"Are you fucking crazy?" is about it! This country is trying it doing it's best to show that we have no morals and no values! And we need to fight back
lets get the two biggest liberal idiots together and put them on a show where they can say whatever they want without any kind of rebuttal. great job HBO
@jmrogers23 yea , THEYRE the idiots. if you watched this show on any kind of regular basis , youd know that bill maher has republicans on ALL the time. just cus you have a small dick, doesnt mean you can go around being wrong all the time.
The problem with socialists is that they have no way of defending their beliefs. Seeing as their beliefs led to men like Hitler, Stalin and Zedong. So instead they attack the flaws of capitalism, distracting people from the fact that socialist flaws greatly outweigh capitalist flaws. The bottom line is this, all ideologies are fucking shit, but some are better than others. Thats life, imperfection. Change what can be fixed, tolerate what can't, make the most of freedom and pleasure.
Get your facts straight Mr. Moore. Sewell Avery was not carried out of his office because he had not paid his taxes. He was carried out because he refused to obey an illegal order by the president of the United States; a president whose decision to oust Avery was sparked by a grudge. By the way, Avery was right. Congress later found Roosevelt’s actions to be unconstitutional. See time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,933315-1,00.html
You know Moore, if those companies didn't pay taxes there is usually a reason why. Maybe they donate a ton of money someplace or maybe they actually did pay their taxes, I admit, I didn't do the research to really know. But Moore, if you are going to state facts please, cite them so I can see myself and also please tell the full story.
@777danzig That is a good point, however a counter consideration is that corporations afford myriad tax write-offs by doing things that essentially cost them pennies.
@777danzig There are numerous loopholes that lawyers find to get their companies out of taxes. Some of these can be as stupid as cellphones for certain members of the company paid for by the company. So think of it this way. Company A buys cellphones and pays for the plan for all its executives. They then get a tax break. So essentially the execs now get free cellphones and the company doesn't pay taxes.
@LotisSHSU Something like that shouldn't be done at the federal level. The federal government shouldn't give tax breaks like that. Local government can though. That is the problem, the tax system is so complicated that only individuals that are paid to know it do. If the federal government had only the flat income tax then the tax system be better. There would be less loopholes because only the state will set the breaks and more people will know what they are.
No family memeber of a Supreme Court appointee should be involved in the fundraising of any kind of organization. It is not ethical. Thomas's wife recently quit the conservative one she was helping run. Roberts has been attending other fundraisers as well. what a crooked set of appointees. It is no wonder that they are in favor of corps. They have been bought out. Supreme Court has more power than the president. Corporations have found that out in the past 10-15 years. We will all soon be slaves
Polls don't mean shit if everyone doesn't vote. You don't get the true ideology of the people unless everyone actually participates. The right wing propaganda is very good at discouraging voters. especially the the ones on the right who are discouraged yet they still vote based on fear. Manipulation is easily done on the weak minded who can't make up their own damn mind and require a cable network to make the decision to them. That is called "voting against your own interest."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow! What a meltdown by Moore. I guess he needs to wring out his panties. This reminds me of the reaction of a spoiled bitch when she's been rejected by her boyfriend. Screaming hysteria. That's what we're seeing from the Professional Left these days as they KNOW the election was a rejection of their ideology...and they're in the "denial" phase; depression and acceptance will soon follow.
@JohnR22926 I challenge this assumption that the election was a rejection of liberal ideology.
During the health care debate, the public option consistently received over 55% of public support in polls, even after the nonsense about the "death panels". The final health care package did not feature this.
A majority of Americans now oppose war in Afghanistan; it is now being escalated.
A majority of Americans feel that the richest people aren't paying their fair share of taxes and that banks should be regulated. That isn't happening right now.
A majority of Americans support repeal of DADT; what did the Obama administration do to end it? Next to nothing.
Obama shouldn't be surprised that the right want him to fail; that was their goal all along. What he did was to alienate his base, especially the key young voter demographic. That's why Democrats lost.
@Freshmanwave Much has been made of the fact that individual elements of Obamacare poll well. But...try out this experiment. Go outside and ask people at random if they would like a candy bar. For those that say yes, you then tell them...OK that'll be $.75 cents please...and watch the majority of them say no. In other words, the Public Option polls well until you tell people what it will cost them. I also stand by my claim that voters reject liberal expansion of govt power and programs.
@Freshmanwave If you have a brain, you'll understand that interpretation of ANY election results is an exhaustive task and that both Repub and Dem hacks spin their theories to their own advantage. I suggest you google "2010 election results" and spend an hour reading; you can buy into the Dem theory that it was only about unemployment (i.e. if ONLY unemployment was 5% we would ALL be socialists now), or, you can decide Obama/Pelosi governed too far Left and were shellacked because of it.
@Freshmanwave In reality, virtually nothing Obama did on the most major policy decisions (health care, war, economy) suggested "left" at all. Nor was the manner "partisan" in any way (he concedes and concedes, until the core of the bill is stripped from it entirely). So your argument that the Democrats lost because he and Pelosi governed too far left doesn't really hold water.
@JohnR22926 So, if I don't "have a brain", explain to me: what expansion of government power were you referring to? I'm afraid that you left the question unanswered from my earlier post.
And also, which links should I read after I google "2010 election results"? Your instructions are much too vague. Can you clarify which ones to read for me? After all, some sources are more reliable than others.
lol, please if everyone went out and voted there would be no more Republican party and corporations would not be people. Since the Conservative Supreme court gave corporations more rights than your dumbass that is why you keep having these blatanly robberies of our tax money. The politicians are not the ones stealing the money, they are merely driving the get away car for the rich/corporations that are actually bagging our tax money. Get educated and look for the truth.
@5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS This is a Center-Right country; 42% of people call themselves conservatives, whereas only 18% identify themselves as liberals. Face it; you Leftists had a perfect storm and got total power in 2008 by LUCK. The voters corrected their error on November 2nd. BTW, all the Supreme Court did was to enforce the 1st ammendment which guarantees free speech; it says nothing about individuals, corporations, unions, etc. It says FREE SPEECH...FOR ALL. D'ya get it now? D'ya got it?
No, 2008 elections was not by luck. That was a case of the vote getting out. If that were to continue then there would be no more republican party. & the Supreme Court run by crony appointees like Thomas, Scolia and Roberts who have been bought by corporations is not a 1st amendment right. I guess what you mean is that if you have more money, you have more rights huh? Constitution doesn't mention that. Buying your electorate is not free speech. It is called CORRUPTION!
The Debt Commission is DOA; Leftists like Moore/Maher pitch a hissy fit over ANY proposal to reduce ANY entitlement, while the Right screeches over ANY talk of ANY tax hikes. What these cocksuckers can't quite grasp is that we're on a spending/taxation trajectory that CANNOT be sustained. Maher is constantly talking about how americans are stoooopid dogs....he needs to look in the mirror first.
@pinochet222 I've got an MBA and worked for 24 years as a supervisor in the federal govt; I know what I'm talking about. Yes, you're correct that Obama had a tiny, teensy reduction in federal income taxes. At that same time, most other taxes (like sales taxes, property taxes, so-called "user fee" taxes, etc.) were steadily increasing. And while taxes are certainly lower today than they were in the 1950s, they're STILL too high, and are hurting GDP growth.
@JohnR22926 Except that if you were right, we would have seen the Republicans hammer this point 24-7, with co-ordinated action from Fox News. But that didn't happen. Instead, we saw the "death panel" nonsense, whether it was in the chambers of Congress or the town halls or the talking points of insurance companies.
This focus on "death panels" and not on the supposed economic trade-off can be interpreted as:
1. The trade-off doesn't exist, or
2. The benefits far outweigh the problems, if it exists.
In other words, if your point really stood, Republicans would not need to descend to the dishonesty about "death panels" and would have won easily, considering the echo chamber they have at their disposal (Fox News, right-wing radio). But that isn't the case.
@JohnR22926 Ok, so those that you've mentioned are local and state taxes, they have nothing to do with Obama and widely fluctuate among different states and counties.
Unfortunately, states are forced to be austere and balance their budgets even in the time of very high unemployment so they are constantly looking for new revenue sources, especially now.
And of course Republicans foolishly killed additional aid to states in the Senate....
Tax cuts stimulate the economy the least, so you're wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@pinochet222 tax cuts mean nothing, it is spending cuts that are good for the economy, tax cuts are just a great side effect, so you are right to say that tax cuts dont stimulate the economy but for the wrong reason. in 1930 the gov started raising taxes and raising spending and it resulted in a 10 plus year depression, if the gov would have cut spending and cut taxes in 1930 the depression would have probably been over in a year or two. just like 1921.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@pinochet222 cutting spending during a recession is exactly what has to be done. what is idiotic and barbaric is what the government did in the 30's which was to raise spending dramatically, how did that work out? lol it meant poverty for millions for over a decade. how can u defend such nonsense. you should try thinking on your own instead of repeating what what the government and media tells you to think.
@pinochet222 You are actually UPSET that States re required to balance their budgets! Unbelievable! Don't you realize that without this clause that EVERY State would be in the same debt situation as the Federal govt? What is it that you Leftists don't understand about the concept of bankruptcy?
Second, tax cuts are the optimal method of generating GDP growth over the long term. Govt spending (Keysianism) is best at temporary stimulus spending. We CANNOT borrow/spend our way to prosperity.
@JohnR22926 I don't even understand what you're bitching about in the first half of your post. Some states have bigger economies than most countries and they run admirable social safety nets for the people there, so it's only logical that they should be able to run deficits (OR get temporary federal help in deep recessions like this) or those safety nets should become universal everywhere.
Unpaid for tax cuts (those that increase the debt) are worse than "Keysianism" anyhow. That's the point.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone would care what Michael Moore says?!
nickchiz62 3 months ago
@nickchiz62 Cuz he makes good points?
TBH, he on his own makes more sense than all republicans and all of fox news corp, and all religions combined...
Stormshade1492 2 months ago
"Are you fucking crazy?" is about it! This country is trying it doing it's best to show that we have no morals and no values! And we need to fight back
Dahgrostabphri 3 months ago
Where can I find the Mitt's the shit video?
ivansimkovic 5 months ago
"Are you fucking crazy?" No, Michael...just greedy.
emantabrizi 9 months ago
interesting point
shuforce 9 months ago
if theres a Deficit, just make Exxon, CocaCola, and McD's corp. pay the difference! It don't matter to Jesus!
Justen1980 9 months ago 2
lets get the two biggest liberal idiots together and put them on a show where they can say whatever they want without any kind of rebuttal. great job HBO
jmrogers23 11 months ago
@jmrogers23 yea , THEYRE the idiots. if you watched this show on any kind of regular basis , youd know that bill maher has republicans on ALL the time. just cus you have a small dick, doesnt mean you can go around being wrong all the time.
phish1085 10 months ago 3
@jmrogers23 He always has republicans on dumbass, and they always get embarrased by how stupid they are.
coopmuch56 10 months ago 6
Maybe Moore should look up the tax filings at the SEC. Really easy to find.
rmbarriostv 1 year ago
The problem with socialists is that they have no way of defending their beliefs. Seeing as their beliefs led to men like Hitler, Stalin and Zedong. So instead they attack the flaws of capitalism, distracting people from the fact that socialist flaws greatly outweigh capitalist flaws. The bottom line is this, all ideologies are fucking shit, but some are better than others. Thats life, imperfection. Change what can be fixed, tolerate what can't, make the most of freedom and pleasure.
AmericanBadass44 1 year ago
I always find it amusing when Liberals complain about human problems as if they are strictly American problems.
AmericanBadass44 1 year ago
Get your facts straight Mr. Moore. Sewell Avery was not carried out of his office because he had not paid his taxes. He was carried out because he refused to obey an illegal order by the president of the United States; a president whose decision to oust Avery was sparked by a grudge. By the way, Avery was right. Congress later found Roosevelt’s actions to be unconstitutional. See time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,933315-1,00.html
StructuredPsychology 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
lynneatwater 1 year ago
Micheal Moore all the wayy!!!!!!!!!!!
ghool1000 1 year ago 3
@ghool1000 You poor bastard, you have no idea do you?
AmericanBadass44 1 year ago
You know Moore, if those companies didn't pay taxes there is usually a reason why. Maybe they donate a ton of money someplace or maybe they actually did pay their taxes, I admit, I didn't do the research to really know. But Moore, if you are going to state facts please, cite them so I can see myself and also please tell the full story.
777danzig 1 year ago
@777danzig That is a good point, however a counter consideration is that corporations afford myriad tax write-offs by doing things that essentially cost them pennies.
incrowdcynic 1 year ago
Comment removed
FyodorMDostoyevsky 1 year ago
@777danzig There are numerous loopholes that lawyers find to get their companies out of taxes. Some of these can be as stupid as cellphones for certain members of the company paid for by the company. So think of it this way. Company A buys cellphones and pays for the plan for all its executives. They then get a tax break. So essentially the execs now get free cellphones and the company doesn't pay taxes.
LotisSHSU 1 year ago
@LotisSHSU Something like that shouldn't be done at the federal level. The federal government shouldn't give tax breaks like that. Local government can though. That is the problem, the tax system is so complicated that only individuals that are paid to know it do. If the federal government had only the flat income tax then the tax system be better. There would be less loopholes because only the state will set the breaks and more people will know what they are.
777danzig 1 year ago
No family memeber of a Supreme Court appointee should be involved in the fundraising of any kind of organization. It is not ethical. Thomas's wife recently quit the conservative one she was helping run. Roberts has been attending other fundraisers as well. what a crooked set of appointees. It is no wonder that they are in favor of corps. They have been bought out. Supreme Court has more power than the president. Corporations have found that out in the past 10-15 years. We will all soon be slaves
5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS 1 year ago
@MrDustock
Polls don't mean shit if everyone doesn't vote. You don't get the true ideology of the people unless everyone actually participates. The right wing propaganda is very good at discouraging voters. especially the the ones on the right who are discouraged yet they still vote based on fear. Manipulation is easily done on the weak minded who can't make up their own damn mind and require a cable network to make the decision to them. That is called "voting against your own interest."
5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS 1 year ago
@MrDustock Again, the ideology didn't lose; Democrats lost because they weren't true to the ideology, causing a big enthusiasm void in their base.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow! What a meltdown by Moore. I guess he needs to wring out his panties. This reminds me of the reaction of a spoiled bitch when she's been rejected by her boyfriend. Screaming hysteria. That's what we're seeing from the Professional Left these days as they KNOW the election was a rejection of their ideology...and they're in the "denial" phase; depression and acceptance will soon follow.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 I challenge this assumption that the election was a rejection of liberal ideology.
During the health care debate, the public option consistently received over 55% of public support in polls, even after the nonsense about the "death panels". The final health care package did not feature this.
A majority of Americans now oppose war in Afghanistan; it is now being escalated.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave
A majority of Americans feel that the richest people aren't paying their fair share of taxes and that banks should be regulated. That isn't happening right now.
A majority of Americans support repeal of DADT; what did the Obama administration do to end it? Next to nothing.
Obama shouldn't be surprised that the right want him to fail; that was their goal all along. What he did was to alienate his base, especially the key young voter demographic. That's why Democrats lost.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave Much has been made of the fact that individual elements of Obamacare poll well. But...try out this experiment. Go outside and ask people at random if they would like a candy bar. For those that say yes, you then tell them...OK that'll be $.75 cents please...and watch the majority of them say no. In other words, the Public Option polls well until you tell people what it will cost them. I also stand by my claim that voters reject liberal expansion of govt power and programs.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 Back up your claim that voters "rejected liberal expansion of government power and programs" with concrete data. I'd like to see it.
Also, explain to me: what expansion of government power are you referring to?
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave If you have a brain, you'll understand that interpretation of ANY election results is an exhaustive task and that both Repub and Dem hacks spin their theories to their own advantage. I suggest you google "2010 election results" and spend an hour reading; you can buy into the Dem theory that it was only about unemployment (i.e. if ONLY unemployment was 5% we would ALL be socialists now), or, you can decide Obama/Pelosi governed too far Left and were shellacked because of it.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 Except if that were the case, we would have seen:
1. A majority rejecting the public option
2. A majority wanting lower taxes for the rich
3. A majority wanting less regulation for banks
4. A majority wanting to keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan
5. A majority wanting to continue DADT
Trouble for you is, none of the things mentioned earlier in this post are true.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave In reality, virtually nothing Obama did on the most major policy decisions (health care, war, economy) suggested "left" at all. Nor was the manner "partisan" in any way (he concedes and concedes, until the core of the bill is stripped from it entirely). So your argument that the Democrats lost because he and Pelosi governed too far left doesn't really hold water.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave I agree.
Stingerbillion 11 months ago
@JohnR22926 So, if I don't "have a brain", explain to me: what expansion of government power were you referring to? I'm afraid that you left the question unanswered from my earlier post.
And also, which links should I read after I google "2010 election results"? Your instructions are much too vague. Can you clarify which ones to read for me? After all, some sources are more reliable than others.
I await your answer.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@JohnR22926
lol, please if everyone went out and voted there would be no more Republican party and corporations would not be people. Since the Conservative Supreme court gave corporations more rights than your dumbass that is why you keep having these blatanly robberies of our tax money. The politicians are not the ones stealing the money, they are merely driving the get away car for the rich/corporations that are actually bagging our tax money. Get educated and look for the truth.
5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS 1 year ago
@5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS This is a Center-Right country; 42% of people call themselves conservatives, whereas only 18% identify themselves as liberals. Face it; you Leftists had a perfect storm and got total power in 2008 by LUCK. The voters corrected their error on November 2nd. BTW, all the Supreme Court did was to enforce the 1st ammendment which guarantees free speech; it says nothing about individuals, corporations, unions, etc. It says FREE SPEECH...FOR ALL. D'ya get it now? D'ya got it?
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926
No, 2008 elections was not by luck. That was a case of the vote getting out. If that were to continue then there would be no more republican party. & the Supreme Court run by crony appointees like Thomas, Scolia and Roberts who have been bought by corporations is not a 1st amendment right. I guess what you mean is that if you have more money, you have more rights huh? Constitution doesn't mention that. Buying your electorate is not free speech. It is called CORRUPTION!
5LiterRapesCAMAROaSS 1 year ago
The Debt Commission is DOA; Leftists like Moore/Maher pitch a hissy fit over ANY proposal to reduce ANY entitlement, while the Right screeches over ANY talk of ANY tax hikes. What these cocksuckers can't quite grasp is that we're on a spending/taxation trajectory that CANNOT be sustained. Maher is constantly talking about how americans are stoooopid dogs....he needs to look in the mirror first.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 educate yourself, taxes have never been so low for so long in the modern history of the United States !
and they went DOWN under Obama!
pinochet222 1 year ago 23
@pinochet222 I've got an MBA and worked for 24 years as a supervisor in the federal govt; I know what I'm talking about. Yes, you're correct that Obama had a tiny, teensy reduction in federal income taxes. At that same time, most other taxes (like sales taxes, property taxes, so-called "user fee" taxes, etc.) were steadily increasing. And while taxes are certainly lower today than they were in the 1950s, they're STILL too high, and are hurting GDP growth.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 Except that if you were right, we would have seen the Republicans hammer this point 24-7, with co-ordinated action from Fox News. But that didn't happen. Instead, we saw the "death panel" nonsense, whether it was in the chambers of Congress or the town halls or the talking points of insurance companies.
(cont. on next post)
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@Freshmanwave
(from prev. post)
This focus on "death panels" and not on the supposed economic trade-off can be interpreted as:
1. The trade-off doesn't exist, or
2. The benefits far outweigh the problems, if it exists.
In other words, if your point really stood, Republicans would not need to descend to the dishonesty about "death panels" and would have won easily, considering the echo chamber they have at their disposal (Fox News, right-wing radio). But that isn't the case.
Freshmanwave 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 Ok, so those that you've mentioned are local and state taxes, they have nothing to do with Obama and widely fluctuate among different states and counties.
Unfortunately, states are forced to be austere and balance their budgets even in the time of very high unemployment so they are constantly looking for new revenue sources, especially now.
And of course Republicans foolishly killed additional aid to states in the Senate....
Tax cuts stimulate the economy the least, so you're wrong.
pinochet222 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@pinochet222 tax cuts mean nothing, it is spending cuts that are good for the economy, tax cuts are just a great side effect, so you are right to say that tax cuts dont stimulate the economy but for the wrong reason. in 1930 the gov started raising taxes and raising spending and it resulted in a 10 plus year depression, if the gov would have cut spending and cut taxes in 1930 the depression would have probably been over in a year or two. just like 1921.
slickbtk 1 year ago
@slickbtk what you've posted doesn't make any kind of sense.
Also, cutting spending in the middle of a recession is both barbaric and idiotic.
pinochet222 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@pinochet222 cutting spending during a recession is exactly what has to be done. what is idiotic and barbaric is what the government did in the 30's which was to raise spending dramatically, how did that work out? lol it meant poverty for millions for over a decade. how can u defend such nonsense. you should try thinking on your own instead of repeating what what the government and media tells you to think.
slickbtk 1 year ago
@pinochet222 You are actually UPSET that States re required to balance their budgets! Unbelievable! Don't you realize that without this clause that EVERY State would be in the same debt situation as the Federal govt? What is it that you Leftists don't understand about the concept of bankruptcy?
Second, tax cuts are the optimal method of generating GDP growth over the long term. Govt spending (Keysianism) is best at temporary stimulus spending. We CANNOT borrow/spend our way to prosperity.
JohnR22926 1 year ago
@JohnR22926 I don't even understand what you're bitching about in the first half of your post. Some states have bigger economies than most countries and they run admirable social safety nets for the people there, so it's only logical that they should be able to run deficits (OR get temporary federal help in deep recessions like this) or those safety nets should become universal everywhere.
Unpaid for tax cuts (those that increase the debt) are worse than "Keysianism" anyhow. That's the point.
pinochet222 1 year ago 3
@pinochet222 my income tax return would beg to differ
pmhoard 1 year ago