What I totally understand is why a normal middle-class American would not like paying taxes. Even over here in Europe we don't particularly like it (though we understand it's simply necessary to run a country). Now, what I DON'T understand is how a normal, middle-class American could possibly vote for people who want to make average Americans pay even more taxes, while on the other hand, freeing the rich, greasy, bankers and CEO's of almost all their taxes. This is exactly what republicans do.
@RainbowYak I think it's because they've swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the ideology that one day they too can become successful and wealthy, and that wealth is automatically good and should not be criticised, despite the statistical unlikelihood of the average working stiff becoming a billionaire.
@RainbowYak their individualistic thinking and puritan work ethic are in some ways admirable. But when they become a dogma or are taken to an extreme, they can become extremely unhealthy. They can also easily be used as a weapon against them, by people intent on exploiting them.
Socialists assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. - Frederick Bastiat
@theredjediknight The top one percent pay over 40% of the income the government takes. The top 10% pay 70%. The bottom 50% don't pay taxes at all. How is it that the rich don't pay their fair share? If people want to pay their fair share have the bottom 50% pay into the income tax.
@FreeTheWorker Please give me a source where I can look at to get my information 'correct'. When I looked up who all pays the income tax - half of the people do not.
@getgtx First of all the top 1% gets back a lot of those taxes from government. Second every American pays taxes on every purchase they make, and most Amercians also have SSI tax and payroll taxes, so your claim that 50% don't pay taxes at all is a complete lie. And there's a reason the income tax is based on income, it's because what you can afford is based on your income.
Now I'm against any tax that isn't voluntary but everything you said was utter bullshit and you can fact check yourself.
@FreeTheWorker: I am talking about the people that make up the poor. Why would I add children and dead people when they don't even have a job? How do the rich get money from gov't? I also (if you care to check) limited it to the income tax.Once the gov't takes your money you don't get it back. People on some gov't programs get your money but you don't get it back. So you saying "...the top 1% gets back a lot of those taxes from government" is completely false.
@getgtx Poor people pay taxes on every purchase and they pay several other taxes throughout their life so everything you said is a lie. Also your 50% number is made up.
Go hug a banker kid, us working people pay taxes and we don't want to hear you crying about how the poor don't pay enough.
@FreeTheWorker: That is why I limited it to the income tax. I'm not talking about every tax that we pay. I don't remember saying they don't pay enough. What I was saying is that if you want it to be fair then they should pay. I don't really care if they pay any or not but you wanted it to be based on fairness.
@getgtx No you didn't you said they didn't pay any taxes at all.
You said these exact words
"The bottom 50% don't pay taxes at all."
Everything else you said was also a lie but that in particular stands out. You have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing fair about an economic system designed to funnel money to the top in the first place, poor people don't pay the same in taxes because they can't afford the same in taxes. If you want fairness try being poor for a few years.
@FreeTheWorker: You made it about fairness not me. I did say what you posted but I was referencing the income tax though. "If people want to pay their fair share have the bottom 50% pay into the income tax." That is what I said. Now if you look at the last two words in that sentence you can see what I limited it to. I know the economic system isn't fair, I never said it was though.
@getgtx No you made it about fairness, you have no idea what you're talking about man.
You said these exact words
"What I was saying is that if you want it to be fair then they should pay."
You brought fairness into it, well there is nothing fair about a system that treats workers like human cattel and claims to own their labor.
You also said that the bottom 50% pay NO taxes, and you were absolutely wrong. You know what don't even bother responding, you aren't doing yourself any favors.
@FreeTheWorker Your first response to me made it about fairness. In which you said and I quote "Only because the Rich don't pay their fair share of their taxes". Which means you brought up fairness.
Again I never said the system was fair.
If people don't like where they are working they have the choice to quite.
I didn't say the don't pay any tax. I said it was the income tax.
Please refer to what people say before you respond.
@getgtx No my first response pointed out that everything you said is a lie. Now you're making up quotes and attributing them to me, nice. You have to be a troll, no one can be as stupid and disingenuous as you're pretending to be. Anyone reading these comments can judge for themselves.
@FreeTheWorker: That was actually your second response that you said, everything was a lie, not the first. Which means I'm not making things up. Which must mean that quote was from you.
@getgtx No that's not how it works you're making the claim you provide the source. Scroll up and look, I never said what you're saying I said. I sincerely believe you're simply trolling at this point.
@getgtx All you need to do is scroll up a few comments you quoted me as saying something I never said then insisted again that I said it. Anyone can scroll up and see I didn't.
Well, I think people who are against free market capitalism don't really understand it and they think that we actually have it. In a free market, I have no problem with people getting rich, because the only way they can do so is by improving the lives of others and offering services or products that people want or need and at a price and quality that is to their liking. And free markets bring prices for things down, like $35 microwaves and $300 laptops that we're seeing now.
@UponInfinity Actually, that was because of bail-out after bail-out because of the rich making high risks and losing everything. It may also interest you to know that the US alone has around the same amount of total debt as the entirety of the European Union.
@Eggyrocks1 Exactly. Which is why you should let the market work, and people should be allowed to lose money. When you take away the freedom to fail, you take away the freedom to succeed. With any luck, this could be socialism's final days.
@UponInfinity I completely agree with letting them fail. Sadly, too many governments are forced into two categories: one, being in bed, so to speak, with the risk takers and those in the private sector; or two, being forced to provide financial support due to the integration of the risk takers' into the economy. Most fit into option one.
I sure would take socialism over capitalism any day. The problem is getting away from capitalism; it's a leech which tends to stick for some time.
@Eggyrocks1 Those kinds of thngs help the poor and bring them to within reach of their budget. All government involvement increases costs. Anything the government is involved with is expensive; energy, education, health care, housing. Even government money is cheap; fiat paper dollars that continually depreciate with time; another thing that hurts the poor.
What does bother me is companies that only prosper because they operate under a government guarantee or because they force the government to divert public funds to themselves. ie. bailouts, the Fed discount window, the military industrial complex, ect. That isn't free markets, and it certainly isn't capitalism.
Case in point, Henry Ford paid his factory workers $5 a day, the equivalent of $10,000 /month in todays money. That money was tax free (no income tax yet), they had no union, and no minimum wage. And he was able to do that because of an increase in productive capacity. Today, after decades of socialist policies, we have lower wages, lower standards of living, higher taxes, special interest running the government, and endless wars. Give me back free markets any day.
***PEOPLE, PLEASE READ MY *COMMENTS IN THE YOUTUBE VIDEO “MICHAEL MOORE VISITS MADISON”!!! (THE ONE WITH OVER 500,000 VIEWS. MY COMMENTS BEGIN ON COMMENT PAGE 2)
@gulbirk How someone lives depends on the culture. Japan is a fairly wealthy country with high average income, but the average person local (hence excluding expats) lives in what we would consider "cramped". Hong Kong, as a country works better than those two and faces far more problems as well.
I think you should look more into Social DemocraCy, seeing as how you have it the wrong way around when it comes to populations...
@Iisdabest889 Social security is worse there, health care is worse. Your house is owned THROUGH your buisniss. Thats bad.
No, I am right on the populations, and thats fairly simple. The more a population is spread up, the harder it gets. This is pure math. It costs more two have two schools with 50 students each then one with a 100.
So grouping people together doesnt make social democrasy ANY harder, at all.
@gulbirk Most people don't need social welfare, the few that do don't use it for long as there is high employment.
Worse healthcare? Where'd you get that idea? Explain.
People don't live in houses in Hong Kong... those that do get them through business contracts as well as insurance. Hong Kong has a free market, so the businesses aren't dictatorial like the ones in the US are due to how competitive they need to be.
@Iisdabest889 Most people dont need social security? You go tell that every senior citizen that exists.
Also, that is very arrogant and rude of you. I care about other people, even those who are un-able to work.
Bad healtch care, oh lets see. Since hospitals are privatised due to your fake little competition idea, only those who have money to pay for it can use it.
Senior citizens spend their lives saving up for retirement. Only failing systems need social security to cover that area. Also, chinese culture puts seniors first, and families always look after the elderly even more so than the west.
Worse health care? So even though it ranks one of the highest in the world, higher than your precious-yet-not-as-great Scandinavia, it's worse because it's private?
@gulbirk ... NEWSFLASH: People actually MAKE money to pay for healthcare in Hong Kong. No one goes without... yet it remains private.
Your statements have truly frustrated me with how ignorant they are, so here's some advice that I mean for you to take without offense: EDUCATE YOURSELF.
