• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let's "Deal With It Nonviolently Now"

From what I gather, it seems that he has no problem with the rich (that would include him, I suspect) paying a higher percentage of taxes. He does not expect the rich to hand over their money directly to the poor. He just wants everyone to pay their fair share. I don't see anyhting wrong with that.

Why is it better to give your money to a bloated wasteful government to disperse as opposed to giving the money directly yourself? As individuals we give $300 billion annually. Just because we are not funnelling it through the government first does not mean we are not sharing our wealth. Individuals in the U.S. give more internationally than every other country (excluding the U.S.) combined gives. We give more than the U.S. government gives.
 
You only get a break if you claim it. I donate around $2000 in money, time, or goods to charity throughout the year, but I don't claim it. Why? Because I don't participate in charitable giving for the financial reward. These people saying the noble thing are still just saying. They are perfectly capable of actually taking action but generally do not.

I don't either. I have no idea how much I donate but I claim none of it on my taxes.
 
You only get a break if you claim it. I donate around $2000 in money, time, or goods to charity throughout the year, but I don't claim it. Why? Because I don't participate in charitable giving for the financial reward. These people saying the noble thing are still just saying. They are perfectly capable of actually taking action but generally do not.

And that, my dear, is propbably why you'll never be rich. Though I am not sure it's the complete truth, I have heard many times that the rich stay rich because they don't spend. For instance what they give in donations comes back to them. I do have few of my rich friends who do this.
 
Michael Moore really has no credibility in my mind. He's a slob of an idealist and a hypocrite at that.
 
Why is it better to give your money to a bloated wasteful government to disperse as opposed to giving the money directly yourself? As individuals we give $300 billion annually. Just because we are not funnelling it through the government first does not mean we are not sharing our wealth. Individuals in the U.S. give more internationally than every other country (excluding the U.S.) combined gives. We give more than the U.S. government gives.

Let's say you have an idea, start your business and build a factory right in the good ole US of A. Do you not think for a moment that taxpayers money would help you?
 
From what I gather, it seems that he has no problem with the rich (that would include him, I suspect) paying a higher percentage of taxes. He does not expect the rich to hand over their money directly to the poor. He just wants everyone to pay their fair share. I don't see anyhting wrong with that.
Certainly sounds reasonable. The problem arises when we try to figure out what a "fair share" is.

If I'm worth $80 Million and I inherited it all, what's my "fair share (this should be an easy one)?"
If have $150,000 in the bank, but I earned that from Alaskan Crabbing (probably the most dangerous profession) what's my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5,000,000 and 70% of that was earned by starting/building/owning a chain of Garbage Collection Companies and 30% is "passive income (investments)," how much is my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5 Billion by developing a social media tool that improved the life of millions for free (against pressure to the contrary), what is my "fair share to cut away?"

So how much do you think it's "fair" to hack away from these people's lives because they "dared to be successful?"

Of course, "some" should be taken away and the rich should be taxed more than the other classes, but what consitutes "fair" has many different meanings depending one your perspective.
 
Last edited:
Let's say you have an idea, start your business and build a factory right in the good ole US of A. Do you not think for a moment that taxpayers money would help you?

I think in that situation that I will be paying quite a bit in taxes already. Are you assuming they are not?
 
Certainly sounds reasonable. The problem arises when we try to figure out what a "fair share" is.

If I'm worth $80 Million and I inherited it all, what's my "fair share (this should be an easy one)?"
If have $150,000 in the bank, but I earned that from Alaskan Crabbing (probably the most dangerous profession) what's my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5,000,000 and 70% of that was earned by starting/building/owning a chain of Garbage Collection Companies and 30% is "passive income (investments)," how much is my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5 Billion by developing a social media tool that improved the life of millions for free (against pressure to the contrary), what is my "fair share to cut away?"

So how much do you think it's "fair" to hack away from these people's lives because they "dared to be successful?"

Of course, "some" should be taken away and the rich should be taxed more than the other classes, but what consitutes "fair" has many different meanings depending one your perspective.

