Thursday, March 3, 2011

Michael Moore, Slavery Advocate

Believe it or not, Michael Moore is not a communist. Oh, he says communist sounding things and he likes to think of himself as a progressive in the communist mold. But he’s not. What he really is, is an advocate for slavery, as his latest quote about rich people’s money belonging to the public demonstrates. Here’s why.

To understand the implications of what Michael Moore has said, let’s start with something basic. What money is? Money is a tool we use to store the value of our labor. Think of it this way, when you are asked to provide a service to another person, such as working eight hours in the burger mines, you normally demand compensation for your efforts. Money is what is used to compensate you.

If there was no such thing as money, this process of providing services would be much more complex. What you would be facing would be a barter system where you would need to find someone who (1) wants your services, (2) is willing to meet your price, AND (3) has something you are willing to accept in trade. Thus, a bicycle shop owner may want you to work as his doctor, but if you don’t want a bicycle, then you can’t reach a deal, unless the shop owner happens to find a third party who has what you want and who happens to be willing to trade that for a bicycle. You see the problem?

Money eliminates this third requirement. It is a convenience, that lets you trade your labor without having to engage in a wasteful and difficult barter system of matching wants. Thus, the bicycle shop owner can give you money rather than giving you bicycles or needing to find something else you are willing to accept.

Moreover, money lets you store the value of your labor for the future. In the barter world, you either need to trade immediately for goods and services, or you run the risk that the bike shop owner might not pay his debt to you when you finally ask for it -- a serious risk which grows worse the longer you wait. But money has value separate and apart from the promises of any one person with whom you’ve bartered. Therefore, the risk of waiting to spend it are much reduced and you can safely collect money by expending labor in the present for use in the future. Hence, money lets us go from being a consuming species that needs to work constantly for its day-to-day needs, to being a species that can plan for the long term and save for the future.

Indeed, without money, there would be no retirement and the old and the infirm would be extremely poor as their labor has little value compared to the young -- unless you believe in communism, which says that all labor belongs to the state and the state has the right to take it from everyone and dole it out as the state sees fit.

This is why money is a means for storing the value of our labor. We expend labor to earn it, and as long as we hold it, we have a claim to the value of that labor which can be “cashed in” for goods or services at any point.

So what happens when you take someone’s money? You turn them into slaves because you deprive them of the value of their labor, just as if you watched someone work for the bicycle and then took the bicycle away. Thus, when Michael Moore talks about rich people’s money being a “national resource” which belongs to us, what he’s suggesting is that we have a right to deprive rich people of the value of their labor, i.e. to make them our slaves.

And lest you think I’ve exaggerating what idiot Moore has said, check out this quote from an interview with GRITtv:

"[The rich are] sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it."
Some would call this communism, but it’s not. Moore isn’t advocating that everyone be deprived of their labor and the benefits of that theft be passed out to everyone according to their needs, which would be communism or collectivism. Instead, he’s advocating taking money just from a certain class of people, i.e., the rich. That’s called slavery. Indeed, that’s the same thing as if he had said: “look at all those day laborers who have all that labor to give, but they greedily only give it for money. That’s our labor, we should force them to work for us.”

If Moore believed in taking everyone’s property and passing it out, then I would call him a communist. But as long as he advocates doing this only to certain people, then I say he wants to be a slave owner.

That’s why he’s despicable. . . well, it’s one of many reasons.

45 comments:

CrispyRice said...

Andrew, I know this is off topic, but can you give us a quick run down on the Florida judge's decision today? It sounds bad to me.

Tennessee Jed said...

Liberals, of course, prefer to think of themselves as modern day Robin Hoods, who rob from the rich and give to the poor. They "re-distribute" wealth. What they do is hate businessmen. They believe "the rich" have "exploited" the poor and do not deserve what they get. Except the rich ones, like Moore don't include themselves when it comes time to protect themselves.

The one good thing about what has happened recently is that liberals have become more open (or brazen) about honestly stating what they believe. Moore probably means that he feels since the rich ARE so rich, they MORALLY owe it to the country to even out the wealth.

Fortunately, just as your article points out, most Americans don't see it that way.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think Moore thinks that the rich are only rich because they've exploited the rest of us, and thus we have the right to take it back. (Himself excluded of course.)