@Iisdabest889 First of all, you are abusrdely wrong. What about the people that dont have the money?
Secondly, you basicly admitted that in your systems old people need to save money to survive without a job. Well, what if they never had a job? What if they dont have any money?
Hong Kong nor japan is any better, you are an idiot. The UN has a reward every year for best country to live in. Where they look at these things. Japan is not near Norway.
@gulbirk The people that don't have money, as I stated earlier, receive the benefit and support from private charity until they can get an income.
The elderly receive personal pensions as well, but they come from private companies, not the government. that is not part of social security, yet it acts so.
You are uneducated, my friend. I suggest you be a little more open minded and actually RESEARCH Hong Kong.
Oh yea, Hong Kong and Japan are two of the healthiest peoples in the world.
@gulbirk You are not "owned" by a company, you are paid by them. And charity is quite generous when it does not suffer from tax burdens.
Also, I am not from America. I am from New Zealand. I have only been to America a few times. You ought to be a little more open minded.
Charity is set up to help those in need. Maybe in America it is a tool for fame, but clearly you don't know much about the rest of the world if that is your view on church relief foundations.
@Iisdabest889 If charity works, why does it only cover under 10% of those who need the help.
As a fellow human being, even if I were to be rich, I would WANT to pay taxes. Because I care about other people, and we need an actuall system to help those who need it.
You are just payd by them. I business should also have other obligations if taxes are low. But thats the problem. When owners gets to decide, they dont want to be "nice". They want money.
@gulbirk Which charities are you talking about? They vary depending on the problem and the country.
So you're saying you wouldn't mind donating to a cause that'd help the poor if you were rich? What's stopping you from doing so?
Taxes are low, the market is free. People buy their apartments through their businesses, and yet the prices remain low. Can you explain this to me please? The government isn't forcing them...
@Iisdabest889 I already do so, THROUGH TAXES. Charity doesnt cover the people who need it, at all. Only a small percantage of them.
You dont understand what I am arguing for. I am arguing for equalness, maybe you should visist some right winged countries and see how people un-able to work have to live. Because that is my point.
There is nothing to explain. No one has ever suggested that governments should force you to do anything like that.
@gulbirk Taxes will be inefficient. It won't cover enough, increase unemployement and greatly hinder economic growth. Scandinavia can tax all they want as they don't have a hugely dense population and don't rely on foreign trade for economic sustainability, but taxing just won't work and is unrealistic.
You can argue for equality all you want, but if you put it before liberty, neither equality NOR liberty will be achieved.
@gulbirk You don't understand economics; if someone does not have money in an unregulated economy, it's easy to find work.
There are very few people in Hong Kong who can't, and they are helped by charities. You claim charities are inefficient, but they seem to already be helping the few who actually need it. I suggest you do some research about charity so you know the difference between each organization.
Actually, you suggested taxation, which by definition is government force.
@gulbirk A large country like the US or the UK is hit badly by unemployment, and it's a well known fact that taxation increases unemployment. Countries such as these with dense populations rely strongly on their jobs and competition, hence regulations are not necessary, but in the last 40 years the government has put more and more regulations in place in order to fund wars, international programs, failed projects, etc.
Mere taxation will NOT solve poverty. It'll make everyone suffer.
@Iisdabest889 No no no, its because they put IN taxes AFTER they realise that they have a problem to solve. So the tax money goes to paying debt for example. Yes, thats stupid. But you wouldnt need to be in debt in the first place. You dont understand the meaning of Taxes then.
Also, you dont know what regulations I am talking about. By regulations I dont mean tax, I mean regulations. A company can fish to much, or polute too much, etc.
@gulbirk You're trying to claim that putting tax money towards a problem that can be solves privately s the answer. You don't understand the role of government in a free society if taking away what people have earned in order to provide them with something they can achieve privately is the answer.
Actually, you've made a few ignorant assumptions about me, so I'll forgive you for this one, and next few I'm sure will come up. Regulations...
@gulbirk ... aren't just taxes, but you're trying to claim the government has the right to regulate businesses instead of the competitive market.
Pollution, for example: companies are heavily reliant upon the customers and will do anything to beat the other businesses. If you had the choice to purchase from a company that pollutes more, or one that pollutes less, which will you choose? I'm sure your answer is the same as mine, and most other people. So a company won't survive if it pollutes.
this guy is under the fantasy that the government is capable of spending your money more efficiently than you are, that's what it all comes down to. we're pissed about our taxes because they go to wasteful causes, ALL taxes do when you get to a certain point. europe is no different, and i think he's underestimating how angry people are about taxes in europe.
@77doodlebug 50% of americans pay no income taxes, make sure you make that specification or else some liberal on here is going to call you out. the truth is, in 2006 the bottom 50% only contributed 5% of the total federal taxes, but they didn't pay nothing. they did pay, however, no income taxes
Every kid gets to go to college? Everyone gets to see a doctor? He's never lived in Europe. I'll just dispel the college claim. In theory it's true, however, in Europe only those who excel very early on in school are even put on the college track--the rest go to trade schools. Nothing really wrong with that, but unlike the U.S. there are very, very few of what we call "Non-Traditional" students. That is a great freedom that we have here--social mobility. Easy 2 underestimate its importance!
Europe is in far worse economic crisis than what we are. And the problem with all of these governments defaulting is too much spending. Government is the problem. Michael Moore is wrong.
@beallendall08 hmmm... Well look at Greece, a 'socialist' nation, the debt per capita amounts to 47,636 $ . Then look at America, a capitalist nation, the debt per capita amounts to 45,097 $. Wow! Thats a big difference! p.s. the greek gini coefficient is 33, america's is 45. Which country is in worst situation? Governments are defaulting not because of socialist spending but because of the corrupt banking system and extreme inequality. Get your facts straight!
1.Hiring a women is more expensive because of her having kids and also .... women and men arent the same at everyhing ... both genders have their genetical differences.DUH
2.Enviromental protection is fine however it must be done reasonably. And our enviroment is now in a ot better shape than century ago.
3.Kids cant buy assault weapon. If someone is 18 or 21 he isnt a kid he is a citizen and if he can go in the miitary he sure as heck can protect himself.
@ThreeLions89 I am not even american LOL. I am czech. And if you want to argue you some of the problems is better to come with arguments rather than insults.
@ThreeLions89 I am so glad that liberals dont judge people according to their nationality, stereotypes or race. The conservatives are surely the racist ones.
By the way sluts and addicted ? Damn really ? Are you sure you are talking about the same country as i? I have the country where they make great beer(Pilsner Urquel), great firearms(ČZ) and of course great cars(Škoda) in mind :P ; Feel free to come here for vacation
Is the air cleaner and the water better in Soviet Russia?....I think not!...Are environmental agencies reporting about abuses in petty dictatorships or communist run countries?...nope! They know if they set up office on day one....on day two office is closed and no one is ever seen again.....instead they set up shop in America! so they can bash us instead as the user of the worlds resources and polluter of the world!...bullsh*t!
Ever seen a fat Russian communist?....a fat Chinese communist?...a fat Laotion?...a fat Northern Vietnamese?...Answer...NO! Only the leaders who live in total mockery of socialism with rich lavish lifestyles reach plumpness!....I am sorry Micheal but you are a living hipocricy to communism...you bite the capitalist hand that fed you and made you wealthy and fat! Here's an idea?...give all your money away and live the socialist idea now!
Wow. Michael Moore is really a moron. How in the world can you take him seriously? He makes straw man arguments and then draws bad conclusions from those statements.
@Uncle99B Absolutely. It's "is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia).
For example, an assertion that Republicans want kids to have access assault weapons misrepresents the Republican position. Any conclusion based on that misrepresentation is a straw man argument.
@Timasion. Can you give us a couple of example where Mr. Moore misrepresents GOP positions, as you claim he does. If it turns out that you cannot do so, can we then assume that you are using the straw man technique yourself?
"An informal fallacy is an argument where the stated premise fails to support the conclusion. This is opposed to the formal fallacy where the logic of the argument is incorrect."
@Uncle99B No offense, but I presume you have no formal training in logic. Formal and informal fallacies are terms used in logic (formal logic; not the thought process).
Examples:
1. Republicans support unequal pay for men and women. That has not been a position of the GOP. It misrepresents GOP actions where GOP senators or Congress members are concerned that proposed laws would actually encourage litigation rather than ensure equal wages.
