Fahrenheit 9/11

[blienk]

Originally posted by G_S
For those who've done this: Please, don't be like the White House (calling the movie "lies" and "fiction"), but then turn around and say you haven't seen the movie yet. It just makes you sound ignorant.

I read the anti-Fairenheit 9/11 page and it's nothing more than an opinion piece itself. If F9/11 is liberal propaganda then that page is conservative propaganda.

First, the only public comment the White House has made on F911 is "we don't do movie reviews". Stop confusing the claims of independent right-wing groups with what anything somebody in power has said.

Second, how can you call that article be "conservative propaganda" when it was written by one of the best known LIBERAL WRITERS in the country? I can guarantee you that author is not voting for Bush in this election. He was only pointing out what a complete douchebag Michael Moore is.

If you really believe Moore has made a convincing political argument, it just shows how little your really know about politics.

 

[G_S]

My Dear blienk,
I could have sworn the white house spokesman was on television, and when he was asked if he was going to see F9/11 he replied that if he "wanted to see a good fiction he'd see Shrek 2." I could have sworn I saw John Stuart making fun of him on the Daily Show, but what do I know? I could be mistaken, wouldn't be the first, wouldn't be the last.

It's obvious that the writer of "Unfahrenheit 9/11" is not just criticizing Moore's film, but is flat out hostile towards Moore. It doesn't matter what the author technically is. If Moore's movie is propaganda then the author's essay is propaganda regardless of whether he's left or right.

Shiftkey,
Sadly, we're all spoon fed a sugar-coated version of everything that happens. Not because the government and the media is trying to keep us in the dark, but because that's the way most Americans want it. For the media it's a matter of trying not to rock the boat and upsetting so-and-so group of people. At least that's the way I see it.


I think most of us is siding with those whom we feel are trying to do the right thing, so we all have good intentions, but we must realize that we're all far more biased than we'd like to think. I mean, how could any of us possibly know the WHOLE story? Each of us is looking at the world through a small window, and a filtered window at that. Just because someone is a well know liberal writer does not mean his opinion is fact, nor does it mean Moore's opinion is fact. Even if so-and-so respected liberal writer's window is slightly larger than ours, it is still a very small and biased window.

So we sit here at our computers wasting our lives away over something that we probably don't care as much about as we let on. We regurgitate other people's opinions back and forth, post links to these opinions, and because the opinion is on a "credible" website expect everyone else to accept it as gospel. All for what? Because being correct, or more pertinently "thinking" we're correct, makes us feel superior to one another. It's depressing to even think about.

Anyway, I hold my opinion. It could be correct, but it's probably wrong like everyone elses, but who really cares?

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

.

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

Originally posted by Shiftkey
I'm not talking about class division or haves and have nots. I'm talking about who selects the president, and how those selectors get that possition. Oligarchy means a government by the few. Those few are the electoral college. In a democratic republic, every adult would choose the government. That would be so if our votes were counted, but they are not - the electoral college votes are counted. This was well established in the 2000 election. How do you become an electoral college member, the people who's votes do actually count when choosing the president? You donate 10 million dollars to the party of the appropriate district. Thus, the rich are the few of the oligarchy. Thinking the US is a democratic republic is one of the biggest myths of modern politics.

Bullsh1t.

Name one example where a rogue ellectoral college didn't swing for the candidate which won the popular vote in that state.

This is not true. Those in power have to appease the less powerful to prevent violent rebelion. In fact during the industrial age, a union called the knights of labor DID rebel violently until modern unions were established and more fair labor laws were put into place.

Bread and circuses.

And the rich do have ways to pay less than 10% tax. It's only the lower and middle class who actually pay more.

On average in 2000, those making over a million dollars a year paid 27.8% of their gross income to the government. Those making between 500,000 and 999,999 paid 28.3%, and the top ten percent of wage earners provided a full two-thirds of the tax revenue in the country.