On the issue of liberals becoming more brazen, you're absolutely right. For about 10 years, they were pretty good at hiding their real beliefs behind economic buzzwords that they warped and misused as code words. But once they thought America had changed after the election of Obama, they really came out into the open finally. And now people see what they really believe -- and it ain't pretty!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Sure.

The government (Justice) asked him to clarify his decision. But what they were really doing was asking for a stay without doing that -- they wanted to delay the period they had to file an appeal.

In particular, they wanted to know why he didn't issue an injunction. Only, the thing is, he didn't have to issue an injunction for his decision to become effective -- District Court orders are effective upon issuance unless stayed.

So the Judge blasted them for this tactic and basically pointed out how stupid they are.

Then he treated their motion as a motion to stay and he decided that he would agree to stay the decision so long as they appealed within 7 days.

So basically, as long as they appeal within 7 days, then his decision won't take effect until after the appeal. If they don't file on time, then his decision will take effect and ObamaCare will be stopped in it's tracks until an appeals court overturns his decision.

Clear?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Moore is an ignorant purveyor of the completely discredited Marxist labor theory of value. He doesn't even understand the theory he's espousing, such as knowing the difference between value and compensation. He only includes human nature in his maunderings when it describes him. If he can't intelligently explain the labor theory of value and delineate between "value," "worth," "compensation" and "just payment," he shouldn't be arguing it. But that doesn't stop fathead Moore. Even the communists finally figured out that if you don't pay people properly for their work (not their "labor"), they will rebel or become completely inefficient and resentful.

I particularly like your conclusion that Moore's actual theory is slavery. Even Marx would have objected to "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, unless I decide he doesn't need it." In theory, at least. LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Thanks! I think he's clearly talking about slavery because he's literally advocating that we separate out rich people and exploit them like a resource for the benefit of the rest of us. That's about as clear a statement of slavery as you're going to get.

In terms of the Marxist theory of labor, I'm not sure Moore could even spell Marx. He just knows that he doesn't like certain people and he wants their stripped, enslaved and murdered (if possible)... in a good, liberal way of course.

patti said...

when i saw mm's quote, i felt the need to punch something soft and stupid, not to mention greedy. know of anything like that?!

the whole bunch of these leftist thugs think they can say these things and we should line up behind them.

my, aren't they gonna be surprised when they try to actually take what isn't theirs...

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I do believe I do know something soft, stupid and greedy. Isn't it an obscene quote?

I'd honestly like to see something like this imposed to Moore and his buddies to see how they feel about it afterwards. Oh, you thought you earned that money? Funny, we didn't see it that way. Gee, who knew? Guess it's too late to give back your money Mike, but don't worry, we won't take anymore... until we need it.

Ed said...

Excellent point! I see Michael Moore as a communist, but you're right that he's not talking about communism, he's talking about communism for some and freedom for others. That sounds a lot like slavery.

Ed said...

Patti, I'd love to punch him too! Whack! Pow! Bam!

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Some animals are more equal than others, and in this case some animals are animals and some aren't.

Ed said...

Andrew. Orwell must have been a prophet!

Also, thanks for the analysis on the ObamaCare decision. The MSM was saying he stayed his decision, but I don't trust anything by them until I can run it by Commentarama! :D

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, You're welcome. Glad to hear that we're you're number 1 source in news! :-)

JG said...

On a slightly related note, my husband and I went to the on-post gun range here recently. A common practice in the military is to charge people for amenities and events differently based on their rank. The gun range is one of those things. The fellow in the stall next to us commented that "it's only right that they [people in my husband's pay grade] get charged more, since they make more, ya know?" Obviously, he didn't know that my husband was in that category, or he wouldn't have spoken so freely (I hope). But it's a little insulting. Yeah, we make SO much money :p so we "deserve" to be charged more. One could say, instead, that one was grateful that they didn't have to pay as much since they are on a "fixed income" or something like that. But that's never how it's said. It's always, "Those people who make more deserve to get fleeced."

It's not just Michael Moore. Fiscal "revenge" permeates all public sector fields.

AndrewPrice said...

JG, Unfortunately, "spite" sells. In fact, there was a study done several years back where they tested how much spite influences human thinking.

What they found was shocking. They found that a sizable percentage (around 40%) of respondents would actually forgo getting a benefit if they felt that someone else would get a bigger benefit. In other words, they would rather that no one benefited if they thought someone else would get more than they did.

