Homelessness peaks in the US

[welsh]

Except Sander, that many of the "Moore is full of shit" web sites are, themselves, full of shit.

Thus raising the question- either
(1) Who is lying
(2) Is this really just a snowjob. Raise the notion of someone's crediability and integrity by calling a person a liar, through the use of lies.

Back to the question above-

Bradylama- you make the argument that all the US government should do is protect national security and law. Then you go on to say that people are foolish.

I'm going to ignore the second issue, let's talk about the first-

National Security basically means protecting values that are essential to one's sense of nationhood, it is a statement that some morals are more important than others. But which morals are more important? Doesn't that get to the notion of what kind of society we are supposed to be?

You remember-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

For more- declaration of independence

Or maybe these values-

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I know you don't like income taxes. As a payer of income taxes, I don't like them easier.

I would be curious as to how we could cover our expenses as a government (without borrowing) without income taxes. A sales tax? That would seem to have greater effect on poor than the rich?

OK, now the issue of law- law is an instrument of policy of the state- so law protects those who the state protects.

So when you talk about removing laws that redistribute wealth, aren't you basically setting up a system where the law protects the wealthy and powerful against the poor and weak?

And this is equality?

 

[Bradylama]

Except Sander, that many of the "Moore is full of shit" web sites are, themselves, full of shit.

Any Anti-Moores are full of shit websites that are full of shit to show us that they are full of shit, or do you just think they're full of shit because they have a bias?

National Security basically means protecting values that are essential to one's sense of nationhood, it is a statement that some morals are more important than others. But which morals are more important? Doesn't that get to the notion of what kind of society we are supposed to be?

My point is that individual morality should be given priority. Morally based legislation has often been both rediculous and unconstitutional. Legislation should only be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens, not regulating, limiting, or outright restricting them.

I would be curious as to how we could cover our expenses as a government (without borrowing) without income taxes.

Quite simple really, the government can't spend like it wants to. Or do you not understand what I meant when I said Small Government?

So when you talk about removing laws that redistribute wealth, aren't you basically setting up a system where the law protects the wealthy and powerful against the poor and weak?

The law protects citizens. Period.

The concept that the wealthy are somehow keeping the poor downtrodden is stupid, and that we should punish the wealthy for being succesful is a violation of the very ideals you quoted.

 

[welsh]

Any Anti-Moores are full of shit websites that are full of shit to show us that they are full of shit, or do you just think they're full of shit because they have a bias?

Actually, when folks have checked the anti-Moore site facts, they often find that those sites are also wrong on their facts. So you deligitimize one person by calling them a lier through the use of your own lies. This is done with the realization that you're everyday person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to cut through the bullshit.

My point is that individual morality should be given priority. Morally based legislation has often been both rediculous and unconstitutional. Legislation should only be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens, not regulating, limiting, or outright restricting them.

But isn't individual morality given priority? Free press, free speech, free religion, free choice? Aren't those the basis of a free society?

Morally based legislation- you mean like laws that protect workers from unsafe labor conditions? Perhaps laws that allow women equal pay? Or keep children from working in mines? Or perhaps protect waterways from polluters? That regulate the selling of commodities and securities so that the stock market is fair?

Or is it the social safety nets that say when a person is downsized or unemployed they get a pittance from the state to help them get back on their feet? Or is it the awards of money that let poor folks get the financial aid to go to school? Or rules that protect equality in housing? That protect citizenship rights? That make sure our foods are safe?

And that's just part of what are laws do? Considering that so much of our government's policies protect quality of life issues, when do you wish to cut those rules?

Quite simple really, the government can't spend like it wants to. Or do you not understand what I meant when I said Small Government?

No, actually what I am unsure of is whether you have thought this through or this is more of a question of faith.

And if it is a question of faith, fine. You may have your faith in Libertarian values, I have my faith in a stronger developmetental state. But if you're going to stake your faith to the Libertarian banner, I hope you have thought it through.

My doubt is whether you have.

The Keynesian state evolved as a consequence of the Great Depression, itself a result of the problems raised by a very liberal political and economic order. Really, check out some of the constitutional history of the US prior to the New Deal and some of the laws might be seen as very Libertarian faith in a free market.

Yet to have any type of capitalist market one needs to have a state to overcome the collective action problem of market regulation. But the basic functions of the state- protect it from external enemies, maintain a political order also requires a redistribution of wealth.

But it goes to more than that. It's not coincidence that every major developed state went through economic crisis following the First World War- Some when communist, others went Facists and then a few went Keynesian/Welfare. Thank god we went Keynesian because those who didn't went despotic.

The consequence of what you advocate is a system in which the wealthy get richer and the poor get fucked- I don't see this as necessarily better for the country or even consistent with national values.

The law protects citizens. Period.

