Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure

[Illuminatus Primus]

(hint: when you win the Oscar, you have the right to say anything you want to America; that's part of the prize).

Of course he has the right. That doesn't mean it isn't in poor taste.

[Stormbringer]

He's another nanny state liberal who also happens to believe that our nation has no right to pursue policies in our best interest if they offend people.

You know Stormbringer, I can make very specific claims about Ann Coulter being an extremist wacko who distorts the truth, but so far, you've done nothing but keep calling him an extremist liberal and make broad generalizations without being specific.

As if we haven't gone endlessly over Michael Moore's penchant for distorting the truth and outright lying. Not to mention endless rehashing of his extreme left veiws. If you need those proved yet again, I suggest you take your fingers out of your ears.

[The Kernel]

(hint: when you win the Oscar, you have the right to say anything you want to America; that's part of the prize).

Of course he has the right. That doesn't mean it isn't in poor taste.

Poor taste to point out that Bush commited unconstitutional acts in selectively throwing out votes in the Flordia election that the "liberal" media glossed over? Jesus H. Christ, what kind of country do you think we live in? The NRA holding a rally in Denver after Columbine was in poor taste. Moore's speech was not.

Who did Moore hurt with his statements that Bush cheated his way into office and was fighting and lying to the American people about the reasons for fighting a war in Iraq? Was he lying? Have we found WMD in Iraq? Is there any evidence that Saddam is connected to the 9/11 terrorists? Moore's speech was that of a frustrated liberal American; all those who denounced him as a "traitor" for speaking out against the president seem to forget about a little thing called the First Amendment.

[Stormbringer]

Poor taste to point out that Bush commited unconstitutional acts in selectively throwing out votes in the Flordia election that the "liberal" media glossed over?

So we have to accept the democrats attempts to count voter intention where they screwed up the ballot? And one thing you guys seem to have missed is that the recount (conducted by a group of media organizations) confirmed Bush won the election under all but the most ridiculous standards.

Jesus H. Christ, what kind of country do you think we live in? The NRA holding a rally in Denver after Columbine was in poor taste. Moore's speech was not.

Let me guess Bowling For Columbine right? The NRA cancelled all meetings and activity but the legally required meeting; to make it clear, they had no choice but to hold that meeting. The rest of the that is stuff Moore spliced in from a rally a year later.

[The Kernel]

As if we haven't gone endlessly over Michael Moore's penchant for distorting the truth and outright lying. Not to mention endless rehashing of his extreme left veiws. If you need those proved yet again, I suggest you take your fingers out of your ears.

Yet you refuse to state any view that Moore holds that you have objections to. Typical anti-liberal additude.

You know what the biggest realism complaint people had against Bowling for Columbine? The incident in the bank where Moore implied (but didn't state) that he was able to immediately go home with a gun when he opened the account. Funny thing is, THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POINT. He wasn't trying to say that guns are bad or that we need longer waiting periods for them, he was trying to illustrate America's obsession with guns. Have you watched this fucking movie? Are you aware that Moore is not trying to advocate gun banning? He doesn't even find guns at fault with the gun deaths in America per se, he hints that perhaps it is our intolerance of each other that is the cause.

[Stormbringer]

Yet you refuse to state any view that Moore holds that you have objections to. Typical anti-liberal additude.

Actually, I disagree with Michael Moore on pretty much everything. But at this point I've got better things to do than check off the whole fucking list one by one.

You know what the biggest realism complaint people had against Bowling for Columbine? The incident in the bank where Moore implied (but didn't state) that he was able to immediately go home with a gun when he opened the account. Funny thing is, THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POINT. He wasn't trying to say that guns are bad or that we need longer waiting periods for them, he was trying to illustrate America's obsession with guns. Have you watched this fucking movie? Are you aware that Moore is not trying to advocate gun banning? He doesn't even find guns at fault with the gun deaths in America per se, he hints that perhaps it is our intolerance of each other that is the cause.