Think about that for a moment -- I will hurt myself, just because you would have gotten more than I would have gotten.

To me, that's inconceivable thinking. But it seems to be how a large segment of the population thinks. And we see that in politics too. Much of what the progressives are about (i.e. what motivates them) is to punish people they think have too much -- not to lift up those who don't have, but to bring down those who do.

Moore fits right into that. Everything he's saying here is about punishing those he doesn't like, not about helping those he feels need it.

So while I'd love to say that the guy at the shooting range misspoke, odds are that he really does think that way.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

This fat slob has never created an honest documentary.

His "Bowling for Columbine" used a tragedy to create a negative meme on guns. Basically, he wanted his audience to walk out of his movie thinking guns kill people, not people kill people. The tragedy happened in Colorado, yet talks about a bank from Michigan which gave away free guns.

What? Let's say the psychotic kids used rocks to kill instead of guns.

The psychos killed the kids with rocks, 500 miles away, a bank gives out rocks. There is a connection. There has to be. Rocks were used both times. See?

In Sicko, he takes a friend by boat to Cuba to partake of Castro's World Famous "Free" Healthcare. Let's assume for a moment that Cuba's healthcare is comparable to the US. The healthcare seeker, a 9-11 victim, indeed didn't pay for the "free" healthcare. The elephant in the room, that Michael Moore doesn't want you to look at, the cost for the trip down to Cuba either. Last time I checked, it costs money to travel there.

He would have us believe that all it takes is to charter a boat for a day. Travel to Cuba to get free healthcare that you can't get here. It costs a lot of money to charter a small boat to travel the 90 miles to Cuba. This is assuming that Michael actually did this. I find it hard to believe that Cuba didn't fire upon an unexpected visitor. I also find it hard to believe that Michael got a charter captain to agree to risk his boat in breaking the embargo for Michael's friend for free. I mean, if true, the Captain must be related to Mother Teresa.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Honesty is not his forte.

Almost everything he said in Bowling for Columbine was false. His characterization of the two killers, his connection with guns, etc. etc. The truth is, those two monsters we psychotics who went through all the liberal counseling someone like Moore advocates and then they went out and killed people in cold blood. That they used guns was irrelevant. If they had no guns, they would have build bombs or used knives.

Sicko was a total crock. First, Moore doesn't seem to grasp that he was playing the role of useful idiot, and that the Cubans took him to a model clinic and made sure everything ran smoothly for his propaganda piece. If he really was serious about finding out the truth, he should have looked into the conditions for average Cubans who get very little health care -- you get what you pay for after all. Plus, the cost of when got is not the boat trip, but the confiscation, imprisonment and slavery of an entire people. That would be like going to the South during the era of slavery to a show-clinic created by southern slave owners and then reporting that everything was free and great.

He's a liar and he knows it.

AndrewPrice said...

Oh, and Joel, don't get me started on Fahrenheit 911! That thing was faked, distorted, manipulated and packed without outright lies.

DUQ said...

Nice analysis! Of course, this could also be used to say that any difference in tax rates is slavery. I take it you favor a flat tax

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I could actually be used to say that all income tax is slavery, but that's just semantics.

I would prefer to see the entire income tax eliminated as I don't think the government should be causing distortions in the labor market. I would prefer to see it replaced with a consumption tax or some sort, like a sales tax. Though that would need restrictions. But failing that, I would definitely prefer a flat tax.

Anonymous said...

Andrew, I would argue that what Moore's arguing is communism. Remember Marx's dictum: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." What Moore is advocating here isn't so much slavery in the technical sense of the word (I would argue) as it is an attempt to equalize personal wealth by forcibly taking income from the upper class and giving it to the lower class. That's theoretical communism. Of course, he's also displaying real-world communism by demanding everyone do this except him and other members of the enlightened elite. Because hey, someone has to lead the masses out of ignorance and into utopia.

T_Rav said...

Whoops. That was me with Anonymous, I hit the thing too quickly.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon ( or T-Rav, if that is your real name ;-) ),

He's definitely spouting part of communism, the idea of redistributing wealth from those who have "too much" to those who "don't have enough." And he's certainly got the whole "workers of the world are exploited by the capitalists" thing going.

So it's hard to say that he isn't spouting communism.

But, I would say that he's being even less honest than communists in that he's only concerned with one half of the equation -- taking from those who have. In other words, rather than making everyone equal, he has singled out a group that he wants to destroy.

Communism, in theory at least, isn't interested in destroying a class of people, just in making everyone equal -- though in practice, that's not how it ever works. What he's arguing is basically, pure robbery, taking from the rich and spreading it around, but not really doing anything else for the rest of society.

So I'm not sure that's communism. I see it as closer to slavery than communism. I guess you could also call it "spiteocracy"?

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Feel free to disagree. I'm happy to debate the issue... even though Star Trek the Motion Picture is coming on soon! LOL!


P.S.S. On the name things, I wish we had a way to edit posts, but Google hasn't advanced that far yet, and it probably will be a disaster when they finally do.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, no biggie. The class I TA for had "The Communist Manifesto" as its discussion reading for this week, and our professor was emphasizing how Marxism wasn't as horrible as it's often made out to be, something I then had to turn around and subtly knock down when talking to the students. So I've been a little fired up on the issue, which led to me hitting the "Submit" button too excitedly.

But as to communism, I think it is a little more destructive than that, even on the theoretical level. Marx very clearly engages in the rhetoric of a life-or-death struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and I think if you read closely, he's definitely advocating the physical destruction of the former if they stand in the latter's way. There were a number of committed Communists who talked about not just depriving the owners of their wealth but of physically exterminating them and their families, as though they were a race all their own. For non-Marxist communism, it's a little different, but the ideology is shot through with violence and coercion, even at its historical beginnings.

I await the next Star Trek post.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's absolutely true and I stand corrected. If you just look at the pure theory from an economics standpoint (i.e. stripped down), it doesn't contain any of the nastiness, it's just very technical about about redistribution of "excess" wealth -- "economist speak".

Of course, that automatically includes the idea of stealing the product of people's labor and making them slaves of the system. And of course, it doesn't work because it fails to account for people who become free riders... who presumably become economic criminals. So it is implicitly nasty, even if it's not explicitly so.

But as you say, the theory itself as presented by most all Marxists (and certainly as implemented) is about class warfare and does treat the upper class as a thing to be exterminated or subjugated in the name of remaking society.

In fact, I guess there is always a sense in Marxism (even the stripped down version) of remaking man into the new socialist man -- hence the need to destroy the past and break the human spirit.

I'm glad to hear that you did your best to do a little "corrective thinking" with your class! Seriously! Bravo!


(I'll do a Star Trek take down next Wednesday.)

Doc Whoa said...

I hate Michael Moore. Please do not ever review his "documentaries."

T_Rav said...

Thanks Andrew! I don't engage in too much of that, because I don't feel it's my place to do so. But the professor was basically saying that Marx had a lot of good ideas, and that the Industrial Revolution proved how badly flawed capitalism and the free market was, and I felt I couldn't leave it there. I didn't say too much; I mainly pointed out the problems with Marxism and that Marx was a rather crummy individual. And most of the students agreed communism was bad in practice.

As for the people pushing this stuff, many of them (including Marx himself) were extremely nasty in person where groups they didn't like were concerned. Marx even pushed it to the point of saying in his private writings that entire races (such as the Czechs) needed to be exterminated for being bourgeois or reactionary or something. With the founders of Communism spouting such things, it's no surprise the movement turned out the way it did.

AndrewPrice said...

Don't worry Doc, I don't think I could sit through another Michael Moore fantasy.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, It's still good that you gave a few of the facts that were "overlooked." Let's hope you opened a few minds.

I found, going through school, that with the exception of the truly vocal leftist students, most of the students knew the deal with leftist professors and just nodded their heads like they were supposed to and then promptly forgot everything the professor tried to indoctrinate them with.

I took the other approach and drove them insane. I had quite a few incidents where professors came to hate me. Good times.

Yeah, everything I've ever read about the Marxists showed them to be really hate-filled, blood thirsty murders who were happy to exterminate whole populations to get their twisted ideas in place. It's no wonder that Marxism lent itself so easily to death camps, gulags, and purges.

Of course, I would say that's implicit in the very foundation of the philosophy as well -- which is "I know what's good for everyone and you will all comply with my wishes." Leftists don't like to finish that thought because it's bad PR, but the only way to finish it is "and I will force you to comply or get rid of you."

Interestingly, I also understand that despite many of the Marxists being Jewish, they were also deeply antiSemitic, which again lent itself to Nazism and communism quite nicely.

T_Rav said...

Heh, those must have been some interesting times in the lecture hall.

The trouble is, I feel things have gotten to the point (at least at this university) that it's the Marxists and their sympathizers who come off sounding reasonable and authoritative and those who try to set the record straight, student or TA, sound like they have an ax to grind. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, which is another in my long list of grievances against higher ed.

As far as the old-school Commies go, Marx himself was violently anti-Semitic (highly ironic given that his family was not only originally Jewish, but once upon a time had included some prominent rabbis and theologians) and many of his cohorts were as well. The point you make about this violence and bloodthirstiness being inherent in the ideas is spot on, and raises a lot of issues with the general philosophy of Marx and the early history of European socialist movements--but that's probably best left to another day.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, It got ugly a couple times, but I wasn't going to back down. I kept tripping up one law professor with his own quotes from prior cases, which was driving him insane. He really blew it when he decided to make a fool of me one day and I just twisted him all over the place. That's pretty embarassing for a professor to be out-argued by a student. Half the class actually applauded when he finally gave up.

There were many more incidents in many classes. I'm one of those people who can be your best student if you're fair and capable, but your worst nightmare if you're trying to indoctrinate the class or fake your way through it.

But of course, there is always a sizable portion of any group that believes that authority is always right, no matter what. So I know what you mean.

Socialism is a rotten philosophy because it is premised on taking something that does not belong to you. And I've always found that the more ardent the socialist, the more violent they are because the more convinced they are that they are the good guys and the capitalists are bad guys.

I've always found it truly strange that Marx was so deeply antiSemitic, but he's hardly unique. A big element of modern liberalism is "self-hate", with "self" being either the person's own race, culture, country, gender, etc. I don't pretend to understand it, but it seems to be a fairly common issue among the left. Maybe it's just familiarity breeding contempt combined with the mistaken ideal-ization of those we don't know?

BevfromNYC said...

I know this is off topic, but Is it just me or does anyone else think the world has just turned topsy turvy now that Hugo Chavez and Muamar Ghaddaffi are aligning for "peace talks" to end the conflict in Libya? That's insane! I read that and had to laugh because it was such an absurd idea. But then again Libya was on the UN Human Rights Counsel...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, The world is insane. But why not? In that spirit, here are my questions:

1. Will they invite the rebels who clearly intend to usher in Gaddafi's retirement, or will Gaddafi and Hugo work it out for them?

and

2. With two snazzy dressers like Gaddafi and Hugo together for these talks, will Prince mediate?

T_Rav said...

3. Will Chavez, Gaddafi, and Charlie Sheen combine their zaniness into a new show, called "Two and a Half Nutjobs"?

(Note: You decide which one is the "Half.")

T_Rav said...

Andrew, socialism has always been about coercion. The only thing that has ever changed is how much coercion socialists expect to need to use and at what point. No matter who happens to be the face of the movement at any given time, it's always the same.

Not all the 19th-century socialist theorists were the same, personally speaking: some were better people than others, but Marx was the absolute worst. Besides being an anti-Semitic and violently racist, he was personally hateful, had no real friends besides Engels, cheated on his wife, etc. I know you shouldn't judge an ideology based only on the behavior of its founder, but I do believe one's personality provides some keys to one's philosophy. And when, despite being so famous during your lifetime, there are only about a dozen people at your funeral, counting you, that says something.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree with you. In general, an ideology should be judged on its ideas rather than the personality of its founder, but sometimes the two are really very intertwined, like Nazism and Hitler. And I think Marx fits that bill as well. He was an all around hateful man, and his ideology reflects that.

In terms of socialism, I agree. It's always the same impulse, it's just a matter of degree. What's particularly interesting to me, is that socialism has a history that is overwhelmingly and uncontradictedly a history of destruction (both of people and economies), yet socialists continue to believe in it.


P.S. I love the Charlie Sheen connection. "Two and a Half Nutjobs" might make for compelling viewing!

T_Rav said...

Andrew, it's a matter of them being so blatantly unfamiliar with their own history. A few years ago, I would have doubted that Communism would ever make a comeback: It seemed to have been totally discredited and instead we would see something like "social democracy." But since Obama's election, I've been rethinking that--it seems like more and more people are unaware of what this is and what it has already led to. They're doomed to learn the same lessons over and over again.

This is why I feel a general history of socialism needs to be produced. Not something that gets caught up in economic statistics or philosophical language; but something that traces its development, in terms which get the point across but are still accessible to everyone. There are a lot of good books about it already, but they don't seem to make much of an impact.

P.S. Can you imagine what that kind of show would look like? I think the set would just rise up into the atmosphere suddenly with the force of all that hot air :-)

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I think there are two things going on.

First, I've noticed that leftists put their faith in people rather than ideas. Thus, it's actually very easy for them to excuse the history of socialism by assuming that it just wasn't done by "the right person."

Secondly, as you say, most people are just ignorant of history. Thus, they have no idea what socialism was really like, or they fall for propaganda like the idea that the Nazis were "right wing" when they are so clearly a socialist phenomena, or the idea that "communism has never really been tried." In that regard, I think your idea of a graphic and readable "history of socialism" would be (1) a HUGE hit and (2) a huge benefit for society at large.

What I always thought was a shame was that everyone wasn't forced to visit East Germany. I went right after the wall came down and it was indescribable. The devastation was incredible. And then I came home and I ran into environmentalists who were claiming that capitalism is bad for the environment but socialism was good and they simply wouldn't believe the dead lakes, the rivers of white toxic foam floating on the rivers, the toxic air, the destroyed forrests and fields. You couldn't have done more damage if you set out to try to devastate the place.


I envision the set looking something like a cross between Miami Vice and The Miss America Pagent, only taking place in the middle of a desert. And the three of them could float just above the set as they take turns ranting about insane topics. I think we have a hit! ;-)

T_Rav said...

Andrew, would that they were all only desert mirages (sigh)

Of course, I'm a bit too young to remember Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I had several professors at my undergrad institution who had been to the East or, in the case of my two German professors, actually came from there. One of them told our class that he, his siblings, and their mother had fled to the West in the early '50s (she was in trouble with the government for not letting them wear the Communist uniforms to school), and when they crossed the border--this was outside Berlin--they came to a minefield, and their mother had everyone spread out with about ten yards between them, so that if one of them stepped on a mine, it would take out just that one person and not all of them. Any attempt to praise Communism has to fall on stories such as that.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Never was there a more peaceful loving anti capitalist who fed off the tit of rhetoric and capitalism in a sense of ultimate hypocrisy.

My cup doth runnith over for prayers for Michael Moore. For it is written "Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord."

I remember a prayer once told to me by a good friend. I will change the ending here to suit this subject.

"Dear Lord, last year you took away my favorite singer and my favorite actor."

"Dear Lord, my favorite fantasy documentary maker is Michael Moore."

rlaWTX said...

why does anyone take him seriously?
same question that I apply to C Sheen, H Chavez, M Khadaffy, J Carter, A Baldwin, & M Gibson. Oh and Gaga.

unrelatedly, did you see the NRO write-up about the DC Judge's explanation why Obamacare was constitutional? I am adding her to my question above!

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, My mother's family escaped from East Germany as well. My grandfather was the head of surgery in a hospital in Dresden, which gave him a good deal of freedom, which he used to speak his mind. That meant he would periodically spend nights at the police station being questioned. My grandmother said she got to the point that she couldn't take it anymore, not knowing if he would come back or not, so they escaped.

Then, when the wall came down, we went back over there to see what the place was like and it was stunning. It looked like a post-apocalypse Hollywood set.

I always felt they should have left part of it as a living museum to socialism, because so many socialists try to pretend that everything is really great in places like that -- or Cuba.

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, That's funny! LOL!

Moore is almost a cliche of the "rich socialist," a total hypocrite who wants to destroy what everyone else has all in the name of letting him manipulate and play with humanity. He's despicable.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Unfortunately, it doesn't take any brains, legal skill or judgment to be a judge these days -- all it takes is friends in the right places.

As for taking these people seriously, I think fewer and fewer people are. I just like pointing out their stupidity because some people do actually take them seriously.... like the herd over at Huffpo!

Post a Comment