I am not sure. First, my country is different. Form what I do know, we don't get taxed on inheritance (hasn't that already been taxed?) or winnings (lottery). But the more you make, the higher the bracket. Also we have tax shelters that are quite beneficial.
 
Last edited:
I think in that situation that I will be paying quite a bit in taxes already. Are you assuming they are not?

Yes. And you'll also be using the benefit of tax dollars that paid for the roads to you factory, and the educated people that you hire. I'm sure if there's a fire, tax dollars will be there to put it out.
 
Last edited:
Yes. And you'll also be using the benefit of tax dollars that paid for the roads to you factory, and the educated people that you hire. I'm sure if there's a fire, tax dollars will be there to put it out.

I never argued that we should pay no taxes. I argued that we do spread the wealth and there is no reason the government should control that.
 
I am not sure. First, my country is different. Form what I do know, we don't get taxed on inheritance (hasn't that already been taxed?) or winnings (lottery). But the more you make, the higher the bracket. Also we have tax shelters that are quite beneficial.

What I oppose is, "blind taxing" of anyone with more money than somebody else. I believe the "passive" accumulation of wealth should be taxed very heavily, while wealth accumulated by good old fashioned elbow grease should be taxed much less harshly. Tax shelters are nice but are often abused by the rich. They should be limited charity donations and business startups (and I don't mean businesses started just to get the tax break, businesses that create jobs and most importantly...sustain the jobs).
 
If anybody bothered to watch the video, Michael Moore is quoting Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, and he says specifically "This is not Michael Moore saying this, this is Mayor Bloomberg saying this, that there will be rioting in the streets."

The thread title is disingenuous. Moore threatens no one.
 
I think the rhetoric should have been toned down a long time ago. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge. Partisan politics will always be a big point of contention between people. The problem is that it shouldn't take something like the Gifford shooting for people to want to tone it down.

You're right, except the Safeway shooting wasn't political. It was an irrational act by an irrantional person.
 
Threats? That is what progressives have devolved to? What a jack ass Moore is. He clearly does not understand business, nor the meaning of hypocrisy. Where did he make his millions? How much does he give back to the government?

Ok, So my question to libs....

Maxine Waters, "Tea partiers can go straight to hell....And I intend to help them get there...."

Andre Carson, "The tea party wants to see blacks hanging from a tree...."

Hoffa, "This is a war!....

Is this the more civil discourse dear leader was calling for after the Giffords shooting?

What is the matter with progressives?

You want violence? I say bring it...I am ready.

j-mac

This would be like me taking Glen Beck seriously. :coffeepap
 
You're right, except the Safeway shooting wasn't political. It was an irrational act by an irrantional person.

I don't think it was a partisan issue either. However, because of it, people wanted to town down the rhetoric. My point is that it shouldn't take something like that for people to want to tone it down.
 
I don't think it was a partisan issue either. However, because of it, people wanted to town down the rhetoric. My point is that it shouldn't take something like that for people to want to tone it down.

IMO nobody wanted anything toned down. They wanted to take political swipes at their opponents.
 
I think most rich would be smart enough to have some firearms around their house so they can shoot anyone threatening their property and safety. After all thanks to liberals like him ****ting all over the 2nd amendment firearms are not something the poor in many places in the country can legally afford, And due to their anti-2nd amendment beliefs many idiots like him will not be adequately armed.

I learned this as a small boy. while my dad was a hunter, he didn't have any real serious artillery. One of my best friends was a guy whose father ran a major manufacturing operation. His politics were rather undisclosed. So one day I was at their house playing ping pong with my friend and his dad was sitting in the study next to the rec room. Behind his chair was a short hall with a locked cabinet. On the news came stories about the race riots after the King murder. The guy's wife asked her husband what they would do if the riots came to their neighborhood. SO the guy goes to the cabinet and unlocks it and pulls out a real honest M-16 rifle. He was well connected and was able to get what was then state of the art military firepower-it was one of the first ones with the forward assist on it. He had two of them.