@Timasion . You fail to understand the distinction between a lie, and the strawman method, which inclues a lie but is more than that. Nuance ain't your strong point. Offense intended (in case you did not pick up on that)
@Uncle99B I'm almost at a loss. Apparently, you refuse to recognize terms in logic. The straw man argument is precisely to misrepresent your opponent's position and refute that misrepresentation. Misrepresenting an opponent's position necessitates some sort of fabrication, but that does not change that the argument being a straw man argument.
Okay. Let's turn this around. What do you think a straw man argument is?
@Timasion. A strawman argument is putting words into your opponents mouth -- words he never said -- and then attacking him on the basis of those words. That is how it is explained by someone who understands the concept. if you don't understand what it is, you lift quotes from wikkipedia and use words like "informal fallacy".
@Uncle99B Again, you are incorrect. A straw man argument is based on the distortion of your opponent's assertions. You take their position (i.e., "we should avoid prosecuting illegal aliens simply for crossing the border"), distort it ("they want to allow criminal illegal aliens to go free") and knock that position down ("obviously, we want to put criminal illegal aliens in jail"), then draw a false conclusion ("we should prosecute all illegal aliens"). That is what Moore did in the video.
@Uncle99B If you're referring to "Brevity is the soul of wit," I must point out that that line was spoken by Polonius who was considered a windbag and rather foolish.
@Timasion. Actually, I used the word brevity because is was the proper word to communicate my thoughts. I don't quote others -- I actually make up my own sentences. And form my own opinions. But thanks for the additional demonstration of what a pompous twit you are
@Uncle99B I am amused that you use another informal fallacy (ad hominem) to respond to my comment. Wouldn't that be considered the last refuge of scoundrels?
I am curious when you say you don't quote anyone. Does that mean you don't read? Most people end up quoting others and the fact that you don't implies to me that you are unfamiliar with literature.
@Timasion. " Informal fallacy. ad hominem, last refuge of scoundrels, Polonisu, brevity is the soul of wit". What a pile of pompous crap. If you knew what you were talking about you would say so and put in in everyday English. You want a quote? Here's one for you. You are trying, quite unsuccesfully, to "baffle them with bullshit"
@Uncle99B I thought you never quoted others but made up your own.
First, I must point out that your response contains another fallacy; a complex argument is false.
Also, what is your definition of "everyday English?" The fact that I use the word pachyderm versus elephant means that I don't understand the mammal in question? What about you using the word "brevity?" Silliness.
Much like you stated, the words I used properly describe the terms in question. Not my fault you can't understand them.
@Timasion "The fact that I use the word pachyderm versus elephant means that I don't understand the mammal in question?". No, it means you are a pompous ass. The fact that you use terms like informal fallacy, complex argument, etc. while saying absolutely nothing of substance means you don't understand the argument.
You asked for a quote, I gave you one. Here is a variation on another "Pompous, overly sensitive, and ignorant is no way to go through life"
@Uncle99B I never ask you for a quote. But, let's dissect your quote. Pompous...you may have something there. Overly sensitive? First time I've ever been accused of being sensitive. I'm not sure that you're basing that on. Ignorant? Again, you don't have a basis for that statement. If anything, I've established the opposite given that I know more about these terms than you do.
I am amused that you paraphrased Dean Wormer (who could be described as a pompous ass). Self-fulfilling prophecy?
@Uncle99B Unhinged? Wow. I'm not the one using ad hominem attacks. I'm using logic and reason while you're the one yelling "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU'RE WRONG!"
Based on your prior comments, you're projecting yourself on me. You do not understand complex terms and deny basic definitions. Yet, you claim some secret knowledge.
Further, it is amusing that you call me ignorant while I quote Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson and you quote ... Animal House. Exactly who is ignorant here?
@Timasion "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU'RE WRONG!". Seems pretty unhinged to me.
"Based on your prior comments, you're projecting yourself on me." Nah, I have been pissing on you.
"..deny basic definitions". Like your refusal to acknowledge your misrepresentation of the straw man method? How you later added to it to correct the original, denying you had ever been wrong?
@Uncle99B Wow. An informal fallacy. Quoting out of context. Obviously, I was attributing those comments to you, yet you attempted to claim I made those comments personally.
And yes, I refuse to acknowledge something that I've never done. The straw man argument is precisely as I have defined it. A misrepresentation of your opponents views that you then refute.
What is really amusing is you failed attempt to argue the form of the argument rather than the actual argument itself. That is telling.
@Timasion "The straw man argument is precisely as I have defined it. A misrepresentation of your opponents views that you then refute." R U denying that your initial definition was "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." ?
R U going to claim that the definitions are identical? Or that you never typed the first one? Or will you, for once, man up and admit you were wrong? As I suspect you are unable to do so, we can see how defensive you are
@Uncle99B Are you serious? You're really going to parse the language that far? I guess context means nothing to you. Obviously, in context, I was talking about misrepresenting your opponent's position to refute it
Yet, you're going to twist it around to "prove your point." Talk about unhinged. How about grammar mistakes?
What is really amusing is that you are focused on the structure of the argument rather than the actual argument itself. Moore made straw man arguments to make his point.
@Timasion Copying and pasting exactly what you said is not "parsing the language, nor is it "twisting it around". I see you are one whose ego is so easily bruised that you cannot admit to yourself, never mind to someone else, that you were wrong. And would you stop claiming to be amused. You are clearly not amused, you are defensive and desparate.
@Uncle99B Actually, it's now tiresome. You fail to recognize context and that failure twists the phrase.
Interesting how you turn to ad hominem attacks when your base argument fails.
Both definitions are the same and accurate. A lot more accurate than yours: "putting words into your opponents mouth -- words he never said -- and then attacking him on the basis of those words." Yours is clearly wrong. It fails to recognize the nuance that a person can merely deny they made the statement.
@Timasion. Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Your original definition . "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." That is plain wrong. What you have defined is a lie -- something you should be quite familiar with
@Uncle99B Actually, my original definition was: "It's "is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia)." My example in that post laid it out pretty clearly. My subsequent discussion is within that context. That's where you got caught up on the whole "what's an informal fallacy?" issue.
Again, as I pointed out before, you're lazy attempts to twist my words fail with the sunlight of reason shine upon them.
@Timasion. Nope. Copy and paste of your original statement "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." You later switched to the informal fallacy that you got from wikkipedia after I critiqued your orignal post. You can check this yourself -- the posts are still up. Your lying to protect your fragile ego continue unabated. Be a man for once and admit your error
@Timasion. "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." You don't find that earlier statement of yours incomplete?
Now we will find out just how defensive, how protective of your ego you are
2. Republicans do not support strong laws protecting the environment.
This one is tricky and technically correct. But the form that Moore presented the question (that the metaphorical person he questions would support such laws) is not correct. So, the straw man is actually reversed. He's misrepresenting the person's response. A Republican would not answer yes to Moore's question.
@Uncle99B Well, yes. Strong laws purporting to protect the environment do not always work. In fact, most actually harm the environment. For example, the carbon emission regulations will raise the cost of electricity which will hurt the economy which prevents Americans from taking more expensive but environmentally beneficial options. But your comment does not address my criticism, which is that this argument is a straw man argument.
3. Republicans support children having access to assault weapons.
Moore misrepresents the GOP position on gun control. The GOP supports private ownership of gun control. That is a far cry from saying they want children having access to assault weapons.
@Uncle99B You've just provided an example of formal fallacy, meaning that the structure of your argument is incorrect. Accepting that the GOP supports private ownership of firearms, you then go to assert that some of these firearm owners will have children in their homes which is logical. Then you make the leap to children will have access to firearms and conclude that the GOP supports children having such access.
However, you have no reasoning to support your argument.
@Timasion. "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." No, that is actually called lying.
A strawman approach is when you assert that your opponent made claims that he did not, and then go on to argue against those very statements that were never made.
@Uncle99B I guess this was the "nuanced" argument you mentioned. Your statement is quite bizarre. If anything, my definition of a straw man argument is more nuanced than yours because my definition (which is the commonly accepted definition)
Your definition does not even fall into logical discourse. I could make a false statement (i.e., Democrats think the world is flat) and there would be no logical argument against it because the assertion is false ab initio.
@Uncle99B An informal fallacy is an argument where the stated premise fails to support the conclusion. This is opposed to the formal fallacy where the logic of the argument is incorrect.
Michael Moore's assertions about Republicans are all informal fallacies. The type of informal fallacy is the straw man (misrepresenting the opponent's position).
