun to learn the hard way.
The problem isn't republicans or democrats or corporations; it's the mix of all of them in an unholy bid for power.
 True about people taking it easy on Obama. That needs to stop... it's helping him and congress do some pretty nasty things without being properly challenged.
Massa was right about Happy Feet. Lots of films for kids are pushing real crap values into their heads.
 One of the reasons I like Japanese kid's films. They'll have kids' movies with morals like "work hard" and "be polite and trustworthy". Not like america, where the moral for kids' movies tend to be "Dreams are more important than work" and "your parents are morons."
Think your view of Keynesian and housing is not exactly right. That is a social policy, it helped to screw up the economy but certainly wasn't about the management of the economy.
 I used to work for one of those Wall Street banks and believe me them selling crap repackaged mortgages had absolutely nothing to do with govt backing or regulation, it was about greed and getting away with it. We had people getting something for nothing (a house when they couldn't afford it), we had mortgage brokers get paid based on commission and not caring about the consequences. We had people on Wall street trying to make as much money as possible, and again not overly worried about the long term. We had rating agencies, who get paid by the people who are selling the products. We had shareholders expecting profit to keep growing at astronomical levels. We got the result we all deserve.
 Self-regulation is "bollocks", you need a combination of government regulation (Glass-Steagul), independent regulators(oversight), and shareholders/bondholders that expect more from the companies they own or lend to. And agree you don't need such an unrealistic soical policy.
 The great depression and FDR handling of it, few valid points but this is far from a clear cut. I think he was too heavy handed which allowed collusion and artificially high prices. Its a difficult one, because it involves people and we are not just about bank balances but as I said before there are moral, community social issues that we still need to take into account.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation - Paid for by whom?
 The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation - Paid for by whom?
 The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living - Paid for by whom?
 The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad - Eh... ok.
 The right of every family to a decent home - Paid for by whom?
 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health - Paid for by whom?
 The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment - Paid for by whom?
 The right to a good education - Paid for by whom?
 Only one of those could conceivably be regarded as a right; the rest are entitlements. A right is a liberty; something you are allowed to do, or attempt. Not a product, not money, not a possession. You have the right to own property; you don't have the right to take property from somebody else. The right to free speech doesn't mean people have to listen, the right to believe in your religion doesn't mean people can't disagree with you, the right to bear arms doesn't mean you get a free gun.
 Those points that you listed are a diminishment of rights; an abridgment of somebody else's rights and freedom so that you can enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Fair counterargument. However, that doesn't escape the fact that had the free market worked on its own, none of this would have happened. The first failure (the one that led to the subsequent "shuffling" of bad loans--some by knowing parties and others by idiots) stemmed from government mandate. Groups like ACORN essentially threatened even private banks in order to force bad loans. This whole collapse started with the government "regulating" these loans, or, more properly, skewing the apparent value of the loans granted. Banks HAD to make them, so yes, some tried to package them and sell them off, but the problem remains that of government mandating something that was inherently unsustainable. Everyone wanted something for "free", so politicians convoluted the system until, eventually, SOMEONE had to back it up. No one could. My points about FDR are dead on. I don't want to go into a full statistical and historical analysis here; I just feel that history rather decisively destroys the Keynesian theory. While I do think there is a place for government (antitrust, anyone?), I don't think the answer is one of meddling and falsely inflating values of a market (price controls and so forth). That leads to even larger collapses because we become more and more removed from actual tangibility in terms of production and demand--real world goods versus consumers.
I don't smoke myself, but have friends who try to quit now and then, and it seems to turn them into an extra from 28 DAYS as well. Mind you, Sean Hannity's in this state of mind 24 hours a day. Whats HIS excuse? :)
Beautifully said.
Independent assessment which Obama is quoting but its not coming across clear, is that US pays much more and with not as good outcomes.
 My personal opinion is you have a mix of private and public (because we are rich countries and we care about people, its party of being in a community).
 From a selfish point of view, if the rich/middle class don't invest in basic healthcare and education for your people, you get a poorer community as a result and other social issues such as higher crime, which affects everyone.
 US is in desperate need of tort reform, society needs to accept doctor's aren't perfect, not defending negligence, but need to understand their are risks involved.
 As many have commented there needs to be focus on making a healthy society taxes on junk food etc, similar to cigaretes makes a lot of sense. Discounts for people going to the gym, making an effort to be healthy.
 The other comment I would say on healthcare is if any government say that they will fix it completely its a a total lie. Our healthcare across the developed nations is better than it was in preceeding years, our expectations are always increasing.
 Coming back to US healthcare its getting a very poor return for the spend.

fuck him. He's a retard
I agree with the Tort reform comment. But I don't want DMV healthcare and the inevitable dissolution of the private healthcare system (which is what WILL happen considering the current construction of the health care "reform" bill). Instead, insurance companies need to be broken up and forced to compete.
history destroys Keynesian theory, think a lot of people (including myself) would disagree with that.
 Perhaps depends on your view of "managing" an economy. I still argue that the housing thing is a misguided govt social policy that didn't work. The lack of government oversight in regards to loans etc is a major concern for me. Anyway you are firmly in the camp of Friedman. I have tended to sway a bit seeing how banks operate and being a bit more socially aware.