IF that's as far as you go then you're doing a pretty shallow analysis.

Law is a consequence of clashing moral choices resolved through political processes. Determining what that law is has much to do with the relative power of social actors in battling for political goods. Whether that's tax relief for the rich, or public welfare for the poor- is a question of who wins that battle.

Again, pre-New Deal- the moral code and purpose of law was based on a notion of "freedom to contract" such that workers had no right to unionize, bakers could get fucked into working long hazardous hours, women got shafted in work hours.

Why? Because power is distributed unequally in a society, and generally speaking those who are advantaged in power win. What they win- laws that protect their material interests.

The concept that the wealthy are somehow keeping the poor downtrodden is stupid, and that we should punish the wealthy for being succesful is a violation of the very ideals you quoted.

Actually the concept of the wealthy keeping the poor downtrodded is in fact the history of the last 2000 years and a fact of life in most of the world. Where is there a corner of the world where the rich don't fuck the poor?

Really Bradylama, it's fine to have faith in an ideology, but you could at least test that faith with a little empirical fact checking.

 

[Bradylama]

Morally based legislation- you mean like laws that protect workers from unsafe labor conditions? Perhaps laws that allow women equal pay? Or keep children from working in mines? Or perhaps protect waterways from polluters? That regulate the selling of commodities and securities so that the stock market is fair?

Or is it the social safety nets that say when a person is downsized or unemployed they get a pittance from the state to help them get back on their feet? Or is it the awards of money that let poor folks get the financial aid to go to school? Or rules that protect equality in housing? That protect citizenship rights? That make sure our foods are safe?

Both.

The Keynesian state evolved as a consequence of the Great Depression, itself a result of the problems raised by a very liberal political and economic order. Really, check out some of the constitutional history of the US prior to the New Deal and some of the laws might be seen as very Libertarian faith in a free market.

And you think I haven't? While the Great Depression was a result of faith in the free market, what has the solution brought? We've essentially straight-jacketed the nation to a point where we can neither fail nor prosper.

Keynesian legislature has also lead to a restriction of our civil liberties. The regulation of our very lives for the sake of "quality control."

By implying that Labor is entitled to their own rights, you've also stated that employers do as well.

A tight leather leash that stifles freedom and prosperity.

The consequence of what you advocate is a system in which the wealthy get richer and the poor get fucked- I don't see this as necessarily better for the country or even consistent with national values.

And I suppose you don't think that wealth is generated, either? The poor weren't getting fucked because the rich were making more money, the poor were getting fucked because the state used corrupt means of acting in favor of the wealthy. I do not advocate the violation of liberties for the sake of corporate heads.

If workers aren't allowed to unionize, there is no free market.

Actually the concept of the wealthy keeping the poor downtrodded is in fact the history of the last 2000 years and a fact of life in most of the world. Where is there a corner of the world where the rich don't fuck the poor?

But the sense is that the wealthy can oppress the poor simply because they are wealthy. This is not the case. The wealthy cannot oppress the poor without government intervening on their side. In many cases, as you have pointed out, the wealthy were the government.

I'm not saying that pre-New Deal government was correct, I'm saying that the solution is no solution.

Really Bradylama, it's fine to have faith in an ideology, but you could at least test that faith with a little empirical fact checking.

Like how the National Guard was used to break up labor strikes? Hardly a Libertarian view on the powers of government.

 

[welsh]

Bradylama, considering the growth trends in the US since the New Deal, I would hardly think the economy has been straight jacketed.

What you seem to suggest is that the economy has been in paralysis for 60 years?

Ok, so you are saying that neither the poor nor the wealthy should be straight jacket each other- how?

When it comes to political activism- students protest, workers strike, the wealthy bribe and the army intervenes. Each social group uses the weapons or advantages at its disposal.

What you seem to suggest is that by having a small weak state that is completely off the social welfare ticket, you allow the wealthy to bribe and control at will. This is cronyism and one of the great problems of state government- corruption.

Are you assuming that the only way the wealthy can screw the poor is through the power of the state? The failure to have a state that protects union rights?

This is where the question of how far you have thought this through becomes questionable. What you advocate is a utopian idolism that has never existed.

 

[Bradylama]

Bradylama, considering the growth trends in the US since the New Deal, I would hardly think the economy has been straight jacketed.

I can still get to places in a straight jacket, but I can't drive to them. The nation's economy has prospered despite Keynesian legislature, not because of it.

What you seem to suggest is that by having a small weak state that is completely off the social welfare ticket, you allow the wealthy to bribe and control at will. This is cronyism and one of the great problems of state government- corruption.

And that doesn't happen with our correct, Keynesian system?

You seem to suggest that the poor only have the government to counteract the actions of the wealthy. Well, somebody has to buy their products. Somebody has to make them.