I'm not going to get into another flamewar over Bowling For Columbine. I'm sicking of arguing the point with out ever getting anywhere at all.

[theski]

Yet you refuse to state any view that Moore holds that you have objections to. Typical anti-liberal additude.

OK... How about Moore on Economics

Moore

Paying workers more money makes you money!
Dear brother-in-law, when you don't pay people enough for them to take care of life's essentials, it ends up costing you and everybody else a lot of money. When you pay your employees more money, what do you think they do with it? Invest it in stocks? Hoard it in offshore accounts? No! They spend it! And what do they spend it on? The stuff you make and sell! If you pay people squat, or lay them off, they can't buy your stuff. They become a drain on the economy; some turn to crime, and when they turn to crime, it's your Mercedes they want, not some junker Oldsmobile in their poor neighbour's driveway.

In the real world...

Only someone with as woefully ignorant an understanding of fundamental economics as Michael Moore could actually believe this idiocy. His basic premise is correct, that if you pay your employees more money they will have more money to spend. However, what are the costs associated with paying your employees more money?

Let's say I run a widget company, and I have five employees in my widget factory. I pay them each $10 an hour, a rate that is fair for the work that they do, and enables me to operate my business for a reasonable level of profit. If I was to pay each employee $100 an hour for performing the same amount off work they would, as Mike suggests, have plenty of disposable income. My widget company would, as a result, go out of business, because my labor costs would be prohibitively expensive. Let's assume that the local government passes a "living wage" law, requiring that all employers pay their employees a minimum of $20 an hour. Instantly my labor costs have doubled, requiring a change in my business plan. I have two options: I can either lay off some of my workers, or I can raise my prices. If I lay off workers then those employees are going to have less disposable income to spend than they would have when they were making $10 an hour. If I raise the cost of my widgets then my customers are going to have to pay more of their disposable income to purchase the same quantity of widgets. Many customers will choose not to buy as many widgets as they usually do, resulting in decreased profits for the company. This will require me to scale back my level of widget production, which may result in me laying off unnecessary workers, who are no longer needed because of the decreased widget demand.

In short, paying your workers more money does not mean that you yourself will make more money. The exact opposite is true: it can (and will) cost lower-paid workers their jobs.

Just and example of his hype and doom over fact....

[The Kernel]

OK... How about Moore on Economics

Moore: "Paying workers more money makes you money!
Dear brother-in-law, when you don't pay people enough for them to take care of life's essentials, it ends up costing you and everybody else a lot of money. When you pay your employees more money, what do you think they do with it? Invest it in stocks? Hoard it in offshore accounts? No! They spend it! And what do they spend it on? The stuff you make and sell! If you pay people squat, or lay them off, they can't buy your stuff. They become a drain on the economy; some turn to crime, and when they turn to crime, it's your Mercedes they want, not some junker Oldsmobile in their poor neighbour's driveway. "

Where in here does Moore suggest paying workers $100 an hour for a $10 an hour job? Oh right, he doesn't.

Where in here does it

In the real world...
"Only someone with as woefully ignorant an understanding of fundamental economics as Michael Moore could actually believe this idiocy. His basic premise is correct, that if you pay your employees more money they will have more money to spend. However, what are the costs associated with paying your employees more money?

Let's say I run a widget company, and I have five employees in my widget factory. I pay them each $10 an hour, a rate that is fair for the work that they do, and enables me to operate my business for a reasonable level of profit. If I was to pay each employee $100 an hour for performing the same amount off work they would, as Mike suggests, have plenty of disposable income. My widget company would, as a result, go out of business, because my labor costs would be prohibitively expensive. Let's assume that the local government passes a "living wage" law, requiring that all employers pay their employees a minimum of $20 an hour. Instantly my labor costs have doubled, requiring a change in my business plan. I have two options: I can either lay off some of my workers, or I can raise my prices. If I lay off workers then those employees are going to have less disposable income to spend than they would have when they were making $10 an hour. If I raise the cost of my widgets then my customers are going to have to pay more of their disposable income to purchase the same quantity of widgets. Many customers will choose not to buy as many widgets as they usually do, resulting in decreased profits for the company. This will require me to scale back my level of widget production, which may result in me laying off unnecessary workers, who are no longer needed because of the decreased widget demand.

