Newbie 0 #1 December 6, 2002 Can someone break it down for me? If possible, please back up statements like "because he's a left wing pinko liberal with an agenda" with a little more indepth opinion. I don't care if you love or hate him, but im intrigued to know why so many people despise him. Thanks "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #2 December 6, 2002 Quote "because he's a left wing pinko liberal with an agenda" I think that about says it. Seriously....he just seems to be pretty far to the left. All about govt control, gun control, basically one of those people that thinks the govt can run my life better than I can. I ain't havin that.....there's been plenty of wars fought over that. Let's not have another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DYEVOUT 0 #3 December 6, 2002 "because he's a left wing pinko liberal with an agenda" Ummmm, Yeah. ----------------=8^)---------------------- "I think that was the wrong tennis court." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #4 December 6, 2002 Quote Quote "because he's a left wing pinko liberal with an agenda" I think that about says it. Seriously....he just seems to be pretty far to the left. All about govt control, gun control, basically one of those people that thinks the govt can run my life better than I can. I ain't havin that.....there's been plenty of wars fought over that. Let's not have another. If you read his book Stupid White Men, you will see how he mocks the current "democratic" party system in the US (and no, not just the Republicans - he has/had problems with plenty of Democrats and their party too). To me he seems FAR from wanting an increase in govt control over the citizenship - he seems to be far more concerned with empowerment of the less well off sections of society (see: minorities, women, the poor). As far as gun control is concerned, i could be mistaken but isnt he more concerned with wanting to see an end to the number of gun-related homicides, and finding out a way to stop those, than the actual control of arms and their circulation? Like i said i could be wrong, but in Bowling for Columbine, he didn't once critise the Canadians due to their gun ownership levels, which i believe is fairly high too. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #5 December 6, 2002 Quote he didn't once critise the Canadians due to their gun ownership levels UUummmm....you can HAVE Canadian gun control!!! I prefer to use both hands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #6 December 6, 2002 Quotehe seems to be far more concerned with empowerment of the less well off sections of society by giving them more of our hard earned money....no thanks....typical democrat left leaning person....tax the rich give to the poor.....no thanks....I am NOT rich...but don't want to be giving my money away to people who have just as much opportunity that I had as a kid.... Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #7 December 6, 2002 You're kidding? I saw him in a interview here in the UK only yesterday and I thought that he was pretty switched on and has his finger pretty much on the pulse. It makes a change to hear an American with diverse views in the media.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 December 6, 2002 QuoteLike i said i could be wrong, but in Bowling for Columbine, he didn't once critise the Canadians due to their gun ownership levels, which i believe is fairly high too. One of my friends to the North may have to correct me, but to my understanding there are strict gun laws, and relatively low proportional ownership of firearms in Canada. Despite this, deaths caused by firearms in Canada are about the same per capita (i.e. # of deaths vs. population) Another gauge could be Australia, and again, one of my friends down under may have to correct me, but after the enactment of significantly tighter guns laws down there, didn't gun related crimes surge in the double-digits??So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #9 December 6, 2002 QuoteCan someone break it down for me? Maybe it's because he hits a little too close to home for your average American. Yes, he can come across as a bit of a ranting loony lefty but he can sometimes speak a whole lot of sense and tell people things they don't want to hear... GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #10 December 6, 2002 QuoteQuotehe seems to be far more concerned with empowerment of the less well off sections of society by giving them more of our hard earned money....no thanks....typical democrat left leaning person....tax the rich give to the poor.....no thanks....I am NOT rich...but don't want to be giving my money away to people who have just as much opportunity that I had as a kid.... you're not rich, and neither is 90% of the US, but then you have 10% who's yearly earnings equate to the GDP of several large developed countries. Whats wrong with saying the super super rich (i.e not you or me or anyone on here by a long shot) and saying they should contribute more to society, than the rest of us? I dont think its as simple as "tax everyone more to give to the poor on welfare" i think its more about "we have some serious extremes going on, tax THOSE guys at the top more, to provide for people who are in dire need of medical attention and just can't afford it" Im no millionaire, but if i was and had to pay a few % more each year in taxes (i.e. i make $600,000 a year instead of $650,000) i don't honestly think i would give 2 hoots, as long as i knew that money was being appropriated well. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #11 December 6, 2002 QuoteQuoteCan someone break it down for me? Maybe it's because he hits a little too close to home for your average American. Yes, he can come across as a bit of a ranting loony lefty but he can sometimes speak a whole lot of sense and tell people things they don't want to hear... Gus thats about one of the best reasons i've heard, and to be honest, hadn't actually even considered. Thanks "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #12 December 6, 2002 QuoteIm no millionaire, but if i was and had to pay a few % more each year in taxes (i.e. i make $600,000 a year instead of $650,000) i don't honestly think i would give 2 hoots, as long as i knew that money was being appropriated well That's exactly why you are not now nor probably ever will be a millionaire. If it's my money....FUCK EM....I'm not giving it away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 December 6, 2002 Quote"because he's a left wing pinko liberal with an agenda" Pretty much the only people that think that are the folks on the right side of the median. Believe it or not, some of the folks on the left side of the median feel he's too right-wing because he sometimes makes fun of the very people he's appears to be outwardly trying to help. The "Rabbit Lady" in "Roger & Me" is the first example that comes to my mind. Me, I think he's neither. I think he's pretty good at stirring things up and has a pretty interesting niche making documentaries about hot topics. I think he's actually pretty fair from a reportage stand point, but since a lot of his topics are sacred cows of the right-wing, he gets labeled as being left. I will admit that he uses over-the-top ambush tactics in trying to deal with folks (because it makes for good footage), and to me, that always seemed like that should be the last resort. A -great- reporter/investigator does not have to ambush people in order to tell a good story.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #14 December 6, 2002 QuoteA -great- reporter/investigator does not have to ambush people in order to tell a good story. That's probably the biggest thing that bugs me about him. He just seems to be going down the same road as Jessie Jackson with his "Where's Waldo" antics. If something is going on he'll be shoving his face in the corner of the picture. It's hard to any respect for such leaches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #15 December 6, 2002 QuoteQuoteIm no millionaire, but if i was and had to pay a few % more each year in taxes (i.e. i make $600,000 a year instead of $650,000) i don't honestly think i would give 2 hoots, as long as i knew that money was being appropriated well That's exactly why you are not now nor probably ever will be a millionaire. If it's my money....FUCK EM....I'm not giving it away. It's the usual class warfare. The super-wealthy will always find ways to evade paying what I think of as "their fair share" (i.e., 37%, like me) of taxes. That in turn penalizes the rest of us, because we end up being taxed to compensate for the shortfall. However, it is the financing of the wealthy that drives the train we all ride on. It's called capitalism. The class warfare that liberals drum up is, in the end, just an excuse to screw us some more. Now this is a purely anectdotal (I mean, I don't have the hard facts and figures in front of me, but I'm hopeful that someone does and can elaborate) but here is a classic example: "Luxury" taxes. A few years ago (in the "Decade of Greed". Gosh, that sounds so quaint now, doesn't it?), some bright politicians decided that they'd "punish" the wealthy by raising taxes on "luxury" items; e.g., yachts, Rolex watches, Rolls Royces, etc. The wealthy, not being stupid, simply refused to purchase these items. As demand decreased, the laborers that made them (and they were taxpayers, I might add) were sacked. The net result was that the loss of taxes that had once been generated by the income of the laborers outstripped any gains that might have been made by taxing the goods themselves. In the end, some of the excise was removed, and laborers went back to work. The politicians who hatched this stupid plan (I think our old buddy Ted Kennedy was in on it) still have their jobs... There will always be taxes. In a perfect world, citizens would only pay user fees for government services. Every time I read about "tax the rich, feed the poor", I can't help thinking about this conflict. I also believe in funding space exploration, partly because it galls liberals, but mostly because it lets me see at least a tiny part of what I'm getting for my tax money, instead of seeing it disappear into the voracious, gaping maw of the Beltway. ""Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:15-22). In the final analysis, I don't think it's the taxes so much as how much of it is SO FLAGRANTLY WASTED. My attitude is that I'm being taxed plenty, thank you very much, and if you (meaning the bureaucracy) want more money, you might consider finding ways to reduce government spending. "No country ever taxed itself into prosperity.""The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #16 December 6, 2002 Quote If it's my money....FUCK EM....I'm not giving it away. Just to put a caveat on that......If I DO want to give some money away there are plenty of charities out there. If I have enough money I'll even start my own.....like Bill Gates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #17 December 6, 2002 from a Canadian, You can have Canada's fascist, hopelessly expensive gun control laws. Because of those laws, gun ownership in Canada is lower than in the USA, but I am not convinced that they have lowered the murder rate. The main reason