Perhaps the list there from Hobocode is too excessive. My biggest concern with the list is the use of words like "adequate" and "decent". They are very difficult to define, but every society needs to define them.
 Or are you a social extremist in the sense of no govt support for the hungry, the poor, the homeless etc ?

I would argue I believe what I believe because I AM socially aware. I'm also keenly aware of the real world, which is the reason these socialist policies uniformly fail every single time they are tried. As for calling Toonol an "extremist" because he doesn't want the government running every aspect of our lives--this is the reason we can't have reasonable discussions in the "new" Obama era. Anyone who disagrees is labeled an extremist. Kind of scary, really. That's classic, Orwellian, fascist rhetoric.
Though I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound that way, judging from your reasoned responses earlier. I hope so because I believe you're more intellectually honest than that.
Sept. 24, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST
by Continentalop
Is because so many of those critical of Obama are completely nuts. It is the unfortunate consequences of having bad associations. Like your mom said, you are judge by who you hang out with. Unfortunately for Obama critics, a lot of people they hang out with sound like foaming at the mouth nutjobs right now (like anyone who says the "fear America right now", what fear-mongering BS).
 It is the same problem that people who were against the Iraq Invasion suffered from, an easy association with a bunch of nuts and whackos who would make ludicrous statements. If someone is an Obama critic nowadays, I think the smart thing to do is distance themselves from the insane freaks attacking him right now - otherwise whatever critique who have will easily be labeled and classified as being in the same category as the guys who call him a Muslim, a Communist, a Fascist, or say he isn't a citizen. Not a nice neighborhood to be included in.
I just wish that he would get in better shape so that he could possibly live longer to make more movies. He is one of the most important film makers today and I don't give a fuck if you don't agree with me.
Bogus but still fun.
Actually, it was entirely true - but exaggerated for your entertainment.
Sorry extremist for Toonol does come across way too harsh, trying to gauge where he stands on social welfare etc.
 I prefer Keynesian economics its far from perfect, but the best model we have, kind of like democracy (am sure there is a decent quote about democracy and the best we have somewhere). I think Friedman approach is ok in theory, but as I have said before is unrealistic, in how they think the markets operate compared to how they actually do. The key for me is in the belief in market efficency, which from viewing the world is not the case. I also don't like how the implementaiton of the theory has resulted in huge suffering and of course the suffering is mostly at the detriment of the poor.
 All that being said the reality is that all of the rich countries economic model is somewhere inbetween the two.
 My concern is how we approach social welfare (domestically and internationally - foreign aid). Though I get it there has to be a balance between supporting the needy but not supporting the lazy, not an easy one. Though just like with our criminal systems we have concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means that a lot of guilty people go free as we value innocence, I am happy to pay my taxes for the needy knowing full well that some of the lazy will get a piece too.
Don't concede points to criticalbliss...when he runs out of facts, he makes shit up wholesale.
 Give you an example: "Had FDR left things alone the depression would have ended far sooner by most economists estimates." Bullshit. Not "most economists", just two grandstanding UCLA economists being bandied about like celebrities by the desperate right. Here's a more reasonable assessment:
 QUOTE: Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?"
 Ummm ... no.
 On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term -- four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."
 To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped -- rather than hurt -- the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.END QUOTE
 http://tinyurl.com/yae4gzy
As much as Obama seems to be following the old way of doing biz in Washington he has yet to draw enough of a record to deserve as equal a punch as the 8 year termers. He may deserve it in a couple years tho. So maybe just maybe a Directors cut DVD\Bluray can have Moore throw in that punch proper. But I and many still think Obama deserves some more time to see what reforms he can bring about. As it is from Larry King last night it looks like Moore and his team knocked this one out of the park and people are packing it in to see it. The buzz is enormous and this could be a game changer docu. And your own reviews only reaffirms this :).
Sept. 24, 2009, 6:45 a.m. CST
by Lost Jarv
get out.
The only issue Michael Jackson tackled was that of pre-pubescent boy's being too virginal.
They're just glorified Hello/Heat magazine-esque celeb idolatry. Except with less fake tans.
Sept. 24, 2009, 7:24 a.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
Lila Rose, for another.
But no one has produced evidence of any untrue facts that is not easily refutable.
Especially if the profits therefrom are never shared with the worker!! I want to live in a society where the top 1% receive and controlm an ever-increasing share of the money and a greater percentage of working families live below the poverty line!!!

You "conservatives" would be funny if you weren't killing this country.
Mike K I don't know where you got your report but all unbiased insider reports indicate he was Captain Douchebag.
cannot possibly be good for the gernal welfare, nor be efficient. In America, that would apply to practically all commerce.
Literally.
 "MANCHESTER, Ky. (AP) - When Bill Sparkman told retired trooper Gilbert Acciardo that he was going door-to-door collecting census data in rural Kentucky, the former cop drew on years of experience for a warning: "Be careful."
 The 51-year-old Sparkman was found this month hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.
 "Even though he was with the Census Bureau, sometimes people can view someone with any government agency as 'the government.' I just was afraid that he might meet the wrong character along the way up there," said Acciardo, who directs an after-school program at an elementary school where Sparkman was a frequent substitute teacher.
 The Census Bureau has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, until the investigation is complete, an official said.
 The law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, did not say what type of instrument was used to write the word on the chest of Sparkman, who was supplementing his income doing Census field work. He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of Daniel Boone National Forest and an autopsy report is pending."
 http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/us/midwest/nat_ap_manchester_feds_probe_us_census_worker_hanging_in_kentucky_20090924807_2897211
Seriosuly, you go straight into "Bush was worse", "You're a Republican? Ewwwww!" Do you people honestly think you're better than the tools who quote Rush and Hannity?
Nah, why bother. Others have given you the "Friedman vs Keynes"
he doesnt practice what he preaches. if he actually cared he would just give away his movie for free instead of trying to make a buck since that is the point of his loony docu
I haven't been this anxious to see a movie since Hurt Locker.
 ZO - He does practice what he preaches. He doesn't bash making a buck. He'll probably give you seed money to open a store if you had a good BP and promised to hire some unemployed.
 He's ONLY railing against corporatism Please give the movie a chance and don't let partisanship blind you from some cold hard truth.
Are you Coughlins? With a dumbed down writing style for "disguise" purposes? If not, you guys would get along famously; you betcha.
Are you Coughlins? With a dumbed down writing style for "disguise" purposes? If not, you guys would get along famously; you betcha.
Sept. 24, 2009, 10:25 a.m. CST
by bah
The area is rife with pot farmers and government-hating rednecks, but why don't we blame Fox News viewers instead?
Since Fox News and its ideological allies like Rush have been fanning the recent anti-government flames, which inevitably lead to some kind of tragedy considering some hateful people in their audiences, but I promised Massa not to get incendiary in his talkback.

And irresponsible. But it's nice for the extreme left wing. Before, they could only accuse anyone who disagrees with them in with the birthers and town hall nuts and evolution deniers. Now, they can call them murderers!
Sept. 24, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
I'd be able to converse with you. But you're telling me I'm calling Fox News and talk radio personalities themselves murderers.
 You know I said no such thing, but there you go lying to my face. What are you, a CIGNA rep?
Otherwise this talkback would be, oh, 80% smaller.
I'm sorry, then what did you mean when you quoted HST666's "'conservatives' are killing this country" and followed it with "literally" and the article?
Sept. 24, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST
by BringingSexyBack
is symptomatic of a deep-seated problem overall in our country? Do you not listen to talk radio and hear how toxic it is? How it instigates people to hate, and potentially to harm? I'm not aware of Goebbels pulling a trigger himself, but don't you think there is blood on his hands?
I only have one account here in this forum. It was late when I wrote that piece and it was written on an Iphone.. So it is hard to go back and correct spelling errors..etc.. In either case, you choose to belittle my writing vs responding to my post. Seems I said something that hit a nerve...
Conservatives aren't killing this country that's just a lame-o attempt to shut up opposing points of view and it vastly over-simplifies Americans in general.
I listen to some talk but not the Rush's and Hannity's. I jump between NPR and Michael Medved when I listen to talk. Medved is as rightwing as I get, and even he deigns to speak well of Obama when he finds him worthy. I'm surrounded by Rush nuts at work and have to endure their retelling of his show. None even come close to mentioning violence talk. But even if this murder is shown to have been motivated by talk radio, I would not necessarily consider talk radio to be the problem. I blame defective individuals. I will pay attention to what Rush has to say about this today, and I will consider it a failure on his part if he doesn't decry it and distance himself from it and any further violence.
... either "side" - because some crazies on either side might get worked up - is lame-o too.
... Hannity, Levin, Rush, whatever, and all encourage political debate and discourage resorting to crude violence. I don't listen to much Air America, but I would assume the same is true of them also. It's a common tactic to label an opponent as "extreme" to make an audience less likely to listen to that opponent's point of view.
You guys keep referring to economic theories and such.. However I take a look at real world evidence and happenings. Theories are just that, unproven and untested.. What we have here in the US currently is not a theoretical economic plan.. So here's the basic Friedman vs. Keynes debate which is unnecessary since we are headed towards socialistic communism run by fascists posing as environmentalists that care for the planet and all this needs to be done for the good of the planet and the people..etc.. Number 5 below is exactly what happened here in the US thanks to policies put in place by Jimmy Carter, strengthened by Bill Clinton (sub prime mortgage mess Barnie Frank..etc.) and continuing on with Obama who has now taken over the banks while blaming CEO's for the mess that the Government created.. I don't think you can deny who started this mess.. And I don't see how Universal Healthcare will be able to be sustainable when with the piling debt. Furthermore cap and trade or cap and tax as I like to call it.. God help us... ------------------------------------ 1. Keynesians believe that the interest rate, largely, if not wholly, a monetary phenomenon, is determined by the supply of and demand for money. Monetarists believe that the interest rate, largely a real phenomenon, is determined by the supply of and demand for loanable funds, a market which faithfully reflects actual opportunities and constraints in the investment sector. 2. In the Keynesian vision, a change in the interest rate has little effect on (aggregate) investment; in the Monetarist vision, a change in the interest rate has a substantial effect on (aggregate) investment. This difference reflects, in large part, the short-run orientation of Keynesians and the long-run orientation of Monetarists. 