The logic may be sound (X does not support V, W, and Y; if you support V, W, and Y, you do not support X); but the fallacy is in the premise.
People is Europe don't ever riot? Really? So I guess all the rioting over people having a few of their government goodies taken away in some modicum of an attempt to stave off the bankruptcy of a nation just never happened?
And that's a pretty good argument you have there against conservatives...or it would be if it didn't rely so much on mischaracterization and generalizations.
How can anyone take this overweight, rich as hell goof seriously?
@Uncle99B Your attitude and people who share it, is a big part of the problem. Assuming you're talking about the same thing I alluded at earlier you're attaching "rights" to services aka goodies the government hands out by taking it from people who created something and giving it to people who did not.
Make something of yourself. Rely on yourself and your family. Don’t rely on the government to dole out goodies that don’t belong to you anyways. You will end up a prisoner and not even know it.
@Warblade118 "Your attitude and people who share it, is a big part of the problem." People who can't construct a simple sentence should keep their mouths shut and not display their ignorance.
What kind of pussy pays all this tribute to the government and expects to get nothing in return except to be spied upon, pushed around, and sent off to war? I need to wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I can't stand fools like you
@Uncle99B Okay, you're just a troll. Nobody is this stupid. I especially like the part were you failed to actually challenge any of my points. I never "paid tribute to the government" I said you were attaching "rights" to "services." Not the same thing at all.
What's the matter? Is the government late again on your common sense check again?
@Uncle99B Lol No, you moron, I don’t pay tribute to the government, I pay TAXS. Find yourself a dictionary and look up these words so you at least sound like you know what the fuck you’re talking about okay?
At first I thought you were smarter than this but then you opened your mouth again and proved me wrong.
I, unlike you, do not need a dictionary to understand the meaning of a common English word. Nor do I need to lie about one meaning of the word tribute, again, unlike you.
I would suggest you don't go for clever or pithy; it is clearly beyond you.
@Uncle99B Really, because it seems to me your substituting the word "taxes" with the word "tribute" and anyone with a grasp of the common English language would know the two words don’t mean the same thing. I wouldn’t suggest you go for common sense. It’s clearly beyond you.
@Uncle99B Is that how you hide from the truth, by calling someone "boring and stupid?"
Words mean things, learn what they mean before you use them. "Tribute" cannot be substituted for "taxes," no more than "wet" can be substituted for "ocean" they don't mean the same thing.
@Warblade118 "Words mean things, learn what they mean before you use them." ""Tribute" cannot be substituted for "taxes," no more than "wet" can be substituted for "ocean"".
Mike nailed it. He bullshits a lot, but here he's dead on. I don't want to be taxed because I don't see where the hell my money goes but for over-paid and underworked federal employees and global wars. If we had free healthcare, college, etc . I would pay even 50% in taxes. For what I see, I think 20% is too much.
The workers can have a free market. It is called free market socialism and it works like this: you are all individual workers in a system, all free and all equal because you are all free. And you can contribute an take from the system as long as its sensible. The system we have now is free market corporatism where the rich are in government and in business.
Actually the big problem isn't really low taxes in america, its that the tax dollars are used in crazy ways. Just take a look at how much money the military gets every year, then compare that to spending on the people.
the 3 questions that he asks to those who dont agree with him are stupid... can anybody really say that they dont agree with those ideas?? those ideas are not the property of socialists...
And I know a few french and and sweedish that hate paying more than 70% of their income to the government
American families that have low pay jobs, should calculate how much the government is spending to give their children education, maintaining infrastructure, subsidizing oil, having police, etc. The tax would probably not seem so bad.
@TheDano1947 And preferably, a modest rate for a flat tax would do nicely. It's come down to high extortion from the rich, bad penalties for the middle class, and half the nation at large who don't even pay a single penny. I've even heard that in theory, a flat tax would actually give our gov't MORE MONEY than they know what to do with! Essentially, the more people you tax, the more money. But something's not right if our gov't is satisfied with taxing only half the nation(--welfare state--).
@testar2 I'm an American student studying Economics in Sweden, and trust me, Sweden is not trying to be like the US. Sweden still has the #1 income equality in the world and the #2 tax revenues, only behind Denmark.
Swedish taxes may be on the decline since the crisis of the early 90s, but high taxes and over-regulation led them to poor growth in the 70s and 80s. If Sweden raised taxes, even more skilled workers and corporations would flee elsewhere (e.g. look up where IKEA is headquarted).
Michael Moore is right, paying taxes does give a certain payoff. The best thing would be to get everyone to work, since more people would pay taxes and then then we could reduce the taxes and still have it balanced.
@aguyyaknow "Getting" everyone to work is called slavery. The only way to motivate people to work is to cut taxes (to make people see that their work pays off) and cut spending on social care, so people will be no longer punished for working and rewarded for lazyness, and that's what "conservatives" say. Generally Moore is really wrong in his statement about capitalism, socialsm never did it's job, if it's still working somewhere it's because of a)natural resources b)wealth gathered in the past.
right, that´s what I said. Get people to work, so they earn money, so the economical cycle grows, so more taxes are paid. The more people work, the more the economy flourishes.
I don´t know what you thought I meant by "get" but I didn´t mean through the use of force, I meant by the use of reward.
In Sweden the socialistic functions work rather well, people aren´t taxed ridiculously much but enough to make things like free healthcare work.
"I don't like paying taxes" is also the real reason behind what the Americans insist on calling "libertarianism".
blackmichael75 2 weeks ago
Since when do conservatives think it's fair for men to be paid more than women, or for children to have access to assault weapons?
MrLep95 1 month ago
What I totally understand is why a normal middle-class American would not like paying taxes. Even over here in Europe we don't particularly like it (though we understand it's simply necessary to run a country). Now, what I DON'T understand is how a normal, middle-class American could possibly vote for people who want to make average Americans pay even more taxes, while on the other hand, freeing the rich, greasy, bankers and CEO's of almost all their taxes. This is exactly what republicans do.
RainbowYak 3 months ago 2
@RainbowYak I think it's because they've swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the ideology that one day they too can become successful and wealthy, and that wealth is automatically good and should not be criticised, despite the statistical unlikelihood of the average working stiff becoming a billionaire.
blackmichael75 2 weeks ago
@RainbowYak their individualistic thinking and puritan work ethic are in some ways admirable. But when they become a dogma or are taken to an extreme, they can become extremely unhealthy. They can also easily be used as a weapon against them, by people intent on exploiting them.
blackmichael75 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialists assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. - Frederick Bastiat
Superlibertytv 3 months ago
Michael Moore is the Man!
townofed 3 months ago
In America, our taxes go to the corporations who bought the government.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
2/3 of those questions I didn't agree with
In Europe people have been rioting about how much they pay in taxes
getgtx 5 months ago
@getgtx Only because the Rich don't pay their fair share of their taxes. Why should the majority pay more to cover the rich
theredjediknight 4 months ago
@theredjediknight The top one percent pay over 40% of the income the government takes. The top 10% pay 70%. The bottom 50% don't pay taxes at all. How is it that the rich don't pay their fair share? If people want to pay their fair share have the bottom 50% pay into the income tax.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx Everything you just said is a lie.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Please give me a source where I can look at to get my information 'correct'. When I looked up who all pays the income tax - half of the people do not.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx First of all the top 1% gets back a lot of those taxes from government. Second every American pays taxes on every purchase they make, and most Amercians also have SSI tax and payroll taxes, so your claim that 50% don't pay taxes at all is a complete lie. And there's a reason the income tax is based on income, it's because what you can afford is based on your income.
Now I'm against any tax that isn't voluntary but everything you said was utter bullshit and you can fact check yourself.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@getgtx And just who are you including in this 50% you made up? Children and dead people?
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: I am talking about the people that make up the poor. Why would I add children and dead people when they don't even have a job? How do the rich get money from gov't? I also (if you care to check) limited it to the income tax.Once the gov't takes your money you don't get it back. People on some gov't programs get your money but you don't get it back. So you saying "...the top 1% gets back a lot of those taxes from government" is completely false.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx Poor people pay taxes on every purchase and they pay several other taxes throughout their life so everything you said is a lie. Also your 50% number is made up.
Go hug a banker kid, us working people pay taxes and we don't want to hear you crying about how the poor don't pay enough.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: That is why I limited it to the income tax. I'm not talking about every tax that we pay. I don't remember saying they don't pay enough. What I was saying is that if you want it to be fair then they should pay. I don't really care if they pay any or not but you wanted it to be based on fairness.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx No you didn't you said they didn't pay any taxes at all.
