Real Time with Bill Maher: Michael Moore - Where to Invade Next (HBO)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2016
- Subscribe to the Real Time UA-cam: itsh.bo/10r5A1B
Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore joins Bill to discuss his latest documentary, "Where to Invade Next" in this clip from May 13, 2016.
Connect with Real Time Online:
Find Real Time on Facebook: / maher
Find Real Time on Twitter: / realtimers
Find Real Time with Bill Maher Official Site: itsh.bo/HttKcM.
Find Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO GO® itsh.bo/iioY87.
Find Real Time with Bill Maher on Connect: connect.hbo.com/real-time-bill...
Find Real Time on Instagram: / realtimers
The Real Time blog: www.real-time-with-bill-maher-...
It's HBO.
Connect with HBO Online
Find HBO on Facebook: / hbo
Follow @HBO on Twitter: / hbo
Find HBO on UA-cam: / hbo
Find HBO Official Site: HBO.com
Find HBO Connect: Connect.hbo.com
Find HBO GO: HBOGO.com
Find HBO on Instagram: / hbo
Find HBO on Foursquare: Foursquare.com/hbo
Check out other HBO Channels
HBO: / hbo
Game of Thrones: / gameofthrones
True Blood: / trueblood
HBO Sports: / hbosports
HBO Documentary Films: / hbodocs
Cinemax: / cinemax
HBO Latino: / hbolatino - Розваги
I get why Moore prefers living in the states, it's pretty great if you have money...
Otherwise, western Europe is probably better, with all the issues that we have.
exactly. if you have money then America is literally paradise or parts of it is
+Pierzing.glint1sh7 If you have money Somalia would be better!! If you are rich in 3rd world you can buy anything, people, cops, law etc etc ..
Goutham Nandan
Except Somalia is unsafe, dirty and has shitty hospitals. Wouldn't want to live there if I had infinite money, nor any other African country for that matter.
+Peter Spalthoff Europe is great - if you have money - if you don't - its pretty shitty.
Peter Spalthoff Dude .. honestly money buys everything!! With money, you can build a mini private Miami there! You really need to see the lives of super rich from such countries. World's most expensive home is in India. Check Antilia.. That guy has a whole city inside that building that overlooks slums!
I loved the life in Italy. The way they understand to enjoy life & not over work themselves to death is something we desperately need here.
Italy's economy has been struggling - it may be on the edge of a banking crisis - depositors are pulling their money out. Youth unemployment is very high. If you moved there, how would you make a living?
socalsun7 Have you ever lived there? Lets start there.
I'm not disputing the more laid back lifestyle there. I'm talking about the practicality of it. I actually live in Southern California by the beach - which is pretty nice and also laid back. It's not LA. I wouldn't mind living in parts of the the South Pacific or the Caribbean - BUT I don't know if I could sustain myself in these places.
Did you used to live in Italy? Where are you now?
Actually, the law doesn't state specifically that it has to be 40% women. Instead, it states that neither gender can call below 40% representation. That's a far more egalitarian way of wording such a policy and it works to prevent the pendulum from going too far in the other direction. Some universities in the US have a similar wording for their admissions policy, which is now being used to benefit men since women are more likely to go to university.
I don't think that's exactly fair either. Hypothetically, if some all-female party came along and had the best solutions for everything, they should be able to win a majority. I don't think it's fair to take gender into account at all.
MarioAtheonio I think we're at our best when we allow a variety of different people to come together and use their personal experience to gain a better input about a problem. Qualifications, though important, aren't the only consideration that should be made; as anybody in HR can certainly tell you.
+Lutra Nereis but these quotas aren't "allowing" ppl to come together, but forcing it.
America deserves the life style it has, as do all other true democracies.
Americans choose to have a low minimum wage, high health care costs, poor schooling systems, etc.
If it did not so choose, then it would not be a democracy.
Don't like it? Then get involved.
Moved to France more than 20 years ago, and am appalled at the life my daughter's are living in the US! I often have to send them money for medical bills, etc.
Otherwise it was a nice clip (greetings from Finland), but why does American patriotism always have to lead to convincing viewers 'I would much rather live here in the States'. OK, why? It is a bit insulting for Europeans, if you first say: 'it is great', and then 'we are the best and we actually invented everything you have'. Do you really think the American people won't listen without these fishy lines?
i found Michael Moore said about "i'd rather live here -in US-" hypocritical too.
If I was Micheal Moore, I'd too would rather live in the US. He is probably quite wealthy and can afford to live well there. But what's much more important is, that he's actually one of the most influential politcal figues there and. might play a crucial role in transforming the country. That sort of resposibility and purpose is worth a lot.
The whole line of argumention concerning the origin of all the good stuff european countries implemented is really silly though. You can probably track back these ideas to the 16th century in european culture alone and might find various approaches in other cultures that might even predate that.
Well we want all Americans to have these great things; they can’t all move to Europe. And of course it all isn’t invented by America, but a good amount of it existed here before Reagan, etc. His point is that these ideas are not foreign, they’re American, too.
One of the best documentaries ever. Thank you Michael for all that you do.
The only thing I really disagree with is affirmative action where there MUST be a set number women or minorities(Particularly blacks) in the workplace, politics or in education, etc. Whoever is the more qualified and/or experienced for the job should get it. That's just how I feel.
Affirmative action only exists in the US because if not forced to a lot of companies would not have hired blacks even if they were the most qualified. And this isn't restricted to decades ago. Even today studies show that whites with high school diplomas are often chosen over blacks with degrees.
Yeah I know, but the stories that I seem to always hear involve.....African-Americans XD
+Isiah Wallace Tristian, what he said^. There have been numurous studies on this topic. As Blacks with a better education and work experience are often not picked when it comes down competing against a white worker. Also, it happens all the time with women. People, not all, with and sometimes without realize are bias with who they think is the better candidate for the job.
alejandro leos All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be the main goal just to be "diverse", a hypothetical situation is when a Caucasian man and an African-American woman are equally qualified for a job in every way from education to experience, who do you think they'll choose when there's public outrage?
Tristan Hopkins In the majority of the studies they hire the white person, which is why they push for this quota. the quota is small anyways.
I like how they just pretended as if everything that was good about Europe was just originally invented in America. lol
+Mag1cMerl1n
Well, much of it was, and then the people in charge decided America didn't need that, and they convinced the hicks to go along with it.
Mechaghostman2
That's almost word for word what they said in the video but repeating it doesn't make it true.
They aren't saying where it originated for the point. they are saying we have tried these things before where we pushed for a good change but just gave up something that countries are doing and benefiting from it. Pointing out our flawed conservative ways get in the way of progress in many ways.
I just watched the thing myself. Yeah, a lot of Europeans said they got these ideas from America. You guys were still torturing prisoners when we said no cruel and unusual punishment...
I know the declaration of independence, and of course the bill of rights, are huge models around the world. For instance, Poland enacted an even more progressive government after seeing the US win it's war against Britain.
Side note- Poland was quickly invaded and taken over by it's non-progressive neighbors Germany and Austria for their attempt at american freedom.
Many progressive ideas have been based on those early american documents. The problem is how much of the american capitalism+ignorance has moved away from those ideals.
Personally, I think Michael Moore's recent documentary, "Where to Invade Next," really shows that certain ideas that have been used in some countries should be implemented here in America. I totally agree with what Mr. Moore and his documentary had pointed out.
@richter75 - If you were talking about Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9-11," I disagree with you. I did NOT think it was false.
"these all american ideas , aren't they "
really!! even many great ideas inside US aren't originally american
people elsewhere have brains too ,they do think and invent,, GOD
Pretty much like the americans think they invented democracy...
+ThisCityIsDead Hahahahaha.......
@@yuval3022 I mean the US was the first modern liberal democracy so… kinda did. Didn’t invent the idea but were the first to do it.
So typical, to see how the most of the comments relativize everything they see, instead of accepting that some parts of life are better in other countries...
4:08 Italy stopped using the Lira in 2001 when the Euro was introduced. 10 million Lira to a dollar? The Euro is worth way more than the dollar...
Pfff Whateva Just adding to the point that being arrogant, thinking you know everything and that you're better than everybody else doesn't help America.
The €1.00 is only worth $1.11. I wouldn't call that "way more"
Fuck any form of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply regressive and it should not be aplauded. Other than that everything else seemed fine to me.
i felt exactly the same way, lol
+Death Angel Really?? What exactly do you mean by "affirmative action?" Can you give us a definition to work with? So, people who have been exploited, oppressed, and marginalized shouldn't be offered a hand to pull them from the ditch the system has kept them in for so long? Unfortunately, you don't offer us any explanation on how you reached this position of yours. Is it a religious belief? Do you base your position on the constitution? What exactly is your rationale against affirmative action? I don't know who you are, but it sounds like you are already enjoying your own affirmative action programs; you just don't want anyone else to share in your privileges.
+Masikini By "affirmative action" I mean any laws that deal with making businesses, government institutions, companies, colleges, universities, etc. have to meet some sort of quota based on things such as gender, sexuality, race, etc. You know, laws that undermine having a meritocracy and actually earning a job or position rather than getting it because the company was short a few (insert "marginalized" group here) and needed to meet the quota.
I believe in this crazy system called a "meritocracy", it basically holds that people should earn their positions (I know, crazy idea right?!) rather than have them get a position based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc. under the guise of diversity, or for any reason really. I believe that people should get a job or position if they earn it and that things like race, gender, sexuality, etc. should have no place in whether or not someone has a higher chance of getting the position and that the only thing that should matter is how well qualified they are to be in that position.
Also, you claim that I'm enjoying some sort of privilege myself. It seems as if you have already made assumptions about me. Tell me, since you obviously know so much about me, what are these exact privileges you think that I'm supposedly enjoying? I'm quite curious to find out just how much you have assumed about me based on just that one thing I said.
I look forward to your response.
Death Angel
"I believe that people should get a job or position if they earn it and that things like race, gender, sexuality, etc. should have no place in whether or not someone has a higher chance of getting the position and that the only thing that should matter is how well qualified they are to be in that position."
I will reply... I am sorry to disappoint you, but the system you describe doesn't exist, never existed, and will never exist. The idea that people get jobs because they are the best "qualified" for the job is simply ridiculous. Have you ever worked for a corporation? And the people you saw there were the best qualified? What are you talking about? People get jobs for all kinds of reasons. Some get them because they went to the same college as the people hiring; others get hired because they are the nephew to the CEO; it always helps if you have somebody powerful in your circle of friends and family. Qualifications are overrated!!
Another example, which one of the last 5 US president would you consider to have been the best qualified for the job?
Ronald Reagan? No!! He was already struggling with Alzheimer's.
George Bush Sr? No, the guy couldn't even put an independent thought together.
Bill Clinton? No, the guy was just a smooth liar. He never believed in being truthful. Everything that came from his mouth was a lie.
George Bush Jr? No the guy looked liked he was brain-damaged in childhood.
Obama? Do you really believe he is the best qualified person for that job right now? I don't.
It amazes me every time I see these shaky arguments against affirmative action policies on the grounds that people should be the best qualified for whatever jobs they are hired for. And very often the people making these arguments have jobs themselves and they are obviously not the most qualified people for those jobs. They can continue to pretend to be morally superior to the rest of us in large part because they never bother to define what they mean by 'best qualified for the job." Is it the applicant's academic achievement? their prior job experience? their moral character? What is it exactly? Who decides? On what criteria?
I agree with you the concept of meritocracy is "crazy." There is no such a thing.
+Masikini
"I am sorry to disappoint you, but the system you describe doesn't exist, never existed, and will never exist."
I don't recall ever claiming that such a system ever existed or that it is the system that we had now, however I do think that it is quite possible to have in the future, but I will discuss this later.
"The