3. Keynesians conceive of a narrowly channeled mechanism through which monetary policy affects national income. Specifically, money creation lowers the interest rate, which stimulates investment and hence employment, which, in turn, give rise to multiple rounds of increased spending and increased real income. The nearly exclusive focus on this particular channel of effects, together with the belief that investment demand is interest-inelastic, accounts for the Keynesian preference for fiscal policy over monetary policy as a means of stimulating or retarding economic activity. Government spending has a direct effect on the level of employment; money creation has only an indirect and weak effect. Monetarists conceive of an extremely broad-based market mechanism through which money creation stimulates spending in all directions—on old as well as new investment goods, on real as well as financial assets, on consumption goods as well as investment goods. Nominal incomes are higher all around as a direct result of money creation, but with a stable demand for money in real terms, the price level increases in direct proportion to nominal money growth so that real incomes are unaffected. 4. Keynesians believe that long-run expectations, which have no basis in reality in any case, are subject to unexpected change. Economic prosperity is based on baseless optimism; economic depression, on baseless pessimism. Monetarists believe that profit expectations reflect, by and large, consumer preferences, resource constraints, and technological factors as they actually exist. 5. Keynesians believe that economic downturns are attributable to instabilities characteristic of a market economy. A sudden collapse in the demand for investment funds, triggered by an irrational and unexplainable loss of confidence in the business community, is followed by multiple rounds of decreased spending and income. Monetarists believe that economic downturns are attributable to inept or misguided monetary policy. And unwarranted monetary contraction puts downward pressure on incomes and on the level of output during the period in which nominal wages and prices are adjusting to the smaller money supply. 6. Keynesians believe that in conditions of economy-wide unemployment, idle factories, and unsold merchandise, price and wages will not adjust downward to their market-clearing levels—or that they will not adjust quickly enough, or that the market process through which such adjustments are made works perversely as falling prices and falling wages feed on one another. Monetarists do not believe that such perversities, if they exist at all, play a significant role in the market process. They believe instead that prices and wages can and will adjust to market conditions. The fact that such adjustments are neither perfect nor instantaneous is, in the Monetarists' judgment, no basis for advocating governmental intervention. A market process that adjusts prices and wages to existing market conditions is preferable to a government policy that attempts to adjust market conditions to existing prices and wages. ------------------------------------
Just cool down the rhetoric of hate.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ1-KD7Hlqg
I simply disagree with every single single opinion you've put forth.
 My experience with debating individuals with such diametrically opposite points of view tells me that any sort of 'discussion' with you is utterly pointless.
 None-the-less, I could have been civil and not attempted to belittle you. Unfortunately, being human, my ego and emotions get the better of me sometimes when discussing matters about which I am passionate.
 To me, the opinions you expouse, represent the faction of US citizens that will utterly destroy this nation if they are allowed to hold sway.
My God, this is boring. Oh my God. How boring can one movie be? All right, I'm going to sleep now. Zzzzz.

The most boring film involving ants ever made.
... guilty as accused: Nerve struck. Just not the one you suppose...
Insert a
 or a
 in your screeds for a pargraph break, only taking out the spaces between the less than/greater than symbols and the br or the p. Just FYI.

 A 400 word run on paragraph is largely unreadable. And easily avoidable.
As a Michael Moore movie. I suppose we could get rid of one, but then we should get rid of the others. And also Keith Olberman.
Nice cutting and pasting skills.
Never heard anyone seriously exhorting violence on Air America. There were occasionally jokes, or wistful allusions to how other countries take care of problems like Bush--by coup or assassination--but nobody honest could take such comments as exhortations to violence.

Rush Limbaugh did encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Could that be considered a form of violence?
You're a selfish, gormandizing terd like almost everyone else on the right, and your despicable rhetoric proves it.
 Paid for by US, as a people. You know...a community? For the betterment of society as a whole? Have you walked into a low income neighborhood lately? It looks like a motherfucking third world country and we should be ashamed of that. But you're not because you got yours (or at least think you do) and it must be their fault right? You make me sick. This is a MORAL obligation we have as a society and as fellow human beings.
That Obama was actually born in a manger, beneath the light of a shining star, that guided the three wise men--Axelrod, Emanuel, and Frank Marshall Davis--to give him gifts of charisma and eloquence. And now, Obama is being persecuted by the pharisee. It's all happening as it was foretold.
Anyone else up for a screening of The Fisher King?
The more I think about it, the more I realize that by sitting and calling everyone "the left" or "the right", "liberals" or "conservatives", "democrats" or "republicans", we've already let the politicians win.
They've got us dancing to their tune. Instead of focusing and trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with the system and, ultimately, how to fix it, everyone is focused on "which of the two sides am I on" and then calling everyone that disagrees with them the other side in as much of a derogatory manner as possible.
When did we forget that life is almost never black and white? Where are the shades of grey? Why do we try to boil everything, issues and political viewpoints alike, into two crowds where you're either on one side or the other?
Having only two options is never good, especially in politics. How many times are we going to settle for voting for the lesser of two evils, not necessarily because you agree with on candidates policies more but because you disagree with him/her less than their opponent? They've very cleverly whittled our political system down to this over the years so we end up choosing one of two sides, most people never realizing that they're basically the same side. Sure, methods here and there may be different but all of they're mostly the same goals. No matter which way we choose, they win.
They've got us dancing to their tune.. ironically though it is supposed to be we, the people, who hold all of the instruments.
You know that FDR deliberatly provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it so we could enter WWII. If your going to pin 9/11 on Bush's shoulders, the pin Pearl Harbor on FDR's.
