It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.





Ok, lets look at some economics...if the rich get tax breaks at the expense of the rest of you...does it mean that they are sitting on your money? If they are doing just hunky-dory through bail-out funds paid for by the taxpayer...are they sitting on your money?


Matter of fact MOST rich people didn't and were against it because it sets an unfair precedent whereby government is deciding who wins and who loses rather than letting companies and individuals fail, as they rightly should, for crappy decisions and criminal acts.


I know you wrote those words, but I am still scratching my head trying to think of why you did.

I agree that most of the "rich" are not literally bankers or wall street brokers, but they definetly had large interests in those sectors being bailed out to secure investments that otherwise would have been worthless.



WSJ/NBC Poll: Voters Split on Bailout Plan.Article Comments

The poll also shows that wealthier voters support it by larger margins than lower income voters, with 48% of voters who earn $75,000 or more approving of the plan and just 12% of voters who earn less than $30,000 oppose the bailout.

blogs.wsj.com...

...I know it is fashionable these days to pretend you never supported them, but in the age of television it's hard to re-write history

Here is the most recent I could google up in a few seconds..

Flip-Flop? Tim Pawlenty Denies Supporting Bailouts
www.realclearpolitics.com...


Originally posted by projectvxn
Hypocrites who preach to all of us about the virtues of their socialist ideology while suing for profits and telling the rest of us that having profits is wrong deserve no quarter. They should be shunned for the idiot fat bastard morons they are.



And as a moderator on this site, I expect more decorum from you...your language and tone is setting a lousy example.


Use the Complaint Feature.

My moderator status has no bearing on the subject of this thread. Leave it out and use the proper channels if you have a problem.


Yes as a "Moderator" you are permitted to post as an individual contributor without being required to behave as a mod.

It's Johnny's fault for expecting more, a mistake I myself have made on occasion. I think in part it is due to the excellent example the vast majority of Mods on ATS set.

That said IMO your posts are often beligerant and antogonistic and it erodes civil debate amongst the threads. That is directed at you as a poster, not a "Mod".
edit on 3-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


Thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
Sorry, but Moore is a lying sack of feces. His "documentaries" are anything but. If you've ever watched any of the rebuttal films, they point out - very persuasively - that Moore is an expert at outright lies, general disinfo, creative editing, and promoting himself as a defender of the common man when he is anything but.

In a land where it is said that there is no need for unions because everyone has recourse to the courts, how come nobody has been able to sue him for his apparent dissemination of lies since 'Roger and Me'?
Ya believes what ya wants to believe...but I'd say there are a greater number of lies attached to rebutting him than he generates himself. Why not? There's a lot of rich pukes that he embarrasses on a regular basis.

Luckily they have dittoheads to hide behind.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by OldCorp
Sorry, but Moore is a lying sack of feces. His "documentaries" are anything but. If you've ever watched any of the rebuttal films, they point out - very persuasively - that Moore is an expert at outright lies, general disinfo, creative editing, and promoting himself as a defender of the common man when he is anything but.

In a land where it is said that there is no need for unions because everyone has recourse to the courts, how come nobody has been able to sue him for his apparent dissemination of lies since 'Roger and Me'?
Ya believes what ya wants to believe...but I'd say there are a greater number of lies attached to rebutting him than he generates himself. Why not? There's a lot of rich pukes that he embarrasses on a regular basis.

Luckily they have dittoheads to hide behind.


Didn't you get the memo? It's OK to lie in media, especially in a feature film. Unless someone can prove damages from libel or slander, they have no basis for a suit. Moore is very careful in the way in which he words his scripts. I'll give you an example:

Libel/slander-type speech: Joe Smith is a child murderer.
Free speech: Reports say that Joe Smith is a child murderer.

See the difference? Moore's a scumbag, but he's not a stupid scumbag. I'm sure he has lawyers looking over his scripts that tell him how far he can go without setting himself up for a lawsuit - and he'll put a toe on the line every time.