the murder rate is lower in Canada is that we do not have the same population density. Also the poor tend to freeze to death in Canada. Vancouver has the mildest climate of any major Canadian city, so is it any wonder Vancouver has the worst drug/prostitution/crime problems? Now Vancouver's new bleeding heart liberal mayor wants to erect safe injection sites instead of sinking serious money into rehab programs. He would rather perpetuate Vancouver's drug problem. The latest embarrassment for Ottawa is the news that the gun registry is hopelessly over budget! We could feed the poor, fund the Vancouver Olympics or re-arm the Canadian Armed Forces with the money Ottawa is wasting on gun registration! I grew up in a household containing hundreds of guns and never saw what the fuss was all about. Now I don't own any guns because I am afraid that Ottawa will change the gun laws with an order in council and they will be able to seize all my assests because I failed to abide by a rule change that was only published in the hansard. I have no respect for Canadian gun control laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #18 December 6, 2002 Quote Also the poor tend to freeze to death in Canada I thought that was just a random occurence through all layers of society in Canada. Quote Now I don't own any guns because I am afraid that Ottawa will change the gun laws with an order in council and they will be able to seize all my assests because I failed to abide by a rule change that was only published in the hansard That's where I....as an American differ. I would go out and buy as many guns as I could fit in my house. If the govt tried that bullshit I would fight. Either in court or on my front lawn with a 12 gauge. But....that's just me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #19 December 6, 2002 The main thing I dislike about him is that he seems to be a little mean-spirited. Quotehe sometimes makes fun of the very people he's appears to be outwardly trying to help. The "Rabbit Lady" in "Roger & Me" is the first example He spends a lot of time poking holes into things, and asking questions. This is good. But he's all about tearing things down from what I've seen. And, frankly, I am probably a left-wing-commie-pinko to some here (that's because I don't think Bill Clinton is related to Satan). Wendy W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #20 December 6, 2002 QuoteI also believe in funding space exploration, partly because it galls liberals, but mostly because it lets me see at least a tiny part of what I'm getting for my tax money, instead of seeing it disappear into the voracious, gaping maw of the Beltway. Quote In the final analysis, I don't think it's the taxes so much as how much of it is SO FLAGRANTLY WASTED. Quote and if you (meaning the bureaucracy) want more money, you might consider finding ways to reduce government spending. "No country ever taxed itself into prosperity." Interesting. I find little to disagree with in this, other than the statement "because it galls liberals." Why is it so much better to spend lots of money we don't have on weapon systems that aren't asked for, than on insurance programs that aren't quite what was wanted? Wendy W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #21 December 6, 2002 Quote Why is it so much better to spend lots of money we don't have on weapon systems that aren't asked for, than on insurance programs that aren't quite what was wanted? Weapons systems ARE insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoby 0 #22 December 6, 2002 For what it's worth, I went to see Bowling For Columbine along with my friend who is a gun-toting NRA member and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. That said, I still find Michael Moore to be a weenie. Basically, he poses great questions, but he isn't so good with the answers. Like Rush Limbaugh, he's fairly entertaining, but would make awful policies. So he annoys right wingers in essentially the same way that Rush annoys the lefties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #23 December 6, 2002 People who make more than 150,000 a year are taxed 50 cents on the dollar.....I think the gov't is getting more than enough of there money...... Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #24 December 6, 2002 QuoteMaybe it's because he hits a little too close to home for your average American. Gus, how would you know what makes up an average american??? spent any considerable time here? lived here? Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #25 December 6, 2002 Quote Interesting. I find little to disagree with in this, other than the statement "because it galls liberals." Wendy W. The reason I made that remark is because programs that actually DO SOMETHING concrete and visible with our tax dollars (like the space program) seem to be the ones that get attacked by the bleeding hearts. Once again, an anecdote (yes, I preface my remarks in this way because I am a part-time reporter [hey, it gets me beer money! And Skydiving Magazine ran my Le Grand Saut story with COLOR PHOTOS! YOWZA!], and I am therefore a critical thinker. I deal in facts, not speculation). In his book, Carrying the Fire, US Astronaut Michael Collins remarked on the screaming in some circles about the money "wasted on the space program", and "that money could be used to feed the poor!" Yadda-yadda-yadda. Collins noted that the budget for the entire space program up to and including Apollo 11 was 25 billion dollars. The budget for Johnson's "Great Society" programs for the same period was 250 billion. I rest my case. "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
