Michael Moore says Capitalism never helped him.

[bucfan64 309]

This guy is a nut..

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

[jets 10]

This guy is a nut..

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

 

so does that mean his movies are free?

[NewHampshireRed 94]

This guy is a nut..

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

 

havent watched it yet, you can call him a nut all you want, but his firts 2 films have been right on the money :)

[deuceswild 15]

havent watched it yet, you can call him a nut all you want, but his firts 2 films have been right on the money :)

 

I liked Sicko alright. Fahrenheit 911 was too long. He made his point and then he kept making it until I had to turn it off.

[frontierman95 10]

I think it is funny all these people like Moore (and Sean Penn to name one) are so against the country and against capitalism, but they would not be anything without the system. I personally will not knowingly contribute a dollar to either one of them no matter how "right on" their movies are. The only way to bring about equality is by lowering the standard of everyone.

 

There are problems with the current system, but it is better than any other in the world. China still has people living in caves! Tell me how communism is so great?

[NewHampshireRed 94]

I think it is funny all these people like Moore (and Sean Penn to name one) are so against the country and against capitalism, but they would not be anything without the system. I personally will not knowingly contribute a dollar to either one of them no matter how "right on" their movies are. The only way to bring about equality is by lowering the standard of everyone.

 

There are problems with the current system, but it is better than any other in the world. China still has people living in caves! Tell me how communism is so great?

 

No one said communism was great that's your own interpretation .

[HomeTownFan 10]

No one said communism was great that's your own interpretation .

 

I guess your all in for Socialism then??

[frontierman95 10]

No one said communism was great that's your own interpretation .

 

Sean Penn? oObviously Michael Moore thinks capitalism is bad so what does that leave; communism, socialism?

 

My interpretation is somebody thinks it is great, maybe not you, but if you hate capitalism then you have to be a communist.

[fieldgeneral 10]

havent watched it yet, you can call him a nut all you want, but his firts 2 films have been right on the money :)

 

True......if you want a nut look at Limbaugh!

[vthokies4life 10]

True......if you want a nut look at Limbaugh!

fieldgeneral, you are more correct than you know.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/rush-limbaugh-in-bid-for_n_310850.html

 

Hahaha.

[NewHampshireRed 94]

I guess your all in for Socialism then??

 

Well no im not saying that. I just think this health care reform is a great idea. Maybe not in its current state, but if they work out several kinks then I think its worth a shot. If we can cut back on our war efforts some (thats not helping us anyway) then we have the extra to fund this. Give it a try a couple of years and does not work then drop the program.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Give it a try a couple of years and does not work then drop the program.

 

Name one time that has EVER happened.

[hokie07 11]

Give it a try a couple of years and does not work then drop the program.

 

No need for trial and error. Just look at Canada.

[NewHampshireRed 94]

Your saying that the government has never dropped a federal funded program? What about Canada? Your going to have ppl who is for it and ppl who are not for it. But your going to run into more who is for it in Canada/Great Britain/France and so on.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Your saying that the government has never dropped a federal funded program?

 

Yes.

[bucfan64 309]

Well no im not saying that. I just think this health care reform is a great idea. Maybe not in its current state, but if they work out several kinks then I think its worth a shot. If we can cut back on our war efforts some (thats not helping us anyway) then we have the extra to fund this. Give it a try a couple of years and does not work then drop the program.

 

I agree to some extent. But I don't think that we can test drive a program and say, oh well it didn't work let's drop it. Government doesn't work like that, if we create a government entity this large it will NEVER GO AWAY!

 

We DO need health care reform, but SOCIALISM is not the answer. It has never worked, it is opressive, it denies individual liberty and it eventually gives way to great social injustice and state worship.

 

I think that Health Care Reform needs to be done in segments, not as a whole system. If competing insurance companies were allowed to offer services in other states, this would increase competition and drive prices down and quality of service up. Lets try this first, then TORT reform and then whatever comes next. For us to jump straightway into a system that will not work and only cost us more money is downright careless and suspect to say the least.