How can the wealthy bribe for government intervention when the government doesn't even have the power to intervene?

 

[Maphusio]

Actually, unemployment figures are taken from <gasp!> people collecting unemployment.

Therefore, people who are not collecting unemployment, while they may technically be unemployed obviously have some other means of income and are therefore not counted into the figures.

Hmm... tough stuff here.

And you're more than welcome to take Moore's word as gospel. I however learned a very long time ago that anyone who's too far to one side or the other is very selective about the "facts" they present.

If you put something in the right context, you can "prove" almost anything -regardless of how stupid it might be.

-Wraith

Yeah, pretty sure that is what I said. And Sander, your probably right. Bush is an ok guy. lol

 

[Sander]

Except Sander, that many of the "Moore is full of shit" web sites are, themselves, full of shit.

I quite trust NRC Handelsblad to deliver sound reporting since that's what they do. The Truth About Bowling site is well known and factual as well.
And, as I've said, I haven't read the Moore Exposed website yet, so I can't judge on that.

Yeah, pretty sure that is what I said. And Sander, your probably right. Bush is an ok guy. lol

No, that isn't what you said. You said nothing about Moore perhaps being wrong, or proving anything if you put in the right context.

And I don't recall ever saying anything positive about George Bush, in fact, I am a fervent opposer of his policy. But I am also a fervent opposer of lies and propaganda.

 

[Maphusio]

Sorry pally I was being bitter. I just can't believe that Michael Moore has been telling us 100% bull shit all this time. It's illogical to think that.

 

[Malky]

Ban, please.

 

[Maphusio]

Ban, please.

Who me? lmfao you have got to be a moron if you think I deserve a ban.

 

[Sander]

Sorry pally I was being bitter. I just can't believe that Michael Moore has been telling us 100% bull shit all this time. It's illogical to think that.

Why would that be illogical? I mean....why?

 

[WraithUV]

Sorry pally I was being bitter. I just can't believe that Michael Moore has been telling us 100% bull shit all this time. It's illogical to think that.

It's not 100% bullshit. If you read what any of the reputable information that contradicts him says, you'll notice that much of what he presents is in fact quite true. The problem is, it's been manipulated, rearranged, taken out of context, put into fabricated contexts, and a variety of other uses of trickery and deception.

A simplistic example of what he does would be if I were to say:
(PLEASE note the below are merely meant as an example -don't read any of this literally as any point I'm trying to make or not in these make-believe quotes themselves)

1. "I believe that there are some people in this world who by their own actions deserve nothing more than a swift death as punishment for their crimes."

and

2. "Really, fanatics and even terrorist activities cannot be seen as any meaningful indication of the teachings of Islam. By nature it is a very peaceful way of life."

Moore could take the two, and with a bit of editing, you might get the following:

"I believe that even peaceful people of Islam deserve nothing more than a swift death as punishment for their terrorist crimes and activities."

Technically yes, I said all those words. I just didn't say them in that arrangement, order, nor were both lines even said at the same time or in reference to the same thing. But he can still claim (truthfully, though very deceptively) that those are "my words".

-Wraith

 

[welsh]

Actually, one of the things I liked about Moore's books was that he does cite his sources and does provide reliable information. I am not convinced by some of the anti-moore spokespeople.

That Moore is rather anti-establishment may discredit him in the eyes of some but also makes him more of a target to others. I think he pissed off a lot of folks with Bowling for Columbine, but I think the issues raised were fair ones. Likewise, Fahrenheit 9-11 raised some good topics, even if you don't accept the entire film.

 

[WraithUV]

I can completely agree that he can and sometimes does raise some interesting points that merit further questioning and investigation. I just wish he could do so without the deception and manipulation of the data and facts involved.

I realize that some people simply don't believe he does those things at all, and everything he presents is actual fact, just like it happened. I just don't happen to be among them. Seen far too much credible evidence to the contrary.

-Wraith

 

[Silencer]

Ban, please.

Ass soon as you PM me with grounds for that

You may note, they surveyed a whole 1001 people.

Well, Wratih, there are representative methods that are used to formulate pretty accurate estimates with such low survey groups, there's a whole branch of statistics science dedicated to that. Remember that surveying > a few thousand people is quite expensive.

My belief is that they would have taken equal portions of bus drivers government officials, clowns, Toms, Dicks and Harrys.

Of course, it goes without saying that all surveys are flawed, because some groups are simply uninterested. (like said clowns)

 

[Wooz]

Who me? lmfao you have got to be a moron if you think I deserve a ban.

*glares*

 

[Maphusio]

Who me? lmfao you have got to be a moron if you think I deserve a ban.

*glares*

Whats your problem pally? Back on topic eh? Lets forget about how bad of a person I am.