• 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!

Do you have a positive or negative view of MICHAEL MOORE and WHY...

Do you have a positive or negative view of Michael Moore?

  • Positive

    Votes: 15 33.3%
  • Negative

    Votes: 30 66.7%

  • Total voters
    45
1. I understand why you are annoyed by people who interpret Moore's films as the absolute truth. I understand why people are annoyed that Moore insists that everything he says is the absolute truth and reinforces that flawed notion when his fans express it. But people are responsible for their own handle on the truth or lack thereof, and Moore's job as a director is to make a film that moves and entertains people. Again, though, I see where you and many others are coming from.
2. Socialism is absolutely nothing like fascism. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say because you states that socialism and fascism are similar and then you say that communist totalitariansm and fascist totalitarianism have very little in common... did I read that wrong? I'm a bit confused by the point you're trying to make.

I think I may not have stated my point very well, either. What I was trying to say is this: Michael Moore is very consistent with his themes, which are about holding wealthy and powerful people accountable for their corruption (with a bias leaning left as we all know) and prohibiting corporations, special interests, and the media from taking the reigns over public policies ranging from gun control to health care and foreign policy. He wants the federal government to keep these sectors in check and believes they have failed to do so and it has been harmful to millions of Americans. Equating this approach to endorsing totalitarianism is more disingenuous than anything Moore has ever accused his opponents of.

1. IMHO, very little is "absolute truth." Mathematics is the only universal truth. With that said, there needs to be just a bit of accuracy to a documentary in order for it to have credibility. Moore is basically a lobbyist who promotes a special interest group. His films fuel more legislation that takes away from the individual rather than empowering the individual. And yes, I said it twice in two different ways. The similarities between fascism and communism (as they have been historically practiced on a wide scale) far outweigh the differences. Both are totalitarian, statist regimes that seek to empower government (or public/collective) control over individual citizens. In these regimes, the basic motive is to always empower the government to make the day-to-day decisions that would normally be left to the individual in a free society. Read the history of Mussolini's economic policy. The fascist governments wanted to nationalize nearly the entire economy in order to control the average citizen. The same is true of the Soviet Union (the only major difference was their language and the scapegoats they used). The easiest way to control your subjects is to control the economy. The opposite of fascism is not communism, but freedom. The opposite of communism is not fascism, but freedom. This is because the fundamental structure of each tyrannical regime is totalitarianism (or simply, the supreme control of one party/person over the entire citizenry).

As for Moore, how do you expect the federal government to do the job of "keeping these sectors in check" when they have historically done the exact opposite? You want government to control business? No? You just want government to regulate and monitor business? That requires that you get merge governmental forces with business forces. In a nice little package, the more you have the government regulating business, the closer you are to a corporatist state. If corporatism is the merge of economics and state, shouldn't we ideally separate the two systems for the same reason we separate church and state? We don't want certain religions to benefit from governmental charity over other churches, just like we shouldn't be subsidizing one corporation over another.
 
Mussolini created Facism as direct opposition to Communism, he advocated a strong social class system, he even stated that Facism should be called Corporatism "because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.
Communism seeks to abolish social classes, it seeks to abolish corporate power, it was only with the corruptions in both ideologies that the similarites existed.

I've already responded to this in an earlier post. Corporatism is, in fact, the merger of state and BUSINESS power. What is easiest way to form a corporatist state? You simply set up the government so that it controls, and manipulates (or regulates) the market. You don't want corporatism? Then you should reject government regulation, oversight, quotas, tariffs, preferential tax treatment, and subsidies. The best way to promote a corporatist state is to get government and businesses to work together. How are we doing that today? By granting some businesses preferetial tax treatment, by granting other businesses subsidies, by empowering unions who monopolize the labor force, by regulation, by tariffs, by guaranteed loans, by bailouts, etc. TAKE ALL GOVERNMENTAL HANDS OFF BUSINESS AND YOU WILL FINALLY SEE AN END TO CORPORATISM. You want more corporatism? Just nationalize the economy, just like Mussolini did.
 
Based on this thread and the fact that people are still talking about him? His 15 mins are far from over. I cannot wait for his next work of brilliance to come out.

Sure, he is still famous. But he is losing his credit, because he distort facts. Also, how is his work a work of briliance? I don't like anyone on either side who misrepresent the truth completly, neither Glenn Beck or Micheal Moore.
 
. TAKE ALL GOVERNMENTAL HANDS OFF BUSINESS AND YOU WILL FINALLY SEE AN END TO CORPORATISM. You want more corporatism? Just nationalize the economy, just like Mussolini did.

We saw the result of taking all government hands of of business right here in the USA back in the 19th. century.
 
I’d rather have the option for ‘other.’
I went with negative because although Moore raises some good points, he follows the wrong path when he raises such points.
 
We saw the result of taking all government hands of of business right here in the USA back in the 19th. century.

A libertarian who supports a government-business collaboration and resists individual freedom. I think that disqualifies you.

And exactly what horrible things existed before government stepped in to protect us from our own selves?
 