Way to bring up totally irrelevant bullshit. The world must be a truly frightening for conspiracy nuts such as yourself. You could use a little work on the old trolling skills though...
As an independent (my presidential voting record is: D, D, R, D, R), the bane of my existence are Republicans who won't budge in dealing with Obama and Democrats who say "We won, too bad, you have no say now".
get elected by being in the tank for him. Only 10% believed the media had now role in getting him elected. 69.9% believe that the media is actively promoting the Obama Presidency. Only 26.5% DON'T believe that the media is activley supporting Obama. 56.4% believe that the media is actively supporting Obamacare and not being objective. Furthermore, 55.9% believe the media was unfair to Sarah Palin and purposely undervalued her record as Governor. This polling was done by Sacred Heart University.
Suck on that those of you who STILL don't believe there is a Mainstream Media bias towards Obama and liberals in general. You're not fooling the public...
You sir, have just won the dumbest post on this TB award. And considering some of the stupid post here, that is quite an accomplishment.
kick out the international banking cartel that has seized control of our country and has bled us dry and continues to suck out all that remains. The Fed is a private corporation run for profit. The two central banks we had before it were aboloshed, and this one has had control FOR FAR TOO LONG. Support Ron Pauls bill to audit the fed. It now has overwhelming support in the House but of course the corporate powers have complete control over the Senate so it is doomed to be shot down there. campaignforliberty.com
before you let your preprogrammed, brainwashed mind jump to conclusions why don't you investigate his claim? It is backed up with a lot of credible information. Didn't the History channel even admit that this was the case?
Sept. 24, 2009, 3:17 p.m. CST
by Continentalop
Is one of the dumb urban legends that continually persist. Reasons why it is stupid:
 1) Yes he wanted to get involved in WWII - in Europe. When the Japanese attacked us, that didn't give us any means to declare war against Germany. ON thanks to Hitler's stupidity when he declared war on us a being part of the Aixis (which he was not obligated to do) give FDR the cause to enter the European side of WWII.
 2) We could have cause to fight the Japanese if they just attacked one of out ships, why let them go out and destroy so many of our fleet , kill so many of our service men and have the potential to do even more damage. In many ways we lucked out during Pearl Harbor - if they had launched a second pass, the Japanese could have wiped out even more of our fleer and made sure none of those ships could be repaired.
 I could go on, but I am busy.
So why not send out a ship to intercept the Japanese when they enter our waters and then engage them their. That alone would be enough for us to be able to declare war on them.
 Oh yeah, because we need something that will totally galvanize America. That's right. Better to let a huge attack take place that could impend our ability to win the war in the Pacific and also might be uncovered by angry people at the military for allowing it to happen, then just lose one or two boats.
"You're a selfish, gormandizing terd like almost everyone else on the right, and your despicable rhetoric proves it. Paid for by US, as a people. You know...a community? For the betterment of society as a whole? Have you walked into a low income neighborhood lately? It looks like a motherfucking third world country and we should be ashamed of that. But you're not because you got yours (or at least think you do) and it must be their fault right? You make me sick. This is a MORAL obligation we have as a society and as fellow human beings." First, why so angry? It makes you seem immature.
 Anyway, so you mean you want the taxpayers to pay for it. Just answer the question honestly. Groups, communities, don't pay for things. The people that make those communities up, do.
 At some point, look up charitable contribution statistics for members of the Republican and Democrat parties. You might be surprised which is more compassionate and giving. Charity is great; I encourage everybody to be charitable. I think government mandated and controlled charity is a particularly inefficient way to conduct that charity, though.
Your stupid list cannot and will not ever happen in any society ever. It has nothing to do with morals. Again. It wont ever happen, ever. like never ever. Also please close dictionary/thesaurus.com your trying to hard to sound smart.
Spazatronik2000 is a 9/11 Truther so I'm sure he'll be drumming up a "false flag operation" post for you soon.
Spaz I'm liking what I'm hearing about nationalizing the Fed bud.
Spaz I'm liking what I'm hearing about nationalizing the Fed bud.
... so little time. This TB is completely pointless. Later days losers... I'm no better so don't get your panties in a wad...
Why don't we have a moral obligation to intervene in our own countrymen's healthcare crisis? Why sacrifice our troops lives overseas, but not even alter our system to ensure we take care of each other? Many here speak so well about moral obligations in war, but not in peace. I'm dumbfounded.
Why don't we have a moral obligation to intervene in our own countrymen's healthcare crisis? Why sacrifice our troops lives overseas, but not even alter our system to ensure we take care of each other? Many here speak so well about moral obligations in war, but not in peace. I'm dumbfounded.
I DO know Kennedy wud'nt killed by a magic bullet.
Sept. 24, 2009, 4:20 p.m. CST
by Darth_Inedible
Why doesn't Obama have a moral obligation to compromise with the non-liberals on healthcare? We compromise with an evil empire who shot people for trying to escape to freedom but we can't compromise with half of our fellow citizens on an issue that effects the entire country?
... moral obligation with health care reform? Let me be clear - just because someone doesn't agree with you on how to solve a problem doesn't mean they don't think there is a problem. I'm glad Obama is saying we should attend this problem, but that doesn't mean I agree with how he wants to solve the problem. By the way, I'm also not too happy with the Senate just voting down yesterday posting proposed bills (prior to a vote) for 72 hours on the internet. That's not transparency.