You said these exact words
"The bottom 50% don't pay taxes at all."
Everything else you said was also a lie but that in particular stands out. You have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing fair about an economic system designed to funnel money to the top in the first place, poor people don't pay the same in taxes because they can't afford the same in taxes. If you want fairness try being poor for a few years.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: You made it about fairness not me. I did say what you posted but I was referencing the income tax though. "If people want to pay their fair share have the bottom 50% pay into the income tax." That is what I said. Now if you look at the last two words in that sentence you can see what I limited it to. I know the economic system isn't fair, I never said it was though.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx No you made it about fairness, you have no idea what you're talking about man.
You said these exact words
"What I was saying is that if you want it to be fair then they should pay."
You brought fairness into it, well there is nothing fair about a system that treats workers like human cattel and claims to own their labor.
You also said that the bottom 50% pay NO taxes, and you were absolutely wrong. You know what don't even bother responding, you aren't doing yourself any favors.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Your first response to me made it about fairness. In which you said and I quote "Only because the Rich don't pay their fair share of their taxes". Which means you brought up fairness.
Again I never said the system was fair.
If people don't like where they are working they have the choice to quite.
I didn't say the don't pay any tax. I said it was the income tax.
Please refer to what people say before you respond.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx No my first response pointed out that everything you said is a lie. Now you're making up quotes and attributing them to me, nice. You have to be a troll, no one can be as stupid and disingenuous as you're pretending to be. Anyone reading these comments can judge for themselves.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: That was actually your second response that you said, everything was a lie, not the first. Which means I'm not making things up. Which must mean that quote was from you.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx Anyone can scroll up to see that what you say isn't true.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: If I'm not being truthful tell me where and provide me with a source .
Or I am telling the truth and you can't provide a source.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx No that's not how it works you're making the claim you provide the source. Scroll up and look, I never said what you're saying I said. I sincerely believe you're simply trolling at this point.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker: What am I saying that you said? What claim am I making?
I'm not calling you a liar, you are calling me a liar.
getgtx 4 months ago
@getgtx All you need to do is scroll up a few comments you quoted me as saying something I never said then insisted again that I said it. Anyone can scroll up and see I didn't.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
Well, I think people who are against free market capitalism don't really understand it and they think that we actually have it. In a free market, I have no problem with people getting rich, because the only way they can do so is by improving the lives of others and offering services or products that people want or need and at a price and quality that is to their liking. And free markets bring prices for things down, like $35 microwaves and $300 laptops that we're seeing now.
UponInfinity 5 months ago
Exactly Michael, why Europe is now a debt-ridden shit hole going the way of the dinosaurs.
UponInfinity 6 months ago
@UponInfinity Actually, that was because of bail-out after bail-out because of the rich making high risks and losing everything. It may also interest you to know that the US alone has around the same amount of total debt as the entirety of the European Union.
Eggyrocks1 5 months ago
@Eggyrocks1 Exactly. Which is why you should let the market work, and people should be allowed to lose money. When you take away the freedom to fail, you take away the freedom to succeed. With any luck, this could be socialism's final days.
UponInfinity 5 months ago
@UponInfinity I completely agree with letting them fail. Sadly, too many governments are forced into two categories: one, being in bed, so to speak, with the risk takers and those in the private sector; or two, being forced to provide financial support due to the integration of the risk takers' into the economy. Most fit into option one.
I sure would take socialism over capitalism any day. The problem is getting away from capitalism; it's a leech which tends to stick for some time.
Eggyrocks1 5 months ago
@Eggyrocks1 Those kinds of thngs help the poor and bring them to within reach of their budget. All government involvement increases costs. Anything the government is involved with is expensive; energy, education, health care, housing. Even government money is cheap; fiat paper dollars that continually depreciate with time; another thing that hurts the poor.
UponInfinity 5 months ago
What does bother me is companies that only prosper because they operate under a government guarantee or because they force the government to divert public funds to themselves. ie. bailouts, the Fed discount window, the military industrial complex, ect. That isn't free markets, and it certainly isn't capitalism.
UponInfinity 5 months ago
Case in point, Henry Ford paid his factory workers $5 a day, the equivalent of $10,000 /month in todays money. That money was tax free (no income tax yet), they had no union, and no minimum wage. And he was able to do that because of an increase in productive capacity. Today, after decades of socialist policies, we have lower wages, lower standards of living, higher taxes, special interest running the government, and endless wars. Give me back free markets any day.
UponInfinity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***PEOPLE, PLEASE READ MY *COMMENTS IN THE YOUTUBE VIDEO “MICHAEL MOORE VISITS MADISON”!!! (THE ONE WITH OVER 500,000 VIEWS. MY COMMENTS BEGIN ON COMMENT PAGE 2)
ObiWanGinobiliTopFan 6 months ago
My challenge to right winged people.
Name ONE capitalistic ( social democrasy not included) country that works better then Norway or Sweden.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk Hong Kong. Low crime, thriving economy and was hardly hit by the recession and manages to cope with its incredibly dense population.
The countries you listed have rather low populations compared to their land masses.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 Yeah, and they work BETTER.
I wasnt talking about economy, I was talking about the general man in the street and how they live.
Thats what matters.
Having low populations actually make it HARDER to substain a social democrasy.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk How someone lives depends on the culture. Japan is a fairly wealthy country with high average income, but the average person local (hence excluding expats) lives in what we would consider "cramped". Hong Kong, as a country works better than those two and faces far more problems as well.
I think you should look more into Social DemocraCy, seeing as how you have it the wrong way around when it comes to populations...
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 Social security is worse there, health care is worse. Your house is owned THROUGH your buisniss. Thats bad.
No, I am right on the populations, and thats fairly simple. The more a population is spread up, the harder it gets. This is pure math. It costs more two have two schools with 50 students each then one with a 100.
So grouping people together doesnt make social democrasy ANY harder, at all.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk Most people don't need social welfare, the few that do don't use it for long as there is high employment.
Worse healthcare? Where'd you get that idea? Explain.
People don't live in houses in Hong Kong... those that do get them through business contracts as well as insurance. Hong Kong has a free market, so the businesses aren't dictatorial like the ones in the US are due to how competitive they need to be.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 Most people dont need social security? You go tell that every senior citizen that exists.
Also, that is very arrogant and rude of you. I care about other people, even those who are un-able to work.
Bad healtch care, oh lets see. Since hospitals are privatised due to your fake little competition idea, only those who have money to pay for it can use it.
In other words, BAD.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk Word of advice: educate yourself.
Senior citizens spend their lives saving up for retirement. Only failing systems need social security to cover that area. Also, chinese culture puts seniors first, and families always look after the elderly even more so than the west.
Worse health care? So even though it ranks one of the highest in the world, higher than your precious-yet-not-as-great Scandinavia, it's worse because it's private?
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@gulbirk ... NEWSFLASH: People actually MAKE money to pay for healthcare in Hong Kong. No one goes without... yet it remains private.
Your statements have truly frustrated me with how ignorant they are, so here's some advice that I mean for you to take without offense: EDUCATE YOURSELF.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 First of all, you are abusrdely wrong. What about the people that dont have the money?
Secondly, you basicly admitted that in your systems old people need to save money to survive without a job. Well, what if they never had a job? What if they dont have any money?
Hong Kong nor japan is any better, you are an idiot. The UN has a reward every year for best country to live in. Where they look at these things. Japan is not near Norway.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk The people that don't have money, as I stated earlier, receive the benefit and support from private charity until they can get an income.
The elderly receive personal pensions as well, but they come from private companies, not the government. that is not part of social security, yet it acts so.
You are uneducated, my friend. I suggest you be a little more open minded and actually RESEARCH Hong Kong.
Oh yea, Hong Kong and Japan are two of the healthiest peoples in the world.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 Bolderdash.
Absolotely what I meant. You are owned through your company.
Charity doesnt cover anything, but seing you are from USA it doesnt surprise me that you think so.
Charity is set up so that the person doing it gets more fame. It helps maybe 10-15% of the people who need it.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk You are not "owned" by a company, you are paid by them. And charity is quite generous when it does not suffer from tax burdens.
Also, I am not from America. I am from New Zealand. I have only been to America a few times. You ought to be a little more open minded.
Charity is set up to help those in need. Maybe in America it is a tool for fame, but clearly you don't know much about the rest of the world if that is your view on church relief foundations.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 If charity works, why does it only cover under 10% of those who need the help.
