|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
about ss... (Reply to this comment)
by djtheory
good review. however, I believe that the government
was actually running an on-budget surplus of about 60 billion by 2002. they still inflated the amount by including S.S. surpluses, which are off-budget.
|
Dec 31 '06
1:39 am PST
|
|
A good, balanced review (Reply to this comment)
by Carrathon
That's all that I have to say.
|
Jul 25 '05
10:11 am PDT
|
|
You're livin' here! (Reply to this comment)
by sputumsuck
I was led to your site because I saw your read my Deep Purple review. Interesting book review; my response to the author would be my usual one to U.S. citizens who are that critical: Try living somewhere halfway around the world if you really think this is so bad. -Rob (sputumsuck) robslob3@juno.com
|
Feb 17 '04
7:27 am PST
|
|
You walked the wire here... (Reply to this comment)
by chaospump
An excellent, well balanced review of a lightning-rod subject and author. You know you've done pretty well staying to the middle if you get angry responses from both sides...
|
Jan 28 '03
9:59 am PST
|
|
A few points about Ralph (Reply to this comment)
by hiphop101
Overall, you wrote a good review. I would like to take issue with a few points you made about Ralph Nader though. One, I will refer to him as a genius. I did in 2000 and after Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, Imclone, etc...oh and by the way watch for Computer Associates to be the next big fallen crooked corporation (just my little prediction for 2003) I think my belief that Nader is a genius has only been confirmed. Wow, that was a long run-on sentance. Anyway, the other point I'd like to make is that when it came to Ralph Nader's issues I believe 90% of the public agrees with him. The media portrayed him as a nut-case, far out, leftist, radical, communist. In reality universal healthcare, corporate accountability and a focus on economic justice and civil rights are not radical concepts. They are just things the Dem/Reps don't like to deal with. While many in the two old parties might not admit it, had the course of history been slighty altered and Enron had fallen during the 2000 elections in a pre-9/11 world, Nader may have been elected.
|
Jan 02 '03
11:52 pm PST
|
|
A well written chapter by chapter review (Reply to this comment)
by sgd1077
I also liked the Moore bashing bits. Right on about the bank accounts! That caught him with his pants down.
|
Jul 11 '02
8:14 pm PDT
|
|
Hi Brian, (Reply to this comment)
by Lisa_J
Thanks for the nicely detailed and insightful review. Hugs~ Lisa_J
|
Jul 04 '02
9:58 pm PDT
|
|
yup (Reply to this comment)
by garym
Fair minded review.
Moore is not fair.
Moore is a clown. ihateclowns.com
If Moore is courageous, Letterman is Superman and Tom Green is a martyr. He is just big doof who plays by no rules and is the first to complain when others bend them.
He is the worst kind of populist, always on top of the latest trends and following the wind.
Gary
|
Apr 01 '02
5:59 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Great review. Sets something straight cfor me. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Ralph Nader? A genius?! How much crack do you smoke in an average day?
I won't deny that many large corporations do what they can to live at the expense of anyone but themselves..but the ROOT of the problem is government power. If government didn't have the authority to take money from one person, or group of persons, to give to another, politically favored group of people, either A) corporations would no longer be able to take what isn't theirs, or B) They wouldn't have an incentive to try and influence government in order to protect themselves...
Nader is just another economically challenged, Marxist fool..... (But I repeat myself....)
|
Mar 12 '02
4:50 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Hey jay1051971, I mean Bryan_Carey! (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Well put.
|
Mar 12 '02
2:57 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Bryan (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
I apologize.
|
Mar 11 '02
2:33 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Hey jay1051971, I mean Bryan_Carey! (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
I guess I misunderstood this book. My fault. I wasn't sure what the point was about it or just how you really felt.Your interpretation threw me. It was hard for me to figure what was serious or funny to you.
|
Mar 11 '02
2:30 pm PST
|
|
Did you catch this guy's act on "Politically Incorrect" last Friday? (Reply to this comment)
by remf2112
Moore was one of the guests on "Politically Incorrect" last Friday. Another guest was an Innuit woman who supports development in northern Alaska. Moore was so patronizing of this woman that it was unbelievable, even for so obvious a hypocrite as himself. I like this genre of books, but naturally I prefer P.J. O'Rourke.
|
Mar 11 '02
1:37 pm PST
|
|
Re: Bryan (Reply to this comment)
by Bryan_Carey
Michael Moore is usually the serious type. But this book was written in a humorous way, which is why I referred to it as "silly". There are some serious issues in this book, but because it's written in a humorous way, you don't know whether or not to take it seriously.
|
Mar 11 '02
6:51 am PST
|
|
Re: Hey jay1051971, I mean Bryan_Carey! (Reply to this comment)
by Bryan_Carey
Michael Moore, a Libertarian? You're nuts!!!!