Perhaps you forget the Republicans condemning him for the "Wag the Dog" theory? Remember the movie with John Travolta? Looking just a little like Clinton? That was a cheesy satire I think on the whole thing. This notion, according to Republicans at the time, of his seeming obsession with those responsible for bombing the American Embassy and the USS Cole was, in reality, a distraction to the American people over the blowjob in the Oval Office? Remember when he bombed that aspirin factor in Sudan in accident?
I won't defend that schmuck Clinton for one second but the pretzel twisting put in place to blame one side or the other is fucking idiotic and pathetic and guess what anti-geniuses, completely common in all of American history, if not world history itself. And that's why it's so absurd we all still fall for it.
Clinton fucked up by not being successful in killing Bin Laden but 9/11 would have likely happened anyway...even if our foreign policy had been dramatically different over the last 60 years, we likely would have been attacked at some point. Bush was negligent in our nation's defense...ignored warnings and promptly went on vacation. But to think 9/11 is a direct result of that stupidity is just as idiotic as saying Clinton refused to allow the CIA to go after Bin Laden.
It will always blow my mind...as children we're girls versus boys...as youth we're rich versus not-rich, as young adults we're "in crowd" versus "loosers" as adults we're left versus right...fucking dumbass humans and their obsessive need to separate, divide, and be superior and righteous. And for what? Do you pat yourself on the back? Smile at your reflection in the mirror? Magically have the utopia you think would exist if we just implemented your plans?
We don't deserve the intelligence we've got, sadly enough...the only good thing about is the wonderful by-product of imagination which gives us the only worthwhile thing about the human race...the only thing we've done beyond serve our own suvival: art...
It's why we all came to this website originally...a love of cinema. But books, music, art, movies...anything creative. That's what makes us special, makes us different from every other living thing on this planet. Not robots, not landing on the moon, not education, not air conditioning, not the Constitution (which I'm a big fan of), etc, etc...only Art leaves our mark upon the Universe. Everything else is a means to an end and is as fleeting as it is irrelevant in the grander scale.
Great review Massa...being someone who truly laments the takeover of the original Right by the latest flock of imbeciles, it is always nice to see true Conservatives defending their views instead of their leaders. As someone who leans progressive and stems from a hybrid polotical background, I'm also glad you've taken Moore to task for not going after Obama. Yes, it's only been 9 months but is there any indication he's doing anything he promised much less actually doing good shit that won't fuck this country up further? Put the guys who lobbied or directly caused the financial disaster in charge of fixing it, listening to the same "advisors" who's only tool seems to be war, trying to appease not real Republicans but the extremist lunatic fringe (only every now and then does he say anything the contrary). Funding a private army to the tune of more of them than our own Military in all foreign active engagements...doesn't sound like the guy deserves any defense. And, my guess is Obama would be the first person to accept that...he's not some special character above reproach...and not even after nine months. Or, as someone else so accurately said, you need to shut up about the Republican irresponsibility when 9/11 occured and blaming Bush for it...it wasn't even past the 365 day point. Consistency is the one last test for political fortitude...my guess is hardly any of us have it.
Altho, I will say that Reagan was a capital A, asshole . Sorry...the dude wasn't even a real Republican...raised the deficit, etc, etc...and why do people love him? Amazing...he made them feel good about being Americans. Sorry but that's just pathetic.
Ok..there's my simplified, broken down, we're all assholes rant (yes, me too...I don't presume my own integrity anymore than I'd presume another's).
And a Republican? How's that possible?
INEDIBLE ... I think Obama would be QUITE more open to longer debates and compromise with the Republicans, except a lot of them made it clear they wanted to defeat reform NO MATTER WHAT it was. They were vocal about not giving Obama an inch on the matter. That has really hamstrung his early attempts at compromise - recall the Waterloo comments ...... 5 BY 5 ... fair point about disagreeing on approach, but again your reps were determined to kill any kind of reform. I wish that weren't the case. Also, that 72 hour delay proposal was SOLELY for the benefit of the lobbyists to review the legislation, and give their input - not you or me, sadly. .......... CELLAR DOOR ... Great post man. I love when words move me, and yours did.
Too bad Biden is such an ineffective, off-message VP. Barry could use some help. Damn, don't we all feel overwhelmed by work and life sometimes? And we're not even running a country.
Strangely enough, it is Biden who may have effectively called the Republicans' hand. Their "Waterloo" posturing is nothing more than a holding action designed to prevent Obama/Biden from implementing their policies approved by the election. The goal of which is to position themselves to take back their seats in 2010-2012.
Electioneering. Gotta love it.
The 72 hour delay proposal was so that "you and I" can read the whole bill. Was there to be some special sign-in that would exclude me from jumping on the page and reading it? Nor is there any reason why I shouldn't have that 72 hours. By the people, for the people. "My" reps were not determined to kill any kind of reform. If you're speaking of Republicans - they've proposed 35 different health care proposals this year alone. I think that we have to be careful that in the cases where we agree to disagree, we can't start ascribing nefarious motives.
Exceptional family man. Batshit crazy at times, but the guy is a damn good father.
"Their "Waterloo" posturing is nothing more than a holding action designed to prevent Obama/Biden from implementing their policies approved by the election."