If you know a way for the rich to pay less than ten percent, I'm sure you could make a mint by selling this secret to greedy CEOs everywhere.

-Cyrano

 

[Shiftkey]

Bullsh1t.

Name one example where a rogue ellectoral college didn't swing for the candidate which won the popular vote in that state.

I can name two. In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison had 5,477,129 votes or 47.9% of the popular vote but 233 electoral college votes. Democrat and former president Grover Cleveland had 5,537,857 votes or 48.6% but only 168 electoral college votes. Then of course there is the 2000 election where Bush had 49,820,094, 48%, and 271. Gore had 50,158,094, 48%, and 267.

The fact is that the electoral college was designed because the framers didn't trust the population with voting for the president. They wanted college educated individuals to elect the president in case the population was too stupid to vote for the right one. Thus the name "electoral college." You also have to take into context that voting was a form of entertainment back then - this is partly why voting rates were so much higher then than now. In fact they didn't even record the popular vote before 1824 - just the electoral college votes.

This is all text book stuff.

On average in 2000, those making over a million dollars a year paid 27.8% of their gross income to the government. Those making between 500,000 and 999,999 paid 28.3%, and the top ten percent of wage earners provided a full two-thirds of the tax revenue in the country.

If you know a way for the rich to pay less than ten percent, I'm sure you could make a mint by selling this secret to greedy CEOs everywhere.

CEOs have to pay those taxes because they earn a salary, but most millionairs don't get their money from wages - they get them from investments. BTW, you aren't factoring in the "expense accounts" and personal "company expenses" of the CEOs.

But I'm sure many do pay more than 10%, just not all of them.

 

[CyranoDeBergerac]

Originally posted by Shiftkey
I can name two. In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison had 5,477,129 votes or 47.9% of the popular vote but 233 electoral college votes. Democrat and former president Grover Cleveland had 5,537,857 votes or 48.6% but only 168 electoral college votes. Then of course there is the 2000 election where Bush had 49,820,094, 48%, and 271. Gore had 50,158,094, 48%, and 267.

The fact is that the electoral college was designed because the framers didn't trust the population with voting for the president. They wanted college educated individuals to elect the president in case the population was too stupid to vote for the right one. Thus the name "electoral college."

Okay. While you have that textbook out, look around for the section that says electoral college votes are apportioned by popular vote in the state and not nationwide.

In the mean time, you're seeking to paint a myopic picture of evil men paying money to get onto a board which truly arrests the president irrespective of the will of the people. So tell me. Since electoral votes are apportioned to the states, show me one instance where a rogue electoral college and all of their votes have not gone to the candidate who won that particular state. When have the people of Michigan spoken and the electoral college awarded their votes to the other candidate?

You also have to take into context that voting was a form of entertainment back then - this is partly why voting rates were so much higher then than now. In fact they didn't even record the popular vote before 1824 - just the electoral college votes.

This is all text book stuff.

Because the electoral college vote was the vote of the people...by state.

Then you really start reaching. 'Voting was a form of entertainment back then'? How about voter apathy wasn't as much of a problem because people knew the weight their vote carried. In fact, you could even make the argument that your voice is heard more in the electoral college system, then in a straight one-person/one vote setup because you're only competing with the rest of your state instead of the rest of your country.

CEOs have to pay those taxes because they earn a salary, but most millionairs don't get their money from wages - they get them from investments. BTW, you aren't factoring in the "expense accounts" and personal "company expenses" of the CEOs.

But I'm sure many do pay more than 10%, just not all of them.

Capital Gains taxes, and corporate income taxes taken at much higher rates ensure that every revenue stream is taxed. So, let's not pretend like they're getting away with anything. Unless again, you can show me how to avoid paying more than ten percent in the year I earn my first million.

 

[Vandermast]

4 years ago

The scars of the present have the power to remind us that the past was real - Vandermast

 

[Derek Flint]

Moore's lies and propaganda didn't work.

 

[The Antichrist_Star]

We don't need to go here.

Closed.

AS