You obviously have no idea what the word "Libertarian" even means. Michael Moore is a big- government liberal who supports the Green Party, making him about as un-Libertarian as a man can be.
If you can't post an intelligent statement, could you do me a favor and not post anything?
|
Mar 11 '02
6:10 am PST
|
|
intriguing (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
Sounds pretty interesting. Great analysis.
Jan
|
Mar 11 '02
12:17 am PST
|
|
Bryan (Reply to this comment)
by sfarmer76
I don't like the way you characterize Michael Moore as "silly" and "not serious" but I'm VHing your review anyways. Michael Moore is a courageous individual that has the guts to stand up and say out loud what many people only have the timerity to think in private. After Sept. 11, Harper Collins almost backed out of publishing the book but Mr. Moore pressed on -- and eventually Harper Collins decided to go forth with publication. Mr. Moore has been vindicated by popular opinion, because his book debuted at No. 1 on Amazon.com with scant word of mouth PR.
|
Mar 10 '02
8:57 pm PST
|
|
Re: Great review. Sets something straight cfor me. (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Dear Bud: One thing pshan needs to remember is that Moore, like Bryan, LaFollett and George Wallace, is a Populist. He speaks for the non-Buds, non pshans, of the World, who had their money in Enron or bought a house in a former toxic dump. He spoke originally for the people of his home town, Flynt, Michigan, many of whom lost everything they had when a lot of car manufacturing was switched to Mexico.
Now, Moore nor pshan need not worry about Boeing overmuch. In a sense, 911 threw a lot of Boeing workers out of work, but the "War on Terrorism" will put them back again. Many of those workers, at least, are used to it.
Moore, of course, doesn't want to put our President in jail. He simply wants him to own up fully to his hypocrisy.
And a side note to you, Bud, Ralph Nader is a genius, in a way, in pointing out the wrong-headed, underhanded things that business conglomerates do to screw us out of what little most of us really have, in the Richest Country in the World.
Ralph Nader, on the other hand, was also an egomaniacal fool in running for President in such a way that he helped put George W. Bush into office. He will bear the weight of guilt for what has resulted, and the madness which has been launched in our name.
If you don't know what I mean, I want you to come back to this comment two years from now, and it will be perfectly clear to you.
A rather nicely balanced review from one I gather would not be philosophically in Mr. Moore's camp.
Regards.
[Macresarf1]
|
Mar 10 '02
11:41 am PST
|
|
Great review. Sets something straight cfor me. (Reply to this comment)
by pshan
I just saw a reference to this book on CSPAN where Mr. Moore was ranting on about Stupid White Men. He was definitely on a soapbox ranting on. At the end of the rant he paused, picked up his book, and said something like "everyone knows this is a humorous book, right?" pointing out that the book is intended to be funny, even if his rant wasn't.
In the CSPAN rant, he blamed Boeing for hurting so many people by laying them off and blaming "9/11" when the laying off of people had noting to do with "9/11". My observation was that this guy can't connect the dots. (Dot 1) 9/11 involved aircraft, therefore (Dot 2) people didn't want to fly as much, therefore (Dot 3) airline revenue dropped like a rock, therefore (Dot 4) there was no need to buy more aircraft since nobody would fly in them, so (Dot 5) Boeing's orders dried up, therefore (Dot 6) Boeing lost revenue and (Dot 7) had to lay off lots of people.
As for your review, you say that he wants Bush to own up to "possibe felonies" of drug use, and later he decries all the "harmless" people in jail for drug use. Which is it? Does he want Bush in jail for using drugs, or does he want drug users not to be put in jail since they are harmless people?
Thanks for your review. It has convinced me to ignore the book. If a book is going to use humor to push political views forward, then one or the other must be VERY good. Your review indicates that this book accomplished neither.
|
Mar 10 '02
6:28 am PST
|
|
He's a bit of a rabble rouser (Reply to this comment)
by 4-1-1
...and a big talker, like Bobby Baldwin. I lump them together in the same category.
Great review Bryan.
|
Mar 09 '02
1:52 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.