I actually have no problem with banning high fructose corn syrup.  I don’t give a shit about Moore’s reasoning on the issue, I just want to buy Coca Cola with REAL sugar in it without having to go to Mexico to do it.

BTW, didn’t Lee do an article sometime back about how high fructose corn syrup was making everyone fat and it was better (and cheaper - maybe) to use sugar?  Or was that all a fevered dream?

#3 and #4 are not completely unreasonable. But all the others are, for reasons I’ve hashed out over at Right-Thinking.  Funny, how he can never come up with any original ideas.

I wouldn’t mind going to paper ballots, and I do think that the Republican/Democratic dominance over our political process does no good. However, the only way I’d support conscription for the military would be a strict “no exceptions WHATSOEVER” rule---it’d be “wear the uniform or wear a shroud, it’s up to you.”

Michael Moore is a disgusting, hypocritical blob of flesh. If he’s going to be the poster boy for anything, how about the condom industry? The line could read, “Breed responsibly, or you might end up supporting a creature like this for 18 to 40 years.”

None of the verbal turds that spew from his festering pit of a mouth surprise me anymore.

With liberty and justice for all...unless you happen to be successful, in which case we’ll take your money by force and give it away to people who didn’t earn it, and some of those people won’t even be Americans. While we’re at it, we’ll discriminate against successful people even more by forcing their children to serve in the military and making them pay even more taxes than they already do. That way we can eliminate all that pesky innovation by getting rid of any incentive at all to come up with something new.

Oh, and if you’re a business who does something I think is bad, you don’t get justice either. You have to make your products the way I think is good, even though the government has passed laws that make some materials artificially expensive, leaving you very few choices.

And if you’re living a healthy lifestyle, and don’t smoke or gorge yourself on Ho-Hos, you have to subsidize all the morons out there who think it’s a good idea to inhale carcinogenic smoke on a regular basis. Just to make sure that the smokers are getting the shaft too (that’s “equality") we’ll raise taxes on cigarettes to help pay for the inevitable monolithic bureaucracy that socialized medicine will create.  That sounds like liberty and justice to me. Big government is full of sweet, sugary goodness, and I for one would like an extra helping, and don’t forget the whipped cream.

I’d say, I’d agree to the well drilling quite potentially.

And I completely oppose electronic balloting, and would like to see a lower threshhold of support for third parties to be given access to debates.

Completely disagree with having the election on a weekend though.

The speech was not too impressive. And I fear for his health. The panting was awful…

As for the suggestions.

1 ...is just sensationalism
2 ...sounds good to me
3 ...I’m not big on life style bans
4 ...should be done, but the rest of the world should chip in
5 ...I didn’t know that. The cap seems wierd to me. Guess the motive is that you should not pay more in to a system than you can get out of it? Anyway, I’m usually for rich people paying a bit more (not necessarily a lot) than poor and middle clas earners.

Proposal 1 - Pandering.  Or maybe he didn’t pay attention to the fact that McCain’s son just served a tour and Palin’s son just left for one.

Proposal 2 - I stopped reading at “John Conyers”

Proposal 3 - Okay.  Great.  Thanks.  How does that win the presidential election?

Proposal 4 - Well-intentioned (no pun intended) but with its own set of problems.  To suggest the watershed problem in Africa will be instantly solved by digging some holes is simplistic to the brink of absurdity.  Yes, we can feed and water the world if we put half a mind to it.  No, it wouldn’t cost us a terribly lot, compared to what we waste in this country.  Still not sure how this wins elections, though.  Or why the government needs to do it.  Bill Gates could water the planet with the change in the cushions of his couch.

Proposal 5 - What he isn’t bothering to realize is that you get out of Social Security what you pay into it.  That leaves two possible outcomes: either the rich get proportionally more upon retirement for the percentage of the extra income they paid in, or you change the formula for Social Security so you DON’T get back what you paid in.  Meaning: more redistribution.  Social Security is already a Ponzi scheme, no need to aggravate it with Moore’s ignorance and/or scheme to sneak in more redistribution.

Proposal 6 - Christianity and football are our nation’s two unofficial religions.  Have the election on Saturday and nobody in Columbus, OH or the entire geographical region of the SEC will vote.  Have the election on Sunday and nobody in the country will vote except football-hating atheists.  Have the vote on Tuesday as normal, and make Election Day a federal holiday like several other countries do.  Better solution IMO.

Proposal 7 - Take out the “under God” AND the “indivisible”?  Very telling of how he sees this country and the way it can/should be molded to fit a particular worldview.  This might be a good way to get elected President if 2/3 of the country actually thought like Moore/Kos/Huffington/Take Your Pick.  They don’t.  The vast “Middle Majority” would never understand why you should care one whit about the Pledge, so no, this is not an electable issue.