In short, paying your workers more money does not mean that you yourself will make more money. The exact opposite is true: it can (and will) cost lower-paid workers their jobs.

Just and example of his hype and doom over fact....

A 10x increase in salary? You ever hear of a false analogy? This suggests that there is no middle ground between paying $100/hr. and $10/hr.

Besides, this analogy is based on the assumption that a single small business increases employee benefits. Ever hear of something called minimum wage? Is it too much to ask that it be increased?

Even if you don't change the minimum wage standard, not all corporations are in what's called a "totally competative" market. In those markets, an increase in the minimum wage standard is the ONLY way to increase wages without going out of business. In the real world however, only a precious few industries are like this. Farming is the only real example.

Everyone else operates in a market where there are barriers to entry and products are NOT indistinguishable like crops are. Only when a company has ZERO-ECONOMIC PROFIT is there a barrier to wage increases. In corporations that do not operate under zero-economic profit, you can divert funds from other things (such as exorborant executive salaries, personal jets for executives, inflated management bonuses, dividends) and redivert that to employee salaries. Whoever said this quote of yours is either ignorant of economic principles or was being intentionally misleading (I suspect the later since it is a proper analogy for certain industries).

[The Kernel]

Actually, I disagree with Michael Moore on pretty much everything. But at this point I've got better things to do than check off the whole fucking list one by one.

Fine, just don't expect me to take you seriously about it. I understand that you people have had a lot of Michael Moore debates prior to my coming here and I accept that, but surely you realize that I won't take you at your word for this.

I'm not going to get into another flamewar over Bowling For Columbine. I'm sicking of arguing the point with out ever getting anywhere at all.

Fine, then don't get involved is this argument.

[theski]

The Kernel wrote:

Where in here does Moore suggest paying workers $100 an hour for a $10 an hour job? Oh right, he doesn't

The $100 was arbitrary...

The Kernal wrote:

Besides, this analogy is based on the assumption that a single small business increases employee benefits. Ever hear of something called minimum wage? Is it too much to ask that it be increased?

Even if you don't change the minimum wage standard, not all corporations are in what's called a "totally competative" market. In those markets, an increase in the minimum wage standard is the ONLY way to increase wages without going out of business. In the real world however, only a precious few industries are like this. Farming is the only real example.

I would add Retail. such as Electronics and Clothing.... anything were that added cost must be passed on to the consumer.

[Stormbringer]

Fine, just don't expect me to take you seriously about it. I understand that you people have had a lot of Michael Moore debates prior to my coming here and I accept that, but surely you realize that I won't take you at your word for this.

You're not going to take me at my word that I disagree with Michael Moore on pretty much everything?

Fine, then don't get involved is this argument.

You're the one that brought up BfC and repeated Moore's outright lies. I'm not going to butt heads with you on the meaning or purpose of Moore's film but I'm damn well going to call it when you treat them as fact.

[HemlockGrey]

Poor taste to point out that Bush commited unconstitutional acts in selectively throwing out votes in the Flordia election that the "liberal" media glossed over?

No, it's bad taste to point it out in a forum that is not politically related. He hijacked the Oscars and used them as a vehicle to impress his own views upon the audience. That's in bad taste.

[The Kernel]

The $100 was arbitrary...

Yes, and it was exaggerated so heavily that it showed extreme bias on the part of the person making the statement.

I would add Retail. such as Electronics and Clothing.... anything were that added cost must be passed on to the consumer.

Wrong, clothing is a market with a serious barrier to entry and not all products are indistinguishable. Or didn't you know that Gap costs more than Kmart no-name clothes?