 You have to be careful to not fall strictly into this kind of thinking, it may prevent you from considering other points of view where we need healthy debate in this republic.
Sept. 24, 2009, 5:10 p.m. CST
by YackBacker
FDR, Lincoln or Washington. I'll go first and say Harry Truman.
I have a quote I'll post for you tonight that will clear that up for us.
I have a quote I'll post for you tonight that will clear that up for us.
It's Biden's line of thinking though I forget the exact quote. He's fully aware that some Republicans are actively seeking to either stonewall, delay, and/or water down any sweeping reform on Obama's watch. By doing so, they make the Democrats look ineffective and increase their chances for winning back seats in the mid-term elections.
I have no doubts that both parties want healthcare reform. But I also have no illusions that both parties would prefer to pass this reform (or any other important piece of legislation) while they are in the majority.
... "Senate Finance Committee member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) earnestly pleaded on Wednesday for the committee to delay a vote on its version of health care reform until after the proposed legislation has been up on the committee's website for at least three days.
 "The thing I'm trying to point out," said Roberts, "is that we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say, 'Hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?' That's all I'm asking for."
 The statement is odd not only for its candor, but also for the fact that as far as anyone knows, the lobbyists are the ones writing the finance committee's bill to begin with. They should be pretty familiar with what's in there by now."
 Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/pat-roberts-pleads-for-th_n_297563.html
 ... "people that the providers have hired" ...
 That's definitely not you and me or any other talkbacker here, Left or Right. It's not for the American people to review and to give input. It's all about the lobbyists now.
 I'm kinda shocked that's so blatant. We really have lost our government. It's in the hands of special interests. And I'm not calling out the Republicans only. I've become very disillusioned by the Dems too, especially Max Baucus.
 It's quite possible that, somewhere in the ether out there, there's a solution that will benefit 95% of us. The middle and lower classes all. But with politicians like this, I ain't hopeful we'll find it.
Like your assessment of WW2.
 And of course the reason Japan attacked US, is that they were invading other countries across SE Asia (or empire building as my british ancestors called it), and wanted to give themself time by crippling the US navy. Hoping to then negotiate with the US at some point, or hoping the US remained isloationist and didn't care.
 Would have been interesting (scary is probably the better word) if the US didn't enter WW2.
Interesting and detailed assessment of Keynesian, was pretty reasonable except for some of the editorial comments you included, but that is your perogative.
 For me Keynesian view is still a much better balance, if humans were robots I would be all for Friedman theory.
I lament the fact that our election cycles factor so much into our political system.
 Sickening.
He has pluses and minuses but his personality is TOO earnest. A good thing yes, but in the face of such loud opposition to Obama, he comes off weak, at least IMO ...
Imagine this scenario, you get some debilitating condition which meant that you couldn't work, your health insurance provider would slither out of paying you, you would declare bankruptcy due to medical bills (like a large majority of Americans who declare bankruptcy), become homeless, face each day alone, hungry and not knowing whether you will survive the day. I know, its harsh, but I worry where I live in a world with people that think like you.
 And no I am not a bleeding heart christian, I am a humanist (I don't believe in supernatural, me saying atheist doesn't really say much about what I actually value).
 We (humans) have prospered because of our ability to work together with each other. Eveyone in the community gets the benefits of being in a community, even the rich.
 After my rant, want to understand clearly where you stand, do you think we as a community (yes that means tax on individuals) should help other community members in any way ?
Do you belong to an ethical humanist society? If so, do you recommend?
How do you get rid of special interst/lobbysit groups and have the politicians more accountable to the people who elected them?
 Campaign funding, do you go to the extreme of saying that politicians election funding comes from the govt (taxpayers) and not from individuals or companies ?
 Of course the media wouldn't be so happy with that proposal because tv ad sales would be well down
 If Campaign funding from a politician's point of view was annonymous, obviously that would reduce their funding, your thoughts ?
Not at the moment, but I have belonged to some in the past and am sure I will in the future.
 Key for me is understanding and learning. Other key for me is that I come from a privelaged background (compared to the majority of the world). I am Australiam and whilst some of my ancestors worked really hard, I was lucky to be born into a rich country. The money today may come from mining minerals from the ground, but the money that built and support my country (US is the same) is European wealth.
 I always remember that Europe is rich because of some environmental and other natural factors (see books by Jared Diamond), but also because of the riches that is stole (goods, minerals and slaves) from its invasion (called colonising at the time) of nations across the world.
 We need to put into perspective and remember just how lucky we are to be born into these rich nations.
 sorry for another rant
I haven't thought anything of it, but sure is something to contemplate and debate moving forward ...
 Initial thoughts? Practically speaking, and having some insight into how our politicians behave (poorly), I have no clue. It's not an American problem, it's a systematic problem. Corruption exists in every government. None that I can think of is immune. Is it the nature of the beast, for men/women in power to be corrupted by that power?
 Can we legislate special interest out of our political system? Problem is, they're not just corporate lobbyists. They're also non-business groups who speak on behalf of large segments of the population. They have valid reasons for access to our politicians.
 Maybe require/legislate transparency? That would help I think.
 Campaign funding? Surely our current system ensures a 2-party domination. That too is a problem. I don't know the solution though.
 And hey, I appreciate the rant. The mere fact that you mentioned you were a humanist reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend some time back. His dad belonged to an ethical humanist society and he was sharing some ideas with me. I was intrigued at the time, but forgot about it as time passed.