Edited October 8, 2009 by bucfan64

[NewHampshireRed 94]

 

I think that Health Care Reform needs to be done in segments, not as a whole system. If competing insurance companies were allowed to offer services in other states, this would increase competition and drive prices down and quality of service up. Lets try this first, then TORT reform and then whatever comes next. For us to jump straightway into a system that will not work and only cost us more money is downright careless and suspect to say the least.

 

 

I have to say I agree with you on that. Sounds like a full proff plan.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Well no im not saying that. I just think this health care reform is a great idea. Maybe not in its current state, but if they work out several kinks then I think its worth a shot. If we can cut back on our war efforts some (thats not helping us anyway) then we have the extra to fund this. Give it a try a couple of years and does not work then drop the program.

 

It would be something else if people could quit labeling the wars failures, they have kept America safe for 8 years and we've killed tens of thousands of terrorists.

The only change should be refocusing the efforts on killing terrorists aggressively in Afghan the way they were doing in the 1st few years of the war there, with lots of raids and bigger offenses, such as operation anaconda. But the policies have changed from that to an effort of nation and government building there, and that, I would agree is something that should be changed about the afghastan war. ..

In the early stages of the afghanastan war it was widely known the U.S. didn't have any interests in the country or the government or ways of life there, they just wanted to rent land throughout the country and air bases to stage out of while they aggressively went out and hunted and killed terrorists. That was more than good enough for the afghan people themselves to. It could be done with a lot less troops.

Edited October 11, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

That said does anyone know what the debt was at the start of this administration and what it is presently?

 

Reducing funds for the military and national security would be completely irresponsible and is a ridiculous plan, especially considering they have wasted trillions on socialist projects and failed financial ideas.

[Pirate1 10]

Buzzsaw, I agree completely with you about afghanistan. IMO trying to nation build in that place is a failing proposition entirely. But the question I have is when did our focus change there? The one thing that has frustrated me to no end is that since the Iraq war started, there has been little to no coverage of afghanistan.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Buzzsaw, I agree completely with you about afghanistan. IMO trying to nation build in that place is a failing proposition entirely. But the question I have is when did our focus change there? The one thing that has frustrated me to no end is that since the Iraq war started, there has been little to no coverage of afghanistan.

 

 

It's difficult for me to put it into words what my opinion is but in a sense, it's in America's nature to medal in things if we're in a place long enough, it seems we just feel we have to do more, it's all that win the hearts and minds of the people thinking. That itself isn't an unwise idea, but afghanstan is just such a completely different country than most anywhere else. A very harsh land with geographical boundaries with different areas controlled by clans and tribes who overall don't really need much of a government or infrastructure, and don't really care at that as long as some outside force isn't trying to take their country.

In the earliest stages of the war the U.S. was just being gritty and clever and fighting wisely there, they basically just had cia agents give bags of cash to the locals in areas to "rent" the places, ect., and we didn't care about their poppy, drug crops, or their government, ect., and this was really successful. Over time that changed some to more, we'll build these schools and medical facilities for villages and regions, ect., things that could really help these places, in exchange for loyalty and such.

So anyhow, the war effort their just started adding to the agenda of this nation, government building slowly over the years while they still fought the war in the remote areas and border areas where the terrorists really are, and of course that's where the real troop increases came from..

 

It was always known that when they mopped up in Iraq and drew the troop levels down there that they would shift emphasis and priority of troops to afghan, but the notion was to shift troops there to aggressively fight even harder and more, doing a lot more "hunting".

But, the draw down in iraq and the increase in troops in afghan has come at a time when America is losing it's resolve to fight, or just tired or war, and this idea of nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people has risen as more of the priority there while it still puts on a face of "fighting the war on terror.

 

More recently after the 8 soldiers were kia last week when they were overrun in that remote outpost, they obviously used that as the call to shift focus from taking an aggressive fight to the terrorists, to pulling back and providing security for afghans while they build the government and nation there, which happens to require a lot more troops at that.

Overall simply a complete shift of policy that in my opinion wastes resources and lives. Afghanstan in my opinion isn't a country to build or install any government in, simply a very rugged area the u.s. should stage combat troops in a hunt and kill terrorists there, particualry along the pakistan border, without any meddling whatsoever in the country or government itself.

It's a simple idea of war fighting to be had there really, but America, government, ect, always complicate things. Always. We're often our worst enemy, in military matters and political matters and anything government related.

[NewHampshireRed 94]

I agree to some extent. But I don't think that we can test drive a program and say, oh well it didn't work let's drop it. Government doesn't work like that, if we create a government entity this large it will NEVER GO AWAY!

 

We DO need health care reform, but SOCIALISM is not the answer. It has never worked, it is opressive, it denies individual liberty and it eventually gives way to great social injustice and state worship.

 

I think that Health Care Reform needs to be done in segments, not as a whole system. If competing insurance companies were allowed to offer services in other states, this would increase competition and drive prices down and quality of service up. Lets try this first, then TORT reform and then whatever comes next. For us to jump straightway into a system that will not work and only cost us more money is downright careless and suspect to say the least.

 

 

Not saying the whole united states needs to be in socialism, but fire dept., police dept., military, well isnt are all these servicies free provided from tax payers money?

[bucfan64 309]

You are correct in some respects, those services are tax payer public government programs. But they are not operated in the same manner as the Presidents Health Care plan would be operated.

 

I personally, am not opposed to health care REFORM, but the current plan that the President is proposing appears to be directed to controlling the entire system, moving us from an employer based health care to a single payer system.

 

For example, businesses that provide top quality insurance packages for their employees, will find themselves guilty of "over providing" for their workers. I know this sounds silly, but it is in the bill. The president wants everyone to have the SAME PACKAGE, without exception. Therefore, if a business is providing a package that is better than the GOVERNMENT option, that business will be fined 40% MORE on their taxes. This is a penalty, the idea is that if enough folks pay the 40% fee, that money will be used to bring the others UP to a higher standard also.

 

The problem with this PENALTY, is that most businesses will not be able to afford the PENALTY and they will in turn be forced to give their employees a worse package than they had before. Instead of doing that several businesses will give their employees the difference in money, for example they will reduce the quality of their insurance but give them enough money to buy a supplemental plan, this supplemental plan will essentially give the employee the same coverage they had before.

 

The problem with this little loop hole, is that it isn't a loop hole at all, it's a trap. The money that the employers give to their employees, if they decide to try this route, will be taxed as well, therefore the government will get it's hands on the money. Eventually, what will happen is employers will gradually diminish health care until it gets very close to the public option, in cost, when the package costs about the same as the public option, the employer is going to say, why should I pay this when the government will provide it for "free?"

 

When this happens, the employees will leave the business based health care program and become participants in the government program, which will essentially become a single payer system. This will gradually lead to several health care providers going out of business or going bankrupt, the private sector will be eliminated. There will be little to no competition in the health care field, without competition, PRICES WILL SKYROCKET! If prices do not skyrocket, rationing will have to take place, these two options will be all that is left for AMERICANS.

 

Although, fire departments and etc. could be called socialist programs, they are not designed to destroy private business, they do exactly what they should, provide a much needed service. To believe that the health care plan, as it is currently proposed, would operate as efficiently as those entities is not reasonable.

 

The President has publicly stated that he "would not require you to take the public option," he is correct, nobody will be REQUIRED. They will eventually be FORCED into a single payer health care plan that is considerably WORSE than any package that they may currently have, through the penalties that will be charged to businesses that provide quality health care packages.

Edited October 18, 2009 by bucfan64

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Not saying the whole united states needs to be in socialism, but fire dept., police dept., military, well isnt are all these servicies free provided from tax payers money?

 

So you consider the military, police, fire department, ect., socialist "programs"? Most people consider them absolute musts.......

[GmanFan 21]

I would think they would be essential services.