Electronics has CERTAIN elements like this (RAM chip manufacturing is one) but it is VERY narrow in this market as name-brand still makes you pay a premium. There are also barriers to entry which means that Joe-Nobody can't just start a RAM chip company and pay the workers nothing, thus undercutting the big name suppliers.

Even farming isn't entirely a no-premium market. Organic vegtables are a good example as they command a premium over standard ones.

[theski]

Wrong, clothing is a market with a serious barrier to entry and not all products are indistinguishable. Or didn't you know that Gap costs more than Kmart no-name clothes?

So tell me .... You raise the Minimum wage to $15... Who absorbs those costs...The end user... and they are always pushing for price... a bit of a conflict..

[Wicked Pilot]

In the case of the Ann Coulter doll, they'd probably acheive more sales if they offered a life sized inflatable model complete with a mute button.

[Stormbringer]

Kernel,

You realize that raising salaries does no good right? The cost is passed along to the consumer and so the employee gains no increase in purchasing power. In the real world it would actually create a great deal of inflation which would in the end weaken the purchasing power of the employees money.

And it ignores the fundamental problem that some jobs just aren't worth a huge benefit package Moore dreams of. Take his recent appearance, he told Conan that they ought to get their temps insurance. Hate to break it to him but temps are just that. They're dime a dozen employees that don't perform work that makes the company enough money. No company could make money in his model.

And that ignores competition from foriegn countries that is inevitable unless we want to go totally isolationist and ruin our economy that route.

[The Kernel]

Poor taste to point out that Bush commited unconstitutional acts in selectively throwing out votes in the Flordia election that the "liberal" media glossed over?

No, it's bad taste to point it out in a forum that is not politically related. He hijacked the Oscars and used them as a vehicle to impress his own views upon the audience. That's in bad taste.

The Oscars aren't politcally related? Gee, they made an awfully big deal about Whoppi Goldberg winning an Oscar for being black didn't they?

[Stormbringer]

Poor taste to point out that Bush commited unconstitutional acts in selectively throwing out votes in the Flordia election that the "liberal" media glossed over?

No, it's bad taste to point it out in a forum that is not politically related. He hijacked the Oscars and used them as a vehicle to impress his own views upon the audience. That's in bad taste.

The Oscars aren't politcally related? Gee, they made an awfully big deal about Whoppi Goldberg winning an Oscar for being black didn't they?

A) The Oscar committee had asked everyone to refrain from making political statements one way or the other. He knew that and blatantly disregarded it.

B) Whoopi Goldberg didn't. It was Halle Berry. At least get your references right. And it's questionable, some people have suggested she got the Oscar in part because she's black and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had been bitching. Other thinks it's just the Oscars going for a depressing and pretentious film.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

You're a hopeless fucking idiot.

I hope you go around spewing inflammatory insensitive inappropriate shit like that and see what becomes of your reputation.

[Iceberg]

Kernel,

You realize that raising salaries does no good right? The cost is passed along to the consumer and so the employee gains no increase in purchasing power. In the real world it would actually create a great deal of inflation which would in the end weaken the purchasing power of the employees money.

That is seven flavors of bull. There is PLENTY of room to increase salaries on the line without adversely affecting dividends - and it's the dividends, not the bottom-line profit, that affects prices the most. If the second derivative of bottom-line profit goes down, shareholders don't really care as long as the company doesn't start reducing their dividend payments. If dividends go down, the shareholders start raising hell. Bottom-line profit is one of the less important indicators of a company's overall financial health.

[The Kernel]

Kernel,

You realize that raising salaries does no good right? The cost is passed along to the consumer and so the employee gains no increase in purchasing power. In the real world it would actually create a great deal of inflation which would in the end weaken the purchasing power of the employees money.

You would be correct if this was simply a case of leaving all other costs in the company the same, which is why I specifically left out industries with zero-economic profit where you can't reshuffle expenses. If you were to increase the wages in one of these industries, costs are passed on to the consumer.

However, it doesn't work this way in 99% of the comanies in America. There is plenty of economic profit, not to mention hyper-inflated budgeting for executives outside of salaries (HP recently spent $150 million just to upgrade a 3 year old jet fleet).