Really, none of these are electable issues.  They’re just the things Moore would do if he was President.  Which makes this article a cautionary tale.

A lot of this is obviously kidding - #1 for instance (he’s not serious, although I do think he makes an intriguing point. I heard him say somewhere that during WWII, every kid, rich and poor, fought in the war because it was a just war, while Iraq is fought primarily by the poor. Make of that what you will).

I think he has a point about holding elections on the weekend, and I’m a paper ballot fan, myself. I’m worried about making election day a national holiday: would people be too distracted by other plans to make it to the polls?  #4 is optimistic and likable, but simplistic (and highly unlikely to happen - even Moore would admit that). #2 is obviously debatable - if you agree with “Sicko,” you’ll agree with that.

I’m not sure what to make of #7, although I must confess, I kinda prefer Moore’s wording.

What’s so obvious about it? I have quite tragically mistaken some people to be kidding, only to learn they were deadly serious.

He is obviously serious about #1 for the very point he made, that he sees it as a deterrent to military action.

#2 is serious because he made a whole movie about it and because he frequently pals around with Conyers.

#3 can be construed as serious for the same reason, and for his apparent conspiracy theory about agribusiness mentioned above.

I see no reason to think #4 is a joke.

#5 is consistent with his message of class envy/warfare

#6 is serious because he saw himself as the self-proclaimed arbiter of full and fair elections in the last two cycles

#7 removes exactly the elements he wishes to associate with far-right-wingery and replaces them with populist tripe. Again, right up his alley.

Can you give me one reason to believe he doesn’t mean a word of this?

And also, what plans exactly would distract people from voting on Election Day?  It’s a Tuesday, so you can’t make a long weekend out of it.  It’s in November so 2/3 of the country will be too cold to barbecue.  You’re already talking about a country where 40-50% of the population doesn’t bother to vote, and the ones who do already take it seriously enough to show up even on a work day.  So I don’t think you’ll lose them to sloth; I would anticipate the same or better attendance on a holiday Tuesday.  By contrast, I think church and/or football would provide adequate distraction for those who care less about missing an hour or two of work than missing the first half of the Auburn/LSU game.

I think all was seriously meant, except for the first. If such a suggestion really would come up I’m suggesting that Moore would cry fascism.

Michael Moore? Thinking? These words do not go together.

P.S. I love how he snuck his politically correct, one-world version of the Pledge of Allegiance into his list. How he so loves to dance for his America-hating international masters…

On reflection, I must admit that Moore probably believes all of this - although some of his wording sounds satirical.

Anyone seen Slacker Uprising yet?

while Iraq is fought primarily by the poor. Make of that what you will

I make of it what it is:  Utter nonsense.

From “War, Lies And Videotape”, prepared by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (www.eppc.org):

Having asked where the supposedly newly-needed troops will come from, Moore then answers his own question: “They would find them all across America in the places that had been destroyed by the economy. Places where one of the only jobs available was to join the Army. Places like my hometown of Flint, Michigan.” Flint is not actually Moore’s hometown, he was born and grew up in the wealthier suburb of Davison, Michigan (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-20-moore_x.htm, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000339554.html?oneclick=true). More importantly, Moore’s assertion that the military seeks out soldiers mostly in poor communities, or that most members of the military are poor is just not true. In fact, the socioeconomic status of people in the military is only slightly lower than that of Americans in general, and recruits actually have a higher level of education than the general population (http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep99/html/chapter7/c7-perspective.htm).

And from “59 Deceits in F911” by Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm):

Fahrenheit is correct in pointing out that people who enlist in the military are less likely to be college graduates and more likely to be black than is the general U.S. population. However, Moore’s portrayal of the socioeconomics of the U.S. military is false is several respects. First, people who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum--people who have failed to graduate from high school or to obtain a G.E.D.--are not over-represented in the military. Like college graduates, they are under-represented. In the case of high school drop-outs, the reason is that the all-volunteer military can be selective, and generally prefers not to enlist high-school drop-outs.

Although blacks are about twice as likely to serve in the military as is the general U.S. population, black people do not suffer disproportionate casualties in Iraq. Official casualty statistics for Operation Iraqi Freedom report that--as of June 26, 2004--blacks suffered 111 of the 850 U.S. fatalities (13%). The Census Bureau estimates that blacks comprise 12.3% of the U.S. population. The reason that black enlistment is disproportionate but black fatalities are not is that many blacks in the military serve in support roles (such as providing supplies) which are unlikely to suffer high rates of casualties. Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., “The Fallen: A profile of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,” GovExec.com, May 28, 2004.

so what’s the deal you guys all want to see Obama get into the white house but don’t think Moore is helping him?

I think Moore has become so marginalized that he can’t possibly help Obama.  Moore is such a divisive figure - even among the left-wing - that a so-called “uniter” like Obama would probably cringe at the idea of having his endorsement.

When Mikey opens his mouth, it isn’t to help someone else. Michael Moore is interested in Michael Moore, and that’s about it.

When Mikey opens his mouth, it isn’t to help someone else. Michael Moore is interested in Michael Moore, and that’s about it.

So that means you don’t agree with him?

that he is of course selling copies of for those who don’t download… so much for free for all!

So the RIAA and MPAA don’t have a case?

that he is of course selling copies of for those who don’t download… so much for free for all!

Let’s be fair - DVDs cost money to make, so of course he’s going to charge for a DVD copy.  But Moore knows that the vast majority of people who watch “Slacker Uprising” are going to watch it online for free, so he’s not making any profit off of this.  This is clearly NOT a case of Moore being money-grubbing.

This one isn’t about money. It’s about getting people to look at him. It’s about staying relevant, so he doesn’t end up sitting on the couch eating TV dinners with Al Sharpton.

What’s funny is that he doesn’t have the energy to go on another tour, so he just repackages a stunt he did four years ago. We’ll have to call him an inactivist now.

What’s funny is that he doesn’t have the energy to go on another tour, so he just repackages a stunt he did four years ago. We’ll have to call him an inactivist now.

Have you checked to see if he’s currently busy with a rally for this year’s election?

What’s funny is that he doesn’t have the energy to go on another tour, so he just repackages a stunt he did four years ago. We’ll have to call him an inactivist now.

I suspect if he did another tour, we’d just be accusing him of pointlessly repeating a failed stunt.  Plus, that tour was to stop Bush, and I think even Moore would agree that McCain does not equal Bush.  I think Moore is probably going after a different, more low-key approach for this campaign.

Someone mentioned that everything Moore does is for attention.  While “Slacker Uprising” is a pretty narcissistic piece of filmmaking, and Moore is a pretty narcissistic guy, I think we underestimate his sincerity.  I believe that he really, sincerely wants to do everything he can to stop another Republican administration.  I’m sure he’d love to take a lot of credit for bringing down the Republican party or something, but I think his campaign activities are equally motivated by his own legitimate concerns as a citizen.

I disagree. I read his piece in the Rolling Stone a month or two ago, and at least a third of the article is him talking about how important he is, and how everyone agrees with him on all his political views. I don’t think he’s concerned with anything but himself. When pressed, one of the first things he’ll mention is how much money he’s made. I don’t think there’s any sincerity in the man past that. He’s sincere in his quest for more dough, but beyond that, I think it’s just a facade.

Over on Myspace Mikey has posted a bulletin about the bank bail out calling it a “robbery” and of course points all the blame at Bush and co.  I had the nerve to actually make a statement questioning his sincerity considering that he himself is a rich white fat cat like the ones he loves to point fingers at.
Holy crap, the responses from liberal moonbats was outstanding!
I was called names like “dumbfuck”, “ignorant dumbass”, told to “fuck off” and accused of faking my profile picture and being a government agent posting on behalf of the GOP.
Mikey’s defenders claimed he is spreading the “truth”, “contributes” to society, and even gave him credit for paying the medical bills of a complete stranger (sound familiar JimK?)
Anyway, I posted a couple of responses and we’ll see tomorrow what kind of shit storm I create.  As I’m sure long time readers of this site can recall, I can push people’s buttons with the best of them.  ;)
I just hope Mikey doesn’t take me off his “friends list” like Cindy Sheehan did!

Oh, and in related news, I have been banned from the Huffington Post for the 5th time.  I need to think up yet another new screen name! LOL

You see, something we can forget is that Michael Moore is actually a human being, and is capable of the feelings of other human beings.  Of course he’s an egomaniac, of course he has delusions of grandeur, and of course he’s a sometimes shameless self-promoter.  But as a human being, I think he’s also capable of the same feelings of outrage with the government that any other human being is capable of.  We may not agree with all (or even any) of what he believes, but to say that he doesn’t really believe them is untrue.

He certainly doesn’t seem to be plagued by guilt..

Is he helping the family of the principal he helped to fire when he was an 18 year old? how about those writers he didn’t want unionized working for him?

He has no compunction about ad hominem attacks and smear campaigns against his detractors, I guess self-reflection is not one of those “human feelings” he has either.

I’m sure some of our contributors would agree that decency is not among his “human feelings” either.

If a person feels outrage toward the government, that person would probably not want to give the government more money and more power over our lives. But Moore’s call for universal health care is a call for more government control. Of course, I don’t think Moore cares one way or the other. He’s just trying to sell books.

With more than six million people using it, France’s single payer health care system runs $9 billion in the red annually.  We have five times the population in the U.S.  I wish moore could do the math…