EDIT: I changed the name from Obama to Joe Smith in my example. I forgot for a second that celebrities and politicians do not have the same recourse "normal" people do when it comes to libelous statements. That's how the Globe and National Enquirer stay in business. They can say outrageous stuff (as long as it's couched in language similar to my example,) but can get away with much more when they slam a celeb/pol than if they were to write about an average "Joe."
edit on 3/3/2011 by OldCorp because: Changed the name in my example



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Who is going to sue him? For what?
He is a genius in his craft, I will give him that. But he is a truth contortionist.
He does not report his findings as a news outlet. There is still freedom of speech.
He creates films based on his opinion. I really see how he could be sued unless he went on the attack on a single individual.
If he can be sued, why not sue any film maker for inaccuracies or fiction?

Funny how he is shown to be untruthful, yet the reply is in reference to "Ditto Heads".



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
He's an attention whoring amalgamation of Jerry Seinfeld & Ralph Nader. Some bizarre sort of stand up activist comedian who overstates the obvious while attempting to get a cheap laugh and then sprinkles extremist unfounded views liberally across his opinions purely because he understands those extremist "WHAT!?!?!?" viewpoints will ultimately cause more people to watch him. A fine example of a man who clearly believes there is no such thing as negative exposure, there is only exposure and non-exposure (which does nothing to sate his appetite for public attention).

If you hate Micheal Moore, ignore him. His worst enemy is public apathy towards Micheal Moore.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
Didn't you get the memo? It's OK to lie in media, especially in a feature film. Unless someone can prove damages from libel or slander, they have no basis for a suit.


If he was promoting malicious falsehoods then I would imagine he could be sued for damages. So I guess he isn't lying, because there are a lot of aforementioned rich pukes who pay the dough to shut him up. They can make films in rebuttal...but they can't beat him in court.

Just as an interesting sidebar...in Canada, Fox declined to set up shop because of a law against lying on the airwaves. Yet Moore's films are able to be shown on TV...and nobody's sued him in our courts or brought it up before our regulatory body.

Curious, that.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by OldCorp
Didn't you get the memo? It's OK to lie in media, especially in a feature film. Unless someone can prove damages from libel or slander, they have no basis for a suit.


If he was promoting malicious falsehoods then I would imagine he could be sued for damages. So I guess he isn't lying, because there are a lot of aforementioned rich pukes who pay the dough to shut him up. They can make films in rebuttal...but they can't beat him in court.

Just as an interesting sidebar...in Canada, Fox declined to set up shop because of a law against lying on the airwaves. Yet Moore's films are able to be shown on TV...and nobody's sued him in our courts or brought it up before our regulatory body.

Curious, that.


Moore= Film maker
Fox= News Outlet

You can no more sue him for his films, then to sue Roland Emmerich for creating the Day after tomorrow or 2012. Are these events going to happen? When they don't, can you sue him? Nope.

Moore knows how to work the system.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by projectvxn
 

If the wealthy get inordinate tax breaks that deprive the lower classes of a quality of life...that's bogus.
If Moore is getting screwed by a corporation out of money that is rightfully his...why not sue? Wouldn't you?
And I did put in a complaint about your lack of decorum. Sorry...you are now held to a higher standard.



"Johnny canuck":How does Steve Jobs of Apple (a classic success story for one example ) come from a garage based shop to deprive the"lower class of a quality life"? Infact I'd submit: This wealthy man has done more to improve the quality of life of far more people than go see the "pillsbury douchebags" 'socialist commentary movies.

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by OldCorp
Didn't you get the memo? It's OK to lie in media, especially in a feature film. Unless someone can prove damages from libel or slander, they have no basis for a suit.


If he was promoting malicious falsehoods then I would imagine he could be sued for damages. So I guess he isn't lying, because there are a lot of aforementioned rich pukes who pay the dough to shut him up. They can make films in rebuttal...but they can't beat him in court.

Just as an interesting sidebar...in Canada, Fox declined to set up shop because of a law against lying on the airwaves. Yet Moore's films are able to be shown on TV...and nobody's sued him in our courts or brought it up before our regulatory body.

Curious, that.