Let me give you an example. Chip manufacturing works on a high initial investment yet low manufacturing per chip model. When a company like Intel sells a lot of chips, they make a lot of profit. Are these savings per-chip passed on to the consumer? Of course not, prices are fixed by market demand for the products, not by selling according to strict manufacturing costs.

And it ignores the fundamental problem that some jobs just aren't worth a huge benefit package Moore dreams of. Take his recent appearance, he told Conan that they ought to get their temps insurance. Hate to break it to him but temps are just that. They're dime a dozen employees that don't perform work that makes the company enough money. No company could make money in his model.

Moore tends to be rather idealistic, but his message is that we need to redistribute the wealth in America which is absolutely correct. There is simply too much wealth that has been pooled into too few peoples hands and that gap is increasing.

I am not against having a wealthy upper class. People who work hard need to be rewarded with suitable luxury. However, what I am against is the huge income disparity between the wealthy elite and the lower class.

And that ignores competition from foriegn countries that is inevitable unless we want to go totally isolationist and ruin our economy that route.

This is a false analogy predicated on the assumption that other countries can overcome huge barriers to entry and the advantages of working with an educated population. Sure, menial labor can be done more efficiently in other countries (and it is). This has caused a great deal of specialization in the United States which means that me concentrate on importing the things that are not cost-effectively produced here and exporting the things that are.

The only countries that are a threat to this system are the rapidly developing nations such as Singapore was. I say was because it is inevitable that in a country that moves from a third world nation to a first, the population will start to demand higher pay which brings them into parity with us. This has already occured in Singapore (their per-capita income has nearly reached parity with ours) and will occur in any developing country that excercises free trade.

[Stormbringer]

That is seven flavors of bull. There is PLENTY of room to increase salaries on the line without adversely affecting dividends - and it's the dividends, not the bottom-line profit, that affects prices the most. If the second derivative of bottom-line profit goes down, shareholders don't really care as long as the company doesn't start reducing their dividend payments. If dividends go down, the shareholders start raising hell. Bottom-line profit is one of the less important indicators of a company's overall financial health.

Depends on how much you're talking raising them. Do as Michael Moore advocates and you'll hurt both. Adding major benefit expenses or even minor expenses on a large scale and it hurts the profitability of the business overall, whether it's divendends or bottom line.

[The Kernel]

A) The Oscar committee had asked everyone to refrain from making political statements one way or the other. He knew that and blatantly disregarded it.

Good for him then. I don't really care what the Oscar's committee said, he earned the right to speak to America about whatever he wanted by winning an Oscar.

B) Whoopi Goldberg didn't. It was Halle Berry. At least get your references right. And it's questionable, some people have suggested she got the Oscar in part because she's black and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had been bitching. Other thinks it's just the Oscars going for a depressing and pretentious film.

Wrong. Whoppi Goldberg was SUPPOSED to win the Oscar for The Color Purple and when she didn't, many people suspected it was because she was black. Then the Oscar committee was so afraid of being labled racist that they gave her the Oscar for a sub-par peformance in a sub-par movie. Classic political bullshit.

[theski]

The Kernel Wrote:

Moore tends to be rather idealistic, but his message is that we need to redistribute the wealth in America which is absolutely correct. There is simply too much wealth that has been pooled into too few peoples hands and that gap is increasing.

I am not against having a wealthy upper class. People who work hard need to be rewarded with suitable luxury. However, what I am against is the huge income disparity between the wealthy elite and the lower class.

Who is to decide what is "suitable"??? You???? So does this affect the money Moore is making.. or Sports or just the working Rich.. So take the money from the Rich and "resdistribute" it to others.... Hmmmm Where have I heard this before...

[The Kernel]

*snip*

You're a hopeless fucking idiot.

I hope you go around spewing inflammatory insensitive inappropriate shit like that and see what becomes of your reputation.

And you are a close-minded asshole if a 30 second political speech offended you THAT much.