 Now with your mention I'm going to read up about it again. Sure do appreciate that.
LOL he even takes a shot at Viacom, his distributor. The guy is fearless.
Sept. 24, 2009, 10:10 p.m. CST
by Thunderbolt Ross
I mean really, the guy has been in office less than one year, under most peculiar circumstances. It's sort of hard to judge innit.
We need people like him. Him and people like him fill a role that news media should fill but doesn't. What makes a free society great is a willingness to call people out on their shit.
One has to be concerned about the objectivity of reporting. CNN, CNBC, FOX, if thats the only place we get our information from then we only know what they want us to. That's no good folks.
That is why talk radio and now the worldwide web exists. You have other outlets besides one sided biased news.. If you do watch the networks though only, make sure you at least watch a balance of Fox for the right and CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC for the left viewpoints. Look how long it took for the liberal media to get to the ACORN corruption story and video's..
Just hope the guy loses some weight, want him to be around for a long time to come and needs to give himself the best chance to do so.

Fox for the most part (there are exceptions) is not a good way to get balance. For the most part its tabloid media pandering, dumbing down to popularism and fundamentalists rather than take a high brown discussion with Lincolin type Republicans. Ron Paul and the like ocasionally gets a view so thats why I said most of the time.
 I am actually more impressed by the Republicans that come on Bill Maher's real time, for the most part very smart and have interesting and well thought out views and avoid stupid catchphrases (which are blatantly incorrect) like "socialism" or "death panels". I also admire them because clearly Maher's audience is democratic or Nader supporters and they have to put up with knowing they are in the same party as such clowns as Palin or Limbagh, and will no doubt here jokes about them.
But whatever, believe what you want.
I'd lump talk radio and much of the web in with the rest. Don't mean to offend but if talk radio or the internet is a primary source for you, you still have problems. Not saying Mike Moore should be anyone's primary source, just that the attitude he embodies of not buying the party line is healthy and we need more of it.
But I don't think its total bogus. Non profits can get up to just as much shenanigans as anyone if nobody's paying attention.
I wouldn't actually care, since based on my understanding of socialism it means a one world community based on the caring and fair treatment other human beings through empathy, compassion and tolerance. Now if someone called me a NeoConservative, that would be a different matter entirely...
Sept. 25, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST
by eXcommunicated
"Beck. Maddow. O'Reilly. Olbermann. Hannity. Scarborough. They're all the same..."

 What a juvenile comment.
Come on Massa. Obama hasn't even gotten a year under his belt yet. While I think it is doubtful, the guy could still surprise the hell out of us. We'll see. However, if we are to talk about what led us to this point, then Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 are who you put 99% of your focus.
These guys will be kicking your door down real soon....arf arf.
I voted for Obama and am happy to give him time to right the ship, but look at how everyone (especially Michael Moore) blamed Bush for 911. If it is fair game to blame Bush 8 months into his first term for what obviously was a result of Clinton's failed intelligence policies then it is fair game to give Obama some blame for the economy seeing as how he funneled a lot more money than Bush ever proposed into the corporate bailout. I still have lots of hope for Obama but this treating him with kid gloves because he is our first black president is just wrong! In my opinion it amounts to racism to think that he can't handle the same brutal criticism that a white president can. The guy is a grown man who just might be able to move this country in a new, better direction but he shouldn't be treated like he is too fragile and less than a man to handle tough criticism. I say if we are free nation then we should be able to think critically and actually call ALL of our leaders to task for failures.........not just the old white guys.
Sept. 25, 2009, 8:31 a.m. CST
by polyh3dron
And I'm pretty damn liberal. It frustrated the shit out of me that he basically exposed Geithner as a complete fuckup and Summers as one of the beneficiaries of this fucked up capitalist system, and then showed a complete disconnect between them and President Barack Obama (whom I generally like and support) who has ENLISTED BOTH OF THEM AS TOP ECONOMIC FUCKING ADVISORS. I also think Moore was a bit dishonest about TARP. He makes the argument that the whole US Congress hoodwinked us and that we didn't really need to bail out these Too Big To Fail organizations. Had we not done that, economic armageddon would have been upon us. Banks would have frozen lending completely, businesses wouldn't have been able to get money from payroll companies, workers would no longer get paid an lots of them would stop working and that would have created a chain reaction leading to metaphorical fire and brimstone. I'm mad we had to bail out those companies too, but it was better than doing the alternative. And yes, we need to undo Reagan's work and re-regulate our financial sector so this can't happen again, but that TARP and the auto industry bailout were unfortunately necessary.
Sept. 25, 2009, 8:32 a.m. CST
by polyh3dron
Great review.
The Republicans that come on the Bill Mahher show are jokes.. Bill is an idiot, simple as that.. Anyone who says the 9/11 terrorists are courageous the day after 9/11 shouldn't be on the air. As for you saying you should use Bill Maher to balance all the crap on CNN and NBC instead of FOx is simply nuts.. Do you think conservatives are stupid or something that they would listen to that advice? I'm just glad Fox gets higher ratings than all those channels combined and at least more than half the country are getting a balance of news commentary. Juan Williams for example on Fox news is a great liberal that does understand both sides of the argument and makes some good points.. Do you have any objections of Juan Williams?