Moore= Film maker
Fox= News Outlet

You can no more sue him for his films, then to sue Roland Emmerich for creating the Day after tomorrow or 2012. Are these events going to happen? When they don't, can you sue him? Nope.
Moore knows how to work the system.

I didn't notice Emmerich winning an Oscar for "Best Documentary Feature", nor the Palme d'Or as a documentary. You are comparing oranges and rocks. There is a much more apt comparison between...oh, let's say "news outlets" and documentary films, n'est ce pas?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by projectvxn
 

If the wealthy get inordinate tax breaks that deprive the lower classes of a quality of life...that's bogus.
If Moore is getting screwed by a corporation out of money that is rightfully his...why not sue? Wouldn't you?
And I did put in a complaint about your lack of decorum. Sorry...you are now held to a higher standard.

how does Steve Jobs of apple (a classic success storyfor one example ) come from a garage based shop to deprive the"lower class of a quality life"? Infact I'd submit: This wealthy man has done more to improve the quality of life of far more people than go see the "pillsbury douchebags" 'socialist coomentary movies.

And what is Jobs doing with his dough? Who said he's a bad guy? Has he asked the American people to bail him out because RIM (Canadians, no less) are giving him a run for his money? Has he cheated the American taxpayer in any way? In fact, is he being socially responsible with his dough? Would he pay a higher tax rate if asked, or is he whinging to Congress about what he is required to pay? Is he as good a corporate citizen as...I donno...Citybank? Couldn't say...but you might want to find out, cuz I don't think he was being cited as a strain upon your resources, but I could be wrong. It isn't wrong to build wealth. It's wrong to suck it out of everybody else's pocket and whine about paying taxes on it.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Moore is absolutely right. The problem with people who criticize Moore is that they can't get past their brainwashing to ever sit down and watch one of his movies. They receive their opinion from a conservative show (video, radio, or tv) and lack the intelligence to objectively look at the information. They are afraid to. It would destroy their world view. They pretend to be experts on the economy and capitalism and most have never read a single book on capitalism. This is the rule not the exception.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
"Johnny canuck":How does Steve Jobs of Apple (a classic success story for one example ) come from a garage based shop to deprive the"lower class of a quality life"? Infact I'd submit: This wealthy man has done more to improve the quality of life of far more people than go see the "pillsbury douchebags" 'socialist commentary movies.

edit on 3-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Steve Jobs is worth 6.1 Billion...If he decided to buy as many MILLION dollar Homes as he could, he would own over 6000 Million dollar estates and not owe a mortgage.

I don't think he will feel the pain if his marginal tax rate inches up by a measly 2%...


There is class warfare alright.
But it is MY class - the rich class - that is making war, and were winning!
I am a conscientous objector

- Warren Buffet

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

44% of Congress people are millionaires

www.fiscalstrength.com...

Also see here...
Billionaires voice support for higher taxes on the wealthy
thehill.com...

Now can anyone tell me where that Bailout money went that was supposed to be spent by banks in the form of business loans and lowered credit card rates etc to spur spending and hiring? That was our money....Money we can ill afford.

Urged to Lend, Banks Sit on Bailout Cash
dealbook.nytimes.com...


edit on 3-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

I earned all of my money and I still feel the need to give to others. I know I earned what I have but I would be an arrogant and prideful man to not realize I gained it because I am very fortunate and was presented opportunities not everybody has. Therefore, I give much away. My personal spiritual guidelines (call it religion if you like) prevent me from detailing how much and to whom but I can say that, at times, it trumped my tax outflow. I simply don't need it all. That's the funny thing about money... you always have more than you need but you never has as much as you want.


And ...

The point you are missing is ...

Doesn't matter what your reasons for giving are, it was still your choice to do it. No government decided for you and forced you to do it.
edit on 3/3/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Michael Moore is bang on the money.

Billionaires are hoarding their cash - thus earning millions of dollars in interest that comes from the little guy paying interest on his mortgage and car loan - without putting nearly enough of it back into circulation to generate employment and wealth for other less fortunate individuals.

The more they hoard the greater the interest they earn - the less money there is for everyone else. It's not rocket science. This state of affairs is unfair and completely unsustainable.



I'm quite surprised at the lack of support for Mr Moore on this thread.

The world needs more men like Michael as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11


I don't think he will feel the pain if his marginal tax rate inches up by a measly 2%...


There is class warfare alright.
But it is MY class - the rich class - that is making war, and were winning!
I am a conscientous objector

- Warren Buffet

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

44% of Congress people are millionaires

www.fiscalstrength.com...

Also see here...
Billionaires voice support for higher taxes on the wealthy
thehill.com...

Now can anyone tell me where that Bailout money went that was supposed to be spent by banks in the form of business loans and lowered credit card rates etc to spur spending and hiring? That was our money....Money we can ill afford.

Urged to Lend, Banks Sit on Bailout Cash
dealbook.nytimes.com...


edit on 3-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)


But again the selective reporting.

The dems didn't try to end the tax cuts for just those "earning millions", or "billionaires". They tried to end them for people earning $250,000 - the business people that also employ most Americans.

You are seeing class warfare promoted here with many false statements.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Some of the responses to Moore's opinions are rather shocking for a conspiracy theory site. I think it is worth noting that Moore wants the GOVERNMENT to take people's money and redistribute it "more equitably." Did it ever occur to you that some of the WORST problems we have in America today are due to the government's mishandling of our tax dollars?

For example, we are engaged in two ridiculous conflicts, probably to catalyze the defense industry, which is largely supported by extraordinarily inflated government contracts. What makes any of you think that taxing the rich is going to result in wealth being distributed more equitably? The money will almost certainly end up in the hands of the type of people your blanket perception attempts to remove it from, and, if history is any example, will make the distribution of wealth unimaginably worse! Take a look at the bread lines in the Soviet Union, and you should have an idea what I'm talking about.

If anything, Michael Moore is behind a NWO conspiracy to rob you of your hard earned money so it can be placed squarely in the hands of those who rule you.

To those who support Michael Moore, I'd be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, if I were you.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by projectvxn
 

If the wealthy get inordinate tax breaks that deprive the lower classes of a quality of life...that's bogus.
If Moore is getting screwed by a corporation out of money that is rightfully his...why not sue? Wouldn't you?
And I did put in a complaint about your lack of decorum. Sorry...you are now held to a higher standard.


Just shut up about the so called massive tax breaks the wealthy get, it is not true. The top 1% pays nearly half of all the tax in this country. The tax breaks on cap gains are meant to stimulate and is nothing to do with being wealthy. If you want to whine about huge corporations getting tax breaks through loopholes or such, fine, but quit vilifying the so called wealthy.

It really shows the media's dumb down effect when mindless sheep spit out Moore's rhetoric over and over again.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dwigt

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by projectvxn
 

If the wealthy get inordinate tax breaks that deprive the lower classes of a quality of life...that's bogus.
If Moore is getting screwed by a corporation out of money that is rightfully his...why not sue? Wouldn't you?
And I did put in a complaint about your lack of decorum. Sorry...you are now held to a higher standard.


Just shut up about the so called massive tax breaks the wealthy get, it is not true. The top 1% pays nearly half of all the tax in this country. The tax breaks on cap gains are meant to stimulate and is nothing to do with being wealthy. If you want to whine about huge corporations getting tax breaks through loopholes or such, fine, but quit vilifying the so called wealthy.

It really shows the media's dumb down effect when mindless sheep spit out Moore's rhetoric over and over again.

Gee...that stimulus that the corporations are just throwing at your economy...howze that working out for you? Not your tax money...their profits. I understand the foreclosure industry is particularly hot.
edit on 3-3-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: of punctuation.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


In the real world, where we grown ups live, all business is not conducted by Wall Street banks. Maybe news travels a bit slower up there, so I guess I can understand your lack of knowledge on how things really work.

Look, I think there are greedy pukes out there that stole money from the American public, which includes me, but that does not mean that every business is corrupt and out to screw the little guy. You need to distinguish your hatred of what happened in '08 with the real world most of us live in.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join