As a fellow human being, even if I were to be rich, I would WANT to pay taxes. Because I care about other people, and we need an actuall system to help those who need it.
You are just payd by them. I business should also have other obligations if taxes are low. But thats the problem. When owners gets to decide, they dont want to be "nice". They want money.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk Which charities are you talking about? They vary depending on the problem and the country.
So you're saying you wouldn't mind donating to a cause that'd help the poor if you were rich? What's stopping you from doing so?
Taxes are low, the market is free. People buy their apartments through their businesses, and yet the prices remain low. Can you explain this to me please? The government isn't forcing them...
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 I already do so, THROUGH TAXES. Charity doesnt cover the people who need it, at all. Only a small percantage of them.
You dont understand what I am arguing for. I am arguing for equalness, maybe you should visist some right winged countries and see how people un-able to work have to live. Because that is my point.
There is nothing to explain. No one has ever suggested that governments should force you to do anything like that.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk Taxes will be inefficient. It won't cover enough, increase unemployement and greatly hinder economic growth. Scandinavia can tax all they want as they don't have a hugely dense population and don't rely on foreign trade for economic sustainability, but taxing just won't work and is unrealistic.
You can argue for equality all you want, but if you put it before liberty, neither equality NOR liberty will be achieved.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@gulbirk You don't understand economics; if someone does not have money in an unregulated economy, it's easy to find work.
There are very few people in Hong Kong who can't, and they are helped by charities. You claim charities are inefficient, but they seem to already be helping the few who actually need it. I suggest you do some research about charity so you know the difference between each organization.
Actually, you suggested taxation, which by definition is government force.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@gulbirk A large country like the US or the UK is hit badly by unemployment, and it's a well known fact that taxation increases unemployment. Countries such as these with dense populations rely strongly on their jobs and competition, hence regulations are not necessary, but in the last 40 years the government has put more and more regulations in place in order to fund wars, international programs, failed projects, etc.
Mere taxation will NOT solve poverty. It'll make everyone suffer.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@Iisdabest889 No no no, its because they put IN taxes AFTER they realise that they have a problem to solve. So the tax money goes to paying debt for example. Yes, thats stupid. But you wouldnt need to be in debt in the first place. You dont understand the meaning of Taxes then.
Also, you dont know what regulations I am talking about. By regulations I dont mean tax, I mean regulations. A company can fish to much, or polute too much, etc.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@gulbirk You're trying to claim that putting tax money towards a problem that can be solves privately s the answer. You don't understand the role of government in a free society if taking away what people have earned in order to provide them with something they can achieve privately is the answer.
Actually, you've made a few ignorant assumptions about me, so I'll forgive you for this one, and next few I'm sure will come up. Regulations...
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@gulbirk ... aren't just taxes, but you're trying to claim the government has the right to regulate businesses instead of the competitive market.
Pollution, for example: companies are heavily reliant upon the customers and will do anything to beat the other businesses. If you had the choice to purchase from a company that pollutes more, or one that pollutes less, which will you choose? I'm sure your answer is the same as mine, and most other people. So a company won't survive if it pollutes.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
@gulbirk Homes and appartments are different, however.
Iisdabest889 6 months ago
WTF? Over a third of the people here disagrees with what he said? What is there to disagree for fuck sakes?
viniciusb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy is under the fantasy that the government is capable of spending your money more efficiently than you are, that's what it all comes down to. we're pissed about our taxes because they go to wasteful causes, ALL taxes do when you get to a certain point. europe is no different, and i think he's underestimating how angry people are about taxes in europe.
Welsh77 7 months ago
I guess it would help if 50% of americans actually paid taxes. I'll pay more when they pay SOMETHING!!!
77doodlebug 7 months ago
@77doodlebug 50% of americans pay no income taxes, make sure you make that specification or else some liberal on here is going to call you out. the truth is, in 2006 the bottom 50% only contributed 5% of the total federal taxes, but they didn't pay nothing. they did pay, however, no income taxes
Welsh77 7 months ago
whats the exact difference between communism and socialism
(maybe socialism is milder)
kn1b1s95 7 months ago
...Oh, and Michael, just an up date. The rioting has begun!!
univibe23 7 months ago
Every kid gets to go to college? Everyone gets to see a doctor? He's never lived in Europe. I'll just dispel the college claim. In theory it's true, however, in Europe only those who excel very early on in school are even put on the college track--the rest go to trade schools. Nothing really wrong with that, but unlike the U.S. there are very, very few of what we call "Non-Traditional" students. That is a great freedom that we have here--social mobility. Easy 2 underestimate its importance!
univibe23 7 months ago
Europe is in far worse economic crisis than what we are. And the problem with all of these governments defaulting is too much spending. Government is the problem. Michael Moore is wrong.
beallendall08 7 months ago
@beallendall08 Some of Europe is. The Socialist countries in Europe are doing very well economically, look at Norway and Germany.
therur 7 months ago
@therur Those are not socialist countires, hate to break it to you.
kingofqwerty 7 months ago
@beallendall08 hmmm... Well look at Greece, a 'socialist' nation, the debt per capita amounts to 47,636 $ . Then look at America, a capitalist nation, the debt per capita amounts to 45,097 $. Wow! Thats a big difference! p.s. the greek gini coefficient is 33, america's is 45. Which country is in worst situation? Governments are defaulting not because of socialist spending but because of the corrupt banking system and extreme inequality. Get your facts straight!
hva827 7 months ago
me thinks Michael forgot to mention the European debt crisis. If the Europeans weren't protesting before, they could be now.
KAAAching1 7 months ago
moore = loser
tonyteb 7 months ago
1.Hiring a women is more expensive because of her having kids and also .... women and men arent the same at everyhing ... both genders have their genetical differences.DUH
2.Enviromental protection is fine however it must be done reasonably. And our enviroment is now in a ot better shape than century ago.
3.Kids cant buy assault weapon. If someone is 18 or 21 he isnt a kid he is a citizen and if he can go in the miitary he sure as heck can protect himself.
Jigssaw1989 8 months ago
@Jigssaw1989 typical american idiot.
ThreeLions89 8 months ago
@ThreeLions89 I am not even american LOL. I am czech. And if you want to argue you some of the problems is better to come with arguments rather than insults.
Jigssaw1989 8 months ago
@Jigssaw1989 czech...the republic of sluts and addicted. ANd we wonder why you`re such an idiot.
ThreeLions89 8 months ago
@ThreeLions89 I am so glad that liberals dont judge people according to their nationality, stereotypes or race. The conservatives are surely the racist ones.
By the way sluts and addicted ? Damn really ? Are you sure you are talking about the same country as i? I have the country where they make great beer(Pilsner Urquel), great firearms(ČZ) and of course great cars(Škoda) in mind :P ; Feel free to come here for vacation
Jigssaw1989 8 months ago
@Jigssaw1989 SKODA? bauhahahahah I`ve heard of Volkswagen but....SKODA? XD
PILSNER URQUEL? buahahahhaah Never heard of it. Would you compare it to Bitburger? XD
you`re just a conservatice idiot...from the land of sluts (yes, that`s what your country is famous for).
ThreeLions89 7 months ago
Funny how you talk about Sweden. We are over-taxed and get slopy socialcare for a 50% taxrate.
ariesrapid 8 months ago
Is the air cleaner and the water better in Soviet Russia?....I think not!...Are environmental agencies reporting about abuses in petty dictatorships or communist run countries?...nope! They know if they set up office on day one....on day two office is closed and no one is ever seen again.....instead they set up shop in America! so they can bash us instead as the user of the worlds resources and polluter of the world!...bullsh*t!
fullblastman 8 months ago
Ever seen a fat Russian communist?....a fat Chinese communist?...a fat Laotion?...a fat Northern Vietnamese?...Answer...NO! Only the leaders who live in total mockery of socialism with rich lavish lifestyles reach plumpness!....I am sorry Micheal but you are a living hipocricy to communism...you bite the capitalist hand that fed you and made you wealthy and fat! Here's an idea?...give all your money away and live the socialist idea now!
fullblastman 8 months ago
Wow. Michael Moore is really a moron. How in the world can you take him seriously? He makes straw man arguments and then draws bad conclusions from those statements.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion . Do you understand what a straw man agrument is?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Absolutely. It's "is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia).
For example, an assertion that Republicans want kids to have access assault weapons misrepresents the Republican position. Any conclusion based on that misrepresentation is a straw man argument.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion No, that may be true or it may be a lie, but it is not a straw man argument
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B It is absolutely a straw man argument. Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. Can you give us a couple of example where Mr. Moore misrepresents GOP positions, as you claim he does. If it turns out that you cannot do so, can we then assume that you are using the straw man technique yourself?