A libertarian who supports a government-business collaboration and resists individual freedom. I think that disqualifies you.

And exactly what horrible things existed before government stepped in to protect us from our own selves?

Child labor
Horrible work hours
unsafe work conditions
unsafe products
unfair pay
exploitation of minorities
should I go on?
 
A libertarian who supports a government-business collaboration and resists individual freedom. I think that disqualifies you.

And exactly what horrible things existed before government stepped in to protect us from our own selves?

From the history books:
The pure food and drug act
consumer protection acts
the clean air and water acts
other liberals and independents can name more
 
He sends Regressives into spasms and is beholden to no one. What's not to like?
 
And exactly what horrible things existed before government stepped in to protect us from our own selves?

I think that some of our local libertarians should be strapped down and forced to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and then force-fed a hamburger.
 
I have a negative view of Moore.

I consider him the Beck of the left. Like Beck he will often exaggerate, misrepresent, or all together fabricate "facts" to push his own agenda and views while at the same time make gobs of money in the name of "informing the public". While I have nothing against either Moore or Beck becoming wealthy for entertainment, I do wish they would be honest in their representation of themselves. Then again perhaps they would not be as successful if they were upfront and honest into the real reason they do what they do. While both may have what they believe is the countries best interest at heart I believe that without the prospect of wealth that their dedication would wane greatly.
 
Child labor
Horrible work hours
unsafe work conditions
unsafe products
unfair pay
exploitation of minorities
should I go on?

Actually even before the creation of saving people from evil capitalists, the U.S. was one of the top 6 countries, in regards to life expectancy.

Government had little to do with protecting us from the "evil."
 
I think that some of our local libertarians should be strapped down and forced to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and then force-fed a hamburger.

"A report by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair's severest allegations, characterizing them as "intentionally misleading and false," "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact," and "utter absurdity."[7]"

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A libertarian who supports a government-business collaboration and resists individual freedom. I think that disqualifies you.

And exactly what horrible things existed before government stepped in to protect us from our own selves?

I don't think you can point to a post of mine in which I've resisted individual liberty, or advocated that the government step in to protect us from "our own selves."

Protecting our freedoms from the excesses of those who are more powerful than we are is a legitimate function of governemnt.

And yes, I should have a right to eat a hamburger knowing that it is at least relatively safe.
 
Based on this thread and the fact that people are still talking about him? His 15 mins are far from over. I cannot wait for his next work of brilliance to come out.

You have mistakenly confused "famous" with "infamous".

One isn't a positive.
 
Actually even before the creation of saving people from evil capitalists, the U.S. was one of the top 6 countries, in regards to life expectancy.

Government had little to do with protecting us from the "evil."

Those things still existed, and needed to be stopped.
 
Those things still existed, and needed to be stopped.

It was well on it's decline.

Most things we think government solved, didn't happen that way they just take credit for what was already going on.

Work place safety was well on the down trend before OSHA was created in the 1970's.
We don't consider the 1960's to be a time of worker death by exploitation.
 
Last edited:
Child labor
Horrible work hours
unsafe work conditions
unsafe products
unfair pay
exploitation of minorities
should I go on?

I would agree with a minimal regulation standard for food inspection, and safe work conditions. Child labor has been banned for quite some time, because our society progressed to the point where it is now more beneficial to have the regulation than to not. Back in the 1880's, many children worked to help support the family (which was largely starving). The conditions of the time basically forced these children to sacrifice safety at work for dinner at home. Don't forget, also, that this period of time saw the creation of many of the greatest private charitable organizations.

"Horrible work hours" is a bit foolish. My case to deregulate does not rely on any arguments related to overtime hours. I believe workers should be paid for their hours worked, and should have the liberty to go home at any time.

For the most part, I do think it should be the responsibility of each individual consumer to seek his own information regarding the products and services he purchases. I'm especially against the idea that you do not have freedom over your own body. The FDA prohibits certain terminally ill patients from using certain drugs if they do not meet the highest of governmental standards. The DEA takes away your right to self-medicate using whatever substance you wish to use.

"Unfair pay" is very much related to horrible work hours. Minimum wage laws do not, in any way, benefit anyone except big business. Walmart recently came out in favor of a minimum wage hike. Given that they already pay the average worker far above the minimum wage, the intention is simply meant to harm competition. How does it make sense to raise the minimum wage if all it is a guaranteed inflation in the price of everything?

Exploitation of minorities? Granted, I don't agree with the Arizona law, but for the most part this country is a nation of immigrants for a very good reason. It's essentially a haven for the rest of the world. Is the acceptance of a large mosque and community center near the WTC site a sign of exploiting the immigrants? Do we exploit Indian or Jewish minorities? They are the two most successful minority groups in the country.

Yes, please go on.
 
From the history books:
The pure food and drug act
consumer protection acts
the clean air and water acts
other liberals and independents can name more

This is almost identical to the points Your Star posted. You'll have to read and respond to my response post to her.

BTW, I actually consider myself a conservationist libertarian, meaning that I believe one of the fundamental roles of government is to protect the environment. This is where I disagree with many libertarians.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom