Is Michael Moore's The Awful Truth the Most Entertaining Political Commentary?

[ShawnD]

I'm watching his show The Awful Truth, and it's pretty good. Most of his stunts are nothing more than trolling, but at least it's entertaining.

Opinions?

 

[Astronuc]

Its the trolling that turns me off.

 

[lalbatros]

It don't want to see "Bowling For Columbine II".

 

[marlon]

I HATE that guy. He is not neutral as a docu maker. The left wing anti Bush policy is too obvious. Also Bowling for Columbine gives a very unilateral view onto reality. I just don't trust such a guy. IMO, he operates and thinks in the same way as the people he is complaining about, only he likes to present himself as being "at the other end of the political spectrum".

No Sir NO, i do NOT like nor trust that man.


marlon

 

[Evo]

Nope, not at all.

 

[lalbatros]

How could we stay neutral with the Columbine High School massacre?
Actually he was too neutral, because he had to sell his video.
What are we waiting to stop this neutrality and change something?
Are we waiting for ColumbineXX ?

Action can never be neutral.
Being neutral is siding with the violent.

 

[marlon]

How could we stay neutral with the Columbine High School massacre?
Actually he was too neutral, because he had to sell his video.
What are we waiting to stop this neutrality and change something?
Are we waiting for ColumbineXX ?

Action can never be neutral.
Being neutral is siding with the violent.

One should be emotionally shocked because of Columbine but that is NOT the same as being neutral. Especially when portraying real time events as a docu maker. The fact that the events are horrible does not change that. I want to know what happened, i do not want to hear some dude's personal opinion on the matter in question. This is not what making a documentary is all about.

marlon

 

[Moonbear]

I want to know what happened, i do not want to hear some dude's personal opinion on the matter in question. This is not what making a documentary is all about.

This is the problem I have with him as well. If you want to create films depicting your opinions and views on the world, fine, but don't try to pass them off as documentaries. A good documentary presents enough factual information for the viewer to draw their own conclusions, not just a one-sided view that supports the preconceived notions of the script writer.

He's entitled to his opinions, but it's dishonest to call what he does a documentary. It's more of a feature-length editorial.

 

[Chi Meson]

He's entitled to his opinions, but it's dishonest to call what he does a documentary. It's more of a feature-length editorial.

This is exactly how I see it. I'm grateful to the guy, though. We do not have enough high-profile folks that are that far on that side of the political spectrum. It's comforting to look to the "right" and see Rush & O'Riley off in the distance, and then look "left" to see Moore about just as far away off.

Mind you, each one of those guys holds at least one opinion that I share. So It is not wise to to throw out all of what someone has to say just becuase you don't like the guy as a whole.

Edit:

Right now I'm listening to Newt Gingrich on NPR, and dang it if he's not sounding like a rational centrist. Is it me?

 

[brendank]

He is a propaganda maker. Nothing more. Nothing presented in his any of his books or movies should be taken as absolute truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've never seen his work, but I liked the commercials showing King George on the golf course.

I tend to stay away from obviously biased sources like Moore, Rush, and Fox News.

 

[FredGarvin]

I didn't mind "Roger and Me". I thought it was pretty good. I didn't care too much for the scenes when he would blindside someone on camera, but that was his shock factor at work. I thought he did a very good job of outlining what GM did to the city of Flint. However, I think he has changed his motivations since then. I honestly think he subscribes to the notion that every new documentary has to shock more than the last. His actions seem more hell bent on that than providing a good, informational documentary.

I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.

 

[Chi Meson]

He is a propaganda maker. Nothing more. Nothing presented in his any of his books or movies should be taken as absolute truth.

Nothing anybody says should be taken as "absolute truth." This status is not exclusive to either extreme.

 

[Bladibla]

If he went on a diet and got a brain, then I'd like him.

 

[Astronuc]

I didn't mind "Roger and Me". I thought it was pretty good. I didn't care too much for the scenes when he would blindside someone on camera, but that was his shock factor at work. I thought he did a very good job of outlining what GM did to the city of Flint. However, I think he has changed his motivations since then. I honestly think he subscribes to the notion that every new documentary has to shock more than the last. His actions seem more hell bent on that than providing a good, informational documentary.

My sentiments as well.

I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.

I would like to see more documentaries by Ken Burns, and more producers like him as well. It would be great if he follows the Civil War documentary series with the rest of US history before and since.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Right now I'm listening to Newt Gingrich on NPR, and dang it if he's not sounding like a rational centrist. Is it me?

I love Newt Gingrich! For president!

 

[Astronuc]

Gingrich vs Obama would be interesting.

And I think we need to go back to the runner up for president be VP.

 

[FredGarvin]

I would like to see more documentaries by Ken Burns, and more producers like him as well. It would be great if he follows the Civil War documentary series with the rest of US history before and since.

If they are as good as his Jazz series, I'll watch all, in most likliehood, 1000+ hours.

 

[Anttech]

The left wing anti Bush policy is too obvious.

Why do people associate Michael Moore with the "left?" Honestly if you dumped him in the east block of Europe mid-80's and let him loose speaking about the king-makers and power-brokers of the time as he does now he would be killed (read:disposed of) very quickly.
For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?

I don't like or dislike him, but I believe he has a purpose...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?

That is true! A dedicated Reagan lover way back when and now an Independent, I am probably more conservative than liberal - in many ways a libertarian - but you won't find many who hate Bush any more than I do.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm not sure you're supposed to think of Moore as left. He seems like the kind of guy who would vote for Nader just as a way of stating that he doesn't like any of the candidates running, and he points out problems in the system regardless of which party is doing them. In one of the episodes of The Awful Truth, he ran an ad campaign for people to have write-in votes for "http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0426-09.htm " just so there was more than 1 candidate. Officially the republican candidate won, but on the show it seemed that Ficus won the vote by something like 4:1, but the vote counters refused to count the Ficus votes.
Stunts like that don't exactly fix any problems, but they do draw attention to show how some candidates are not even elected, they just win because nobody else runs against them. The republican who won had no campaign office, he didn't run any ads, and he wasn't even in the district at the time of the election. It shows a kind of disconnect between the people and their government.

It's not really documentary making. It's more like Penn & Teller's show, but with a different opinion, and fewer scientists

 

[russ_watters]

Why do people associate Michael Moore with the "left?" Honestly if you dumped him in the east block of Europe mid-80's and let him loose speaking about the king-makers and power-brokers of the time as he does now he would be killed (read:disposed of) very quickly.
For sure he is Anti-Bush, but that IMO doesn't make him *left* wing. Or does it?

I don't like or dislike him, but I believe he has a purpose...

That's to the left of the American political spectrum, Anttech. I doubt anyone thinks he's actually a communist...

This is just like calling someone "right wing" doesn't acutally mean you think they are a Nazi.

 

[G01]

No I don't...Enough Said.

 

[ray b]

I didn't mind "Roger and Me". I thought it was pretty good. I didn't care too much for the scenes when he would blindside someone on camera, but that was his shock factor at work. I thought he did a very good job of outlining what GM did to the city of Flint. However, I think he has changed his motivations since then. I honestly think he subscribes to the notion that every new documentary has to shock more than the last. His actions seem more hell bent on that than providing a good, informational documentary.

I think he wants badly to be lumped in with people like Ken Burns, but it is never going to happen.

+1
donot like his style
but do like the way he gets the neo-conned sheep to hate him
Ken Burns he is not
but he does make movies that make one think

 

[Anttech]

That's to the left of the American political spectrum, Anttech. I doubt anyone thinks he's actually a communist...

This is just like calling someone "right wing" doesn't acutally mean you think they are a Nazi.

So what does that infer then Russ? What is Left according to the American system? Someone who is against the goverment? Or was that just in the good old days of the cold war?

I don't think he is left wing at all...Just Anti-Bush

 

[russ_watters]

So what does that infer then Russ? What is Left according to the American system? Someone who is against the goverment? Or was that just in the good old days of the cold war?

For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean?

The simplest way to put it is that Americans cover perhaps 2/3 of the political spectrum, oriented slightly to the right of say, Europe. The issues are all the same, it is just a difference in degree. Moore's issues (a few of them) are things like anti-corporate-ism, anti-globalization, anti-American culture, pro-government control, pro-welfare, etc. Moore's stance on these issues is as far left as anyone in the US, which is the definition of "left wing". Transplanted to Europe, he'd probably be only slightly left of average.

Clearly anti-government doesn't have anything to do with it since when a democrat is in power, there are plenty on the right-wing who become anti-government. Since the government doesn't typically stray from the center very far (it is, after all, a democracy), those on the extremes on both sides advocate overthrow of the government.

I don't think he is left wing at all...Just Anti-Bush..

Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?

BTW, "Roger and Me" was released in 1989, two years before Bush took office...

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, I never answered the question in the OP...

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.

 

[Anttech]

For all the time you spend arguing in the politics forum, you don't know what "left wing" and "right wing" mean?

Always the joker But you have a point, sortoff, I do know what it means to be left wing socially or ecconomically, and neither have any anti-bush criteria. That was kinda my point, but I will guess you knew that.

The simplest way to put it is that Americans cover perhaps 2/3 of the political spectrum, oriented slightly to the right of say, Europe. The issues are all the same, it is just a difference in degree. Moore's issues (a few of them) are things like anti-corporate-ism, anti-globalization, anti-American culture, pro-government control, pro-welfare, etc. Moore's stance on these issues is as far left as anyone in the US, which is the definition of "left wing". Transplanted to Europe, he'd probably be only slightly left of average.

Are these his policies, Id like to see that for real, because all I understood was he was anti-bush, anti-Iraq war anti-government lies.. etc etc.. Not FOR anything, which is really what you have to be to have a political persuasion...

Regardless being anti-current administration of USA doesn't make him a commie or Socialist. Nor does being a hippy anti-war cnd type. to me it seems like a label people like to use for anything that is against what they believe in, bit like the *Nazi* label to anyone who is for border control, or slightly right wing in beliefs.

Since you acknowledged above that you don't know what "left wing" is, how can you then say that he isn't it?

No I was asking you what it means to be left, ie your perception. I wasnt confessing that I don't know what it is... Bit like when a teacher asks a student what does 1+1 equal, it doesn't infer he doesn't know what it is..

 

[marlon]

Anyway, I never answered the question in the OP...

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.

Truer words were never spoken.

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

Are these his policies, Id like to see that for real

I infer his beliefs from his movies. To me it is pretty clear that what he talks about in the movies are his actual beliefs.

...because all I understood was he was anti-bush, anti-Iraq war anti-government lies.. etc etc.. Not FOR anything, which is really what you have to be to have a political persuasion...

Not true at all. You can, of course, word any negative as a positive, but "pro life" is still anti-abortion, for example. Put more directly the original two political parties in the US were the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists".

Regardless being anti-current administration of USA doesn't make him a commie or Socialist.

I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.

Nor does being a hippy anti-war cnd type.

Hippies typically are socialists/communists. The principles of socialism/communism are at the very core of most hippie beliefs (though hippie beliefs are often vague/unformed...).

to me it seems like a label people like to use for anything that is against what they believe in, bit like the *Nazi* label to anyone who is for border control, or slightly right wing in beliefs.

Some people like to use labels that way, but labels generally have pretty precise and/or well accepted meanings. Labeling someone "right wing" or "left wing" is much more common/accepted/objective than, say, the "neoconservative" label that gets thrown around so much in the P&WA forum. You will, for example, hear the former on the network news, but you won't ever hear the latter.

No I was asking you what it means to be left, ie your perception. I wasnt confessing that I don't know what it is... Bit like when a teacher asks a student what does 1+1 equal, it doesn't infer he doesn't know what it is..

This doesn't have anything to do with perception and yes, I figured it might be a test. Frankly, I think the test reveals more about the tester than the testee in this case. You were testing to see if the label was applied for emotional rather than objective reasons because you, yourself see and use labels in those terms. IIRC, you have been pretty active in the one-person's-terrorist-is-another's-freedom-fighter "debate" on the side of not having/using an objective/consistent definition. I always argue that labels/definitions need to be precise and objectively applied. You should know that by now.

Also, that part of your quote was in response to a direct question from me...and only answered half of it. So I ask again (rephrased): How can you say that Michael Moore is not left wing? Do you honestly believe Michael Moore is toward the center of the liberal side of the American spectrum? Based on what?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I love Newt Gingrich! For president!

In that case we need to recycle Bill Clinton somehow.

Edit: Oh yeah, we did.

 

[Anttech]

I don't see where anyone suggested that being anti-Bush makes one a socialist or communist.

No? then why the *Beep left wing blah blah blah* to any anti-bush comments?

Hippies typically are socialists/communists. The principles of socialism/communism are at the very core of most hippie beliefs (though hippie beliefs are often vague/unformed...).

Errmm.. I wouldn't agree with that 1 bit. Hippies are not for forced labour, shared faming, removal or rights to property. Neither is Moore as far as I know. Hippies are typically Politically passive, or tend to be for Greenpeace, for saving the planet, and against conflict. Probably the only socialist part is that they are for economic regulation to the extent that they believe life shouldn't be about the greed drive but rather about love and self-happiness and 1 with nature.

Please show me a socialist or communist political party that is like this?

This doesn't have anything to do with perception and yes, I figured it might be a test. Frankly, I think the test reveals more about the tester than the testee in this case. You were testing to see if the label was applied for emotional rather than objective reasons because you, yourself see and use labels in those terms. IIRC, you have been pretty active in the one-person's-terrorist-is-another's-freedom-fighter "debate" on the side of not having/using an objective/consistent definition. I always argue that labels/definitions need to be precise and objectively applied. You should know that by now

No Russ, I have been for non-bias and against hypocrisy. I tend to call a spade a spade, I am against conflicts and manipulation of the 3rd world and less fortunate. Compassionate maybe, I am not on what you call *the terrorist* side, I don't agree that terrorism solves anything. I also don't believe that terrorist are just evil people and are typically born crazy nutters, but are products of the environment they are forced to live in. Empathy doesn't mean agreement. Seems you don't know me at all, after all those *debates* I got into with you.

How can you say that Michael Moore is not left wing?

Because from what I know about him, he isnt. He just doesn't agree with Bush and wants to expose what he sees as hypocritic, he is also a passive AFAIK. Since he is agianst the government and its hypocracy I doubt he is for more government regulation, although I don't know, because I have never heard him talk about these things.

I don't like Michael Moore because he is dishonest.

But you like very much Bush, so what does that make you?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I hate to bump such an old thread, but I just wanted to say that Michael Moore is a fraud. He's definitely an anarchist at his core. No one should take him seriously.

 

[marlon]

thread closed

 

[russ_watters]

I hate to bump such an old thread, but I just wanted to say that Michael Moore is a fraud. He's definitely an anarchist at his core. No one should take him seriously.

I don't like him, but I'm not sure I'd call him a fraud - I think he's pretty open about the kind of nut he is.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I don't like him, but I'm not sure I'd call him a fraud - I think he's pretty open about the kind of nut he is.

I found it comical when his claims in Sicko were refuted on CNN and he goes on this tirade about what sponsors are on CNN. His ******** tactics are transparent. It maybe a stretch, but he's like a poor man's version of Alex Jones. If anyone on here doesn't know who that is, just google his name and you'll see what kind of a nut job he is.

 

[B. Elliott]

I can't stand Michael Moore. So many scenes in Fahrenheit 911 were manipulated to show what Moore believes 'truly' happened. He simply picked a chose information to show and presented it in a way which was totally biased due to him leaving out very important information which would have otherwise shown the scenes in a totally different light. With that said, Fahrenheit 911 was far from a 'documentary'. It was pure manipulated propaganda which is funny, because that's the exact same thing which Moore is totally and hardheadedly against.

Moore is a manipulator of information and therefore, a hypocrite.

One of my favorite examples of Moores blind idiocy is was his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLHI0b43xa4&feature=related

 

[OrbitalPower]

Michael Moore is a true tribune of the people. Most of Fahrenheit 9/11 has been shown to be true by recent events. Bowling for Columbine was also a great film in that in contrasted Canadian society, a society not completely unlike America with a history of slaughtering the Indians similar to America's, to our own. The film was not necessarily about guns but about culture and comparisons.

Bill O'Reilly on the other hand is a buffoon and a propagandist, who has repeatedly gotten even basic facts wrong such as the statistics of black single mothers on welfare, the Iraq war, and even his own basic history - claiming Inside Edition won a Peabody, which it ever did, while he was there, and then later he claimed it was two bodies, and still later he claimed he never said it.

 

[OrbitalPower]

He's definitely an anarchist at his core. No one should take him seriously.

This is ludicrous and only shows your own misinterpretation of facts.

Anarchists call for the complete abolition of government and civil society, which they deem to be corrupted, usually by calling for an end to the government protection of property and the idea that you "own land" by mixing it with your labor. Proudhon called for this.

I've read all of Moore's books and nowhere does he call for this. He calls for government to be more responsive to the people's interest, not the abolition of it.

This is not "anarchism" or even "socialism" at all; Moore never has called for the abolition of property.

I found it comical when his claims in Sicko were refuted on CNN and he goes on this tirade about what sponsors are on CNN.

No where was Sicko "refuted" on CNN. Rather, Dr. Gumpta provided different viewpoints of the issue. However, Gumpta himself mixed up his facts in the review and even admitted it on CNN with Larry King, I believe the video is up on youtube.

Most of Moore's claims are readily available in studies by IGOs like the UN.

It maybe a stretch, but he's like a poor man's version of Alex Jones.

This is ridiculous because Alex Jones' claims are from a completely different paradigm and are about conspiracy theories. Which conspiracy theory does Moore hold?

Moore is not a conspiracy theoriest; noting that the government is generally beholden to the corporations and the media is a lackey of them is one of the most documented views in all of social science.

There are thousands of papers published on how society works, so Moore is actually making an analysis of society, which Jones does not do.

just google his name and you'll see what kind of a nut job he is.

And then you can goolge the names of the authors of those websites, to see what kind of nuts they are.

 

[B. Elliott]

Michael Moore is a true tribune of the people. Most of Fahrenheit 9/11 has been shown to be true by recent events. Bowling for Columbine was also a great film in that in contrasted Canadian society, a society not completely unlike America with a history of slaughtering the Indians similar to America's, to our own. The film was not necessarily about guns but about culture and comparisons.

Bill O'Reilly on the other hand is a buffoon and a propagandist, who has repeatedly gotten even basic facts wrong such as the statistics of black single mothers on welfare, the Iraq war, and even his own basic history - claiming Inside Edition won a Peabody, which it ever did, while he was there, and then later he claimed it was two bodies, and still later he claimed he never said it.

O'Reilly being a buffoon (which I agree with you) has nothing to do with Moore being a manipulator of truth. Most of Fahrenheit 911 is manipulated truth. One who manipulates the truth is not a tribune of the people, but one who seeks to remold the easily malleable minds of the people.

Again, he's doing the exact thing which he is militantly against. That, is a hypocrite.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I agree that Moore's context does not give you the whole story, thereby making him somewhat of a propagandist. But, you could make that claim for much of the news. It's well known that Fox News, for example, is even worse than this as they have pundits like Hannity and O'Reilly making up news on the fly, and issuing edicts down to their journalists that tell them how to slant the news, making it more like editorial pieces than journalistic standards.

A lot of Moore's statements in F-9/11 are already apparent to readers of Foreign Affairs or the Gaurdian and BBC, such as the offer of the Taliban to turn over bin Laden should the US present them evidence he was behind it, past US ties to the Saddam Hussein regime, particularly under the Reagan administration, the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran contra, the devistating erosion of civil liberties in the US, and so on.

These are all talked about in Moore's films and they did indeed happen.

 

[LightbulbSun]

This is not "anarchism" or even "socialism" at all; Moore never has called for the abolition of property.

There's definitely a good case that he's for socialism. He supported Rage Against The Machine, who were very in favor of socialist values. Protesting with them at the NYSE to disperse a socialist message makes him a socialist.

To quote the end of Hitchens excellent column on Michael Moore:

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed. Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/"

No where was Sicko "refuted" on CNN. Rather, Dr. Gumpta provided different viewpoints of the issue. However, Gumpta himself mixed up his facts in the review and even admitted it on CNN with Larry King, I believe the video is up on youtube.

Most of Moore's claims are readily available in studies by IGOs like the UN.

He is convinced that Cuba has better health care than the United States for christ sake. Completely ignoring the fact that Cuba has a history of fabricating information to give themselves a better ranking than they really have.

There's also the fact that when he is challenged on his claims, he completely distracts the discussion with red herrings such as "Oh, well this CNN show is sponsored by McDonalds so of course you're going to refute my claims!"

This is ridiculous because Alex Jones' claims are from a completely different paradigm and are about conspiracy theories. Which conspiracy theory does Moore hold?

That the United States Government deliberately let 9/11 happen? Not as extreme as Alex Jones' controlled demolition theories, which is why I said a poor man's version of Alex Jones.

Moore is not a conspiracy theoriest; noting that the government is generally beholden to the corporations and the media is a lackey of them is one of the most documented views in all of social science.

But this is not what Moore implies. He takes it to a whole other extreme.

There are thousands of papers published on how society works, so Moore is actually making an analysis of society, which Jones does not do.

Actually Alex Jones does analyze society in his own deluded way. He thinks that everyone who is not a conspiracy theorist is just a brainwashed lemming subdued by the "distractions" the news and entertainment media feeds us. Either that or you must be a paid government agent. Just check out his ridiculous websites. He's always analyzing society.

 

[OAQfirst]

...

One of my favorite examples of Moores blind idiocy is was his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLHI0b43xa4&feature=related

My God. It's like watching two snakes trying to swallow the same egg.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a great similie. I'm going to use that one.

 

[JasonRox]

I saw Sicko and then did my research and went around looking for opinions of others and they all agreed.

Note: While in Quebec City, I did ask personal questions to the French people I met (from France) and Americans. As far as I can tell, what he presented was fair opinion of the general people. Isn't that what counts?

Sorry, but after doing my research, I would never live in the US or actually even go there for a day without insurance anymore. Like, it's actually real. The US is a corporate run country and Canada is stepping in that direction, but just not as bad.

Come on, 2 weeks of vacation a year... sad just sad. France, Morroco, New Zealand all get minimum of 5 weeks vacation and the list of countries is bigger (just can't reference them but those 3 I know for sure). Here in North America, you need to work YEARS to get benefits and vacation time. Why is that good? You won't leave the company because you don't want to lose your benefits. In France, you have them no matter where you go or choose to work. Giving you the ease to work and be happy where you work. Think about it. I know someone who's worked at a company for 20 years but is now sick of working there because the company is now asking him to do ridiculous things and has turned their back on him on many things regarding ethical issues and sometimes financial like he has to pay for repairs at the plant (WTF?). He doesn't want to leave because he would lose all his benefits and would have to start alllll ovvvveeeerrrr again.

I'm still blown away how people work all year round with only 2 weeks of vacation.

 

[JasonRox]

There's definitely a good case that he's for socialism. He supported Rage Against The Machine, who were very in favor of socialist values. Protesting with them at the NYSE to disperse a socialist message makes him a socialist.

I'm a socialist. What's the problem with that?

O'Reilly spreads propanganda also and he's on drugs?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I'm a socialist. What's the problem with that?

O'Reilly spreads propanganda also and he's on drugs?

Because there's this ill-informed notion from socialists that a person wanting to make a lot of money is just a bloodsucking bastard. What's wrong with wanting to have a large income?

 

[isly ilwott]

Michael Moore is the epitome of wasted flesh. His Farenheit 911 is no more a documentary than is Godzilla vs King Kong.

 

[russ_watters]

Come on, 2 weeks of vacation a year... sad just sad. France, Morroco, New Zealand all get minimum of 5 weeks vacation and the list of countries is bigger (just can't reference them but those 3 I know for sure).

And France has perpetually high unemployment, low productivity, and low economic growth. Coincidence?

The US has higher growth than most western nations, largely for productivity reasons related to hours worked.

Here in North America, you need to work YEARS to get benefits and vacation time.

That is not generally true. Benefits typically start the day you start work. You may have to earn the vacation time as you go (ie, you can't take 2 weeks of vacation a month after you start), but that isn't always true either.

they all agreed..

All agreed on what, exactly? That Canada's health care system is unequivocably better? The comparison between health care in the US and Canada is far from black and white and it is easy to find information on it. Here's the Wiki:

Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Things about Canada's health care system that are better:
Cheaper.
Higher life expectancy. (not necessarily a result of the health care system, but often connected)
Universal.

Things that are better about the US's health care:
Shorter wait times for care (roughly half as long as in Canada for all types of care).
Better high-end care (ie, severe illnesses like cancer, heart disease).
Better (faster) adoption of new technology.
Choice.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Come on, 2 weeks of vacation a year... sad just sad. France, Morroco, New Zealand all get minimum of 5 weeks vacation and the list of countries is bigger (just can't reference them but those 3 I know for sure). Here in North America, you need to work YEARS to get benefits and vacation time. Why is that good? You won't leave the company because you don't want to lose your benefits. In France, you have them no matter where you go or choose to work. Giving you the ease to work and be happy where you work. Think about it. I know someone who's worked at a company for 20 years but is now sick of working there because the company is now asking him to do ridiculous things and has turned their back on him on many things regarding ethical issues and sometimes financial like he has to pay for repairs at the plant (WTF?). He doesn't want to leave because he would lose all his benefits and would have to start alllll ovvvveeeerrrr again.

I'm still blown away how people work all year round with only 2 weeks of vacation.

I don't get paid vacation. I don't even always get two days off per week. I bet even in those countries you mention that there are people who work jobs where they don't get vacation or are not able to take full advantage of it. The one job I had that offered paid vacation would not let us use it except during certain time frames because at many instances it was too busy to not have a full staff. Only one of us could take vacation at a time aswell. Almost every time I asked for vacation I found out that a couple other employees had already taken up all of the possible days for it. They wouldn't pay us out for the accrued time either unless we left the company. So I left the company.