"An informal fallacy is an argument where the stated premise fails to support the conclusion. This is opposed to the formal fallacy where the logic of the argument is incorrect."
Now there is a load of crap.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B No offense, but I presume you have no formal training in logic. Formal and informal fallacies are terms used in logic (formal logic; not the thought process).
Examples:
1. Republicans support unequal pay for men and women. That has not been a position of the GOP. It misrepresents GOP actions where GOP senators or Congress members are concerned that proposed laws would actually encourage litigation rather than ensure equal wages.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion . You fail to understand the distinction between a lie, and the strawman method, which inclues a lie but is more than that. Nuance ain't your strong point. Offense intended (in case you did not pick up on that)
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B I'm almost at a loss. Apparently, you refuse to recognize terms in logic. The straw man argument is precisely to misrepresent your opponent's position and refute that misrepresentation. Misrepresenting an opponent's position necessitates some sort of fabrication, but that does not change that the argument being a straw man argument.
Okay. Let's turn this around. What do you think a straw man argument is?
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. A strawman argument is putting words into your opponents mouth -- words he never said -- and then attacking him on the basis of those words. That is how it is explained by someone who understands the concept. if you don't understand what it is, you lift quotes from wikkipedia and use words like "informal fallacy".
Simple enuff for you?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Again, you are incorrect. A straw man argument is based on the distortion of your opponent's assertions. You take their position (i.e., "we should avoid prosecuting illegal aliens simply for crossing the border"), distort it ("they want to allow criminal illegal aliens to go free") and knock that position down ("obviously, we want to put criminal illegal aliens in jail"), then draw a false conclusion ("we should prosecute all illegal aliens"). That is what Moore did in the video.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. You don't need that many words to show your stupidity. Brevity. Brevity
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B If you're referring to "Brevity is the soul of wit," I must point out that that line was spoken by Polonius who was considered a windbag and rather foolish.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. Actually, I used the word brevity because is was the proper word to communicate my thoughts. I don't quote others -- I actually make up my own sentences. And form my own opinions. But thanks for the additional demonstration of what a pompous twit you are
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B I am amused that you use another informal fallacy (ad hominem) to respond to my comment. Wouldn't that be considered the last refuge of scoundrels?
I am curious when you say you don't quote anyone. Does that mean you don't read? Most people end up quoting others and the fact that you don't implies to me that you are unfamiliar with literature.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. " Informal fallacy. ad hominem, last refuge of scoundrels, Polonisu, brevity is the soul of wit". What a pile of pompous crap. If you knew what you were talking about you would say so and put in in everyday English. You want a quote? Here's one for you. You are trying, quite unsuccesfully, to "baffle them with bullshit"
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B I thought you never quoted others but made up your own.
First, I must point out that your response contains another fallacy; a complex argument is false.
Also, what is your definition of "everyday English?" The fact that I use the word pachyderm versus elephant means that I don't understand the mammal in question? What about you using the word "brevity?" Silliness.
Much like you stated, the words I used properly describe the terms in question. Not my fault you can't understand them.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion "The fact that I use the word pachyderm versus elephant means that I don't understand the mammal in question?". No, it means you are a pompous ass. The fact that you use terms like informal fallacy, complex argument, etc. while saying absolutely nothing of substance means you don't understand the argument.
You asked for a quote, I gave you one. Here is a variation on another "Pompous, overly sensitive, and ignorant is no way to go through life"
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B I never ask you for a quote. But, let's dissect your quote. Pompous...you may have something there. Overly sensitive? First time I've ever been accused of being sensitive. I'm not sure that you're basing that on. Ignorant? Again, you don't have a basis for that statement. If anything, I've established the opposite given that I know more about these terms than you do.
I am amused that you paraphrased Dean Wormer (who could be described as a pompous ass). Self-fulfilling prophecy?
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. Why would someone who is not not sensitive consistently respond in such an unhinged manner?
You really think the ignorant are aware of their condition? Now that's ignorance.
Wormer may have been an ass, but his advice was good and you should take care to heed it.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Unhinged? Wow. I'm not the one using ad hominem attacks. I'm using logic and reason while you're the one yelling "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU'RE WRONG!"
Based on your prior comments, you're projecting yourself on me. You do not understand complex terms and deny basic definitions. Yet, you claim some secret knowledge.
Further, it is amusing that you call me ignorant while I quote Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson and you quote ... Animal House. Exactly who is ignorant here?
Heh.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU'RE WRONG!". Seems pretty unhinged to me.
"Based on your prior comments, you're projecting yourself on me." Nah, I have been pissing on you.
"..deny basic definitions". Like your refusal to acknowledge your misrepresentation of the straw man method? How you later added to it to correct the original, denying you had ever been wrong?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Wow. An informal fallacy. Quoting out of context. Obviously, I was attributing those comments to you, yet you attempted to claim I made those comments personally.
And yes, I refuse to acknowledge something that I've never done. The straw man argument is precisely as I have defined it. A misrepresentation of your opponents views that you then refute.
What is really amusing is you failed attempt to argue the form of the argument rather than the actual argument itself. That is telling.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion "The straw man argument is precisely as I have defined it. A misrepresentation of your opponents views that you then refute." R U denying that your initial definition was "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." ?
R U going to claim that the definitions are identical? Or that you never typed the first one? Or will you, for once, man up and admit you were wrong? As I suspect you are unable to do so, we can see how defensive you are
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Are you serious? You're really going to parse the language that far? I guess context means nothing to you. Obviously, in context, I was talking about misrepresenting your opponent's position to refute it
Yet, you're going to twist it around to "prove your point." Talk about unhinged. How about grammar mistakes?
What is really amusing is that you are focused on the structure of the argument rather than the actual argument itself. Moore made straw man arguments to make his point.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion Copying and pasting exactly what you said is not "parsing the language, nor is it "twisting it around". I see you are one whose ego is so easily bruised that you cannot admit to yourself, never mind to someone else, that you were wrong. And would you stop claiming to be amused. You are clearly not amused, you are defensive and desparate.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Actually, it's now tiresome. You fail to recognize context and that failure twists the phrase.
Interesting how you turn to ad hominem attacks when your base argument fails.
Both definitions are the same and accurate. A lot more accurate than yours: "putting words into your opponents mouth -- words he never said -- and then attacking him on the basis of those words." Yours is clearly wrong. It fails to recognize the nuance that a person can merely deny they made the statement.
Timasion 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Timasion. Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Your original definition . "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." That is plain wrong. What you have defined is a lie -- something you should be quite familiar with
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Actually, my original definition was: "It's "is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia)." My example in that post laid it out pretty clearly. My subsequent discussion is within that context. That's where you got caught up on the whole "what's an informal fallacy?" issue.
Again, as I pointed out before, you're lazy attempts to twist my words fail with the sunlight of reason shine upon them.
Timasion 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Timasion. Nope. Copy and paste of your original statement "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." You later switched to the informal fallacy that you got from wikkipedia after I critiqued your orignal post. You can check this yourself -- the posts are still up. Your lying to protect your fragile ego continue unabated. Be a man for once and admit your error
Uncle99B 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Timasion. "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." You don't find that earlier statement of yours incomplete?
Now we will find out just how defensive, how protective of your ego you are
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B part 2:
2. Republicans do not support strong laws protecting the environment.
This one is tricky and technically correct. But the form that Moore presented the question (that the metaphorical person he questions would support such laws) is not correct. So, the straw man is actually reversed. He's misrepresenting the person's response. A Republican would not answer yes to Moore's question.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion . Of course Repubs do not support strong laws to protect the environment.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Well, yes. Strong laws purporting to protect the environment do not always work. In fact, most actually harm the environment. For example, the carbon emission regulations will raise the cost of electricity which will hurt the economy which prevents Americans from taking more expensive but environmentally beneficial options. But your comment does not address my criticism, which is that this argument is a straw man argument.
Timasion 8 months ago
Part 3.
3. Republicans support children having access to assault weapons.
Moore misrepresents the GOP position on gun control. The GOP supports private ownership of gun control. That is a far cry from saying they want children having access to assault weapons.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion. They certainly want the kids parents to have access to assualt weapons which puts them in the kids homes
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B You've just provided an example of formal fallacy, meaning that the structure of your argument is incorrect. Accepting that the GOP supports private ownership of firearms, you then go to assert that some of these firearm owners will have children in their homes which is logical. Then you make the leap to children will have access to firearms and conclude that the GOP supports children having such access.
