I have no special love for this man, but he is essentially describing the net effect of what is happening. They have already exercised their unique 'power' and further indebted the Americans for 630 Billion. BEFORE the bailout.

When such wealth is consolidated, against the will of it's rightful owners, rushed under the pretense of legislative 'martial' law authority, into the hands of a 'select' few - that's financial terrorism people.

Treason comes to mind.

Originally posted by Critical_Mass
Love him or hate him, Michael Moore is a brave American looking out for others and trying to make sure people are educated on the truth. Not what the news and the president tell you.

Not to mention one who is making a lot of money on being so brave, and one who doesn't hesitate to spin facts or editorialize circumstances in his favor. Moore's real value is simply in bringing these issues to the forefront; where he goes from there has substantially less value.

It is just sad that he is pushing his agenda to make a point (healthcare) I am not disagreeing with the concept of Nationalized healthcare but it is NOT the main reason people lost their homes. For a great percentage it was because interest rates were kept artificially low for a set term, as an unscrupulous selling tactic, and then were raised to the normal rate after that term expired, often doubling mortgage payments.

If he just kept to facts it would suit him a whole lot better.



[edit on 30/9/08 by Lebowski achiever]

The rape and pillage of the wealth of the country by and for the privileged few is so blatant,.and yet goes unchallenged by those that are voted into office to represent us. Don't worry, you will be rewarded when you get to heaven. Hmmm, I wonder how many years O.J. will get. I want to scream!

I'm not a fan of his. His movies are weak and misleading. It's almost like he is putting out some of the weakest arguments for something so that it can be struck down, or promoting half the picture as truth for special interests.

I mean look at his 9/11 movie. It was weak. It went mainstream, and then people seem to think if they seen the movie, all the arguments are made. But in reality it simply didn't do much justice. Didn't really teach anyone anything.

And then look at his universal healthcare deal. Why is nobody mentioning the fact that if they want universal healthcare, then all they have to do is add an amendment to the constitution? 1 simple line, not 1000's upon 1000's of pages of legislation?

"Healthcare shall not be denied to citizens" or something of that effect? Where it is by default applied to everyone equally? Instead, he seems to go along with the general welfare clause abuse. Where special rights are given to select individuals, at the expense of everyone.

I'm not even a fan of universal healthcare, but even I can see how it should be done to be fair and equal.

So I dunno. I usually agree with him when he points out a problem. But when you look towards seeing the entire picture, he just leaves me scratching my head on how he doesn't think somethings are important. Or how he wants to pretend the constitution doesn't serve the people, and wants to get rid of it.

I mean, does he even mention the federal reserve? He calls it the biggest robbery etc. But what about the robbery for the past 100 years?

To say it's a big robbery is the obvious. But what about the big picture?

Is he only worried about the amount of money being taken this time? What about the entire system that allows it? Is he talking about an honest money system at all? Because if he wants to start talking about honest money, he is going to be having a hard time promoting universal healthcare when the taxes get raised to take the funds, rather than the invisible hand stealing the purchasing power on Americans through inflation.

Because then "free" healthcare, is no longer under the illusion that it's "free".

[edit on 5-10-2008 by badmedia]