He keeps them on a boat he sort of lives on now offshore.

The guy served in korea and he knew how to use them.
 
I learned this as a small boy. while my dad was a hunter, he didn't have any real serious artillery. One of my best friends was a guy whose father ran a major manufacturing operation. His politics were rather undisclosed. So one day I was at their house playing ping pong with my friend and his dad was sitting in the study next to the rec room. Behind his chair was a short hall with a locked cabinet. On the news came stories about the race riots after the King murder. The guy's wife asked her husband what they would do if the riots came to their neighborhood. SO the guy goes to the cabinet and unlocks it and pulls out a real honest M-16 rifle. He was well connected and was able to get what was then state of the art military firepower-it was one of the first ones with the forward assist on it. He had two of them.

He keeps them on a boat he sort of lives on now offshore.

The guy served in korea and he knew how to use them.




Lol...everyone I know has guns everywhere in thier house and many alot more heavy hitting than an m-16...tell ya a secret most americans have guns...
and if and I pray it never happens...the poor and middleclass were ever pushed into a position to believe they had to be violent to survive...the rich wouldnt last a hot minute...but that will never happen...and I sincerely hope it never does. The usa isnt like Iran and Syria and Venezuela where the mass's are unarmed and defenseless against govt and the powerful....thats why I would fight to the death for our right to bear arms as a people its our right as free men
 
I'm surprised that this even counts as a threat. How many times in the last two centuries (plus thirty five years) have the oppressed risen up in revolution against their oppressors? Especially in cases of the lower classes rising up against the wealthy. Granted, our revolution doesn't quite mirror that, as it was upper class people rebelling against upper-er class people, but consider the French Revolution, the numerous communist revolutions, the non-violent revolution of Ghandi, many African nations rebelling against their colonial oppressors and vying for freedom... We are in the era of the oppressed masses rising up against their wealthy oppressors. I'd prefer the non-violent route, but if that choice isn't taken, then violence is almost guaranteed. That's the direction the world is going in. Wealthy oppressors have ruled for thousands of years. Now its time they get what's coming to them.
 
Lol...everyone I know has guns everywhere in thier house and many alot more heavy hitting than an m-16...tell ya a secret most americans have guns...
and if and I pray it never happens...the poor and middleclass were ever pushed into a position to believe they had to be violent to survive...the rich wouldnt last a hot minute...but that will never happen...and I sincerely hope it never does. The usa isnt like Iran and Syria and Venezuela where the mass's are unarmed and defenseless against govt and the powerful....thats why I would fight to the death for our right to bear arms as a people its our right as free men

more of the gun owners will side with the "rich" than the rabble
 
I'm surprised that this even counts as a threat. How many times in the last two centuries (plus thirty five years) have the oppressed risen up in revolution against their oppressors? Especially in cases of the lower classes rising up against the wealthy. Granted, our revolution doesn't quite mirror that, as it was upper class people rebelling against upper-er class people, but consider the French Revolution, the numerous communist revolutions, the non-violent revolution of Ghandi, many African nations rebelling against their colonial oppressors and vying for freedom... We are in the era of the oppressed masses rising up against their wealthy oppressors. I'd prefer the non-violent route, but if that choice isn't taken, then violence is almost guaranteed. That's the direction the world is going in. Wealthy oppressors have ruled for thousands of years. Now its time they get what's coming to them.

start your rebellion on my estate. please. My kid is almost a master level pistol shot I wanna see how good he really is
 
start your rebellion on my estate. please. My kid is almost a master level pistol shot I wanna see how good he really is

Ahh yes, the standard conservative wild west duel fantasy.

Revolutions don't work that way.
 
Ahh yes, the standard conservative wild west duel fantasy.

Revolutions don't work that way.

I love some kid going to law school: he keeps saying he wants violent revolution

having shot someone I know what the score is. I doubt he has a clue
 
Back
Top Bottom