However, you have no reasoning to support your argument.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion Great example of a strawman. Nicely put.
Warblade118 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Timasion. "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is the definition of a straw man argument." No, that is actually called lying.
A strawman approach is when you assert that your opponent made claims that he did not, and then go on to argue against those very statements that were never made.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B I guess this was the "nuanced" argument you mentioned. Your statement is quite bizarre. If anything, my definition of a straw man argument is more nuanced than yours because my definition (which is the commonly accepted definition)
Your definition does not even fall into logical discourse. I could make a false statement (i.e., Democrats think the world is flat) and there would be no logical argument against it because the assertion is false ab initio.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion WTF is an "informal" fallacy? As opposed to a formal fallacy?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B An informal fallacy is an argument where the stated premise fails to support the conclusion. This is opposed to the formal fallacy where the logic of the argument is incorrect.
Michael Moore's assertions about Republicans are all informal fallacies. The type of informal fallacy is the straw man (misrepresenting the opponent's position).
The logic may be sound (X does not support V, W, and Y; if you support V, W, and Y, you do not support X); but the fallacy is in the premise.
Timasion 8 months ago
People is Europe don't ever riot? Really? So I guess all the rioting over people having a few of their government goodies taken away in some modicum of an attempt to stave off the bankruptcy of a nation just never happened?
And that's a pretty good argument you have there against conservatives...or it would be if it didn't rely so much on mischaracterization and generalizations.
How can anyone take this overweight, rich as hell goof seriously?
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118. So the fact that Europeans stand up for their rights is a bad thing? Wow. You have severe Stockholm syndrome, my propagandized fellow
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Your attitude and people who share it, is a big part of the problem. Assuming you're talking about the same thing I alluded at earlier you're attaching "rights" to services aka goodies the government hands out by taking it from people who created something and giving it to people who did not.
Make something of yourself. Rely on yourself and your family. Don’t rely on the government to dole out goodies that don’t belong to you anyways. You will end up a prisoner and not even know it.
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118 "Your attitude and people who share it, is a big part of the problem." People who can't construct a simple sentence should keep their mouths shut and not display their ignorance.
What kind of pussy pays all this tribute to the government and expects to get nothing in return except to be spied upon, pushed around, and sent off to war? I need to wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I can't stand fools like you
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Okay, you're just a troll. Nobody is this stupid. I especially like the part were you failed to actually challenge any of my points. I never "paid tribute to the government" I said you were attaching "rights" to "services." Not the same thing at all.
What's the matter? Is the government late again on your common sense check again?
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118.. Actually, you are that stupid. Everyone who pays money to the govt pays tribute. You don't?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Lol No, you moron, I don’t pay tribute to the government, I pay TAXS. Find yourself a dictionary and look up these words so you at least sound like you know what the fuck you’re talking about okay?
At first I thought you were smarter than this but then you opened your mouth again and proved me wrong.
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118 . You are often proved wrong -- only you cannot accept it.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B uh-huh. You might try actually proving someone wrong before using that line.....
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118. People like yourself are often proved wrong, but never know it. Often wrong but never uncertain should be your epitaph
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B "A trollers life is the life for me!" should be yours.
Find that dictionary yet? Have you figured out the difference between paying tribute to something and paying taxes?
Warblade118 8 months ago
@Warblade118 .
I, unlike you, do not need a dictionary to understand the meaning of a common English word. Nor do I need to lie about one meaning of the word tribute, again, unlike you.
I would suggest you don't go for clever or pithy; it is clearly beyond you.
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Really, because it seems to me your substituting the word "taxes" with the word "tribute" and anyone with a grasp of the common English language would know the two words don’t mean the same thing. I wouldn’t suggest you go for common sense. It’s clearly beyond you.
Warblade118 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Warblade118 You are boring and stupid
Uncle99B 8 months ago
@Uncle99B Is that how you hide from the truth, by calling someone "boring and stupid?"
Words mean things, learn what they mean before you use them. "Tribute" cannot be substituted for "taxes," no more than "wet" can be substituted for "ocean" they don't mean the same thing.
Warblade118 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Warblade118 "Words mean things, learn what they mean before you use them." ""Tribute" cannot be substituted for "taxes," no more than "wet" can be substituted for "ocean"".
Now do you see why I call you boring and stupid?
Uncle99B 8 months ago
Mike nailed it. He bullshits a lot, but here he's dead on. I don't want to be taxed because I don't see where the hell my money goes but for over-paid and underworked federal employees and global wars. If we had free healthcare, college, etc . I would pay even 50% in taxes. For what I see, I think 20% is too much.
martydrooo 9 months ago
@2608513 Look at your national debt.
martydrooo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The workers can have a free market. It is called free market socialism and it works like this: you are all individual workers in a system, all free and all equal because you are all free. And you can contribute an take from the system as long as its sensible. The system we have now is free market corporatism where the rich are in government and in business.
RJWooller 9 months ago
I think Michael Moore is right.
RJWooller 9 months ago
Actually the big problem isn't really low taxes in america, its that the tax dollars are used in crazy ways. Just take a look at how much money the military gets every year, then compare that to spending on the people.
FrozenPetrolPie 9 months ago
Michael Moore is soo right!
packersfan1337 9 months ago
the 3 questions that he asks to those who dont agree with him are stupid... can anybody really say that they dont agree with those ideas?? those ideas are not the property of socialists...
And I know a few french and and sweedish that hate paying more than 70% of their income to the government
cobolosey 9 months ago
I think Moore is spot on here.
American families that have low pay jobs, should calculate how much the government is spending to give their children education, maintaining infrastructure, subsidizing oil, having police, etc. The tax would probably not seem so bad.
Robin90modell 10 months ago
I like when he impersonates the republican's response like a conversation between an adult and a child
Schectler 10 months ago
I´d be pretty pissed if all my taxes went to waging useless wars too...
TheGrindsprint 10 months ago
michael moore is such a dude!
meggatonman 10 months ago
I wouldn't mind paying taxes if we had a flat tax no Fed or IRS bullying and everybody who could pay did pay
TheDano1947 10 months ago
@TheDano1947 And preferably, a modest rate for a flat tax would do nicely. It's come down to high extortion from the rich, bad penalties for the middle class, and half the nation at large who don't even pay a single penny. I've even heard that in theory, a flat tax would actually give our gov't MORE MONEY than they know what to do with! Essentially, the more people you tax, the more money. But something's not right if our gov't is satisfied with taxing only half the nation(--welfare state--).
Agent1W 10 months ago
I agree we do pay too much in taxes
TheDano1947 10 months ago
Comment removed
GreatAmericanVideos 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@testar2 I'm an American student studying Economics in Sweden, and trust me, Sweden is not trying to be like the US. Sweden still has the #1 income equality in the world and the #2 tax revenues, only behind Denmark.
Swedish taxes may be on the decline since the crisis of the early 90s, but high taxes and over-regulation led them to poor growth in the 70s and 80s. If Sweden raised taxes, even more skilled workers and corporations would flee elsewhere (e.g. look up where IKEA is headquarted).
GreatAmericanVideos 11 months ago
Michael Moore is right, paying taxes does give a certain payoff. The best thing would be to get everyone to work, since more people would pay taxes and then then we could reduce the taxes and still have it balanced.
aguyyaknow 1 year ago
@aguyyaknow "Getting" everyone to work is called slavery. The only way to motivate people to work is to cut taxes (to make people see that their work pays off) and cut spending on social care, so people will be no longer punished for working and rewarded for lazyness, and that's what "conservatives" say. Generally Moore is really wrong in his statement about capitalism, socialsm never did it's job, if it's still working somewhere it's because of a)natural resources b)wealth gathered in the past.
shiverr1337 11 months ago
@shiverr1337
right, that´s what I said. Get people to work, so they earn money, so the economical cycle grows, so more taxes are paid. The more people work, the more the economy flourishes.
I don´t know what you thought I meant by "get" but I didn´t mean through the use of force, I meant by the use of reward.
In Sweden the socialistic functions work rather well, people aren´t taxed ridiculously much but enough to make things like free healthcare work.
aguyyaknow 11 months ago
@shiverr1337 What motivates me is the same thing that motivates the fat cats, Money and the more money I make the more motivated I am.
TheDano1947 10 months ago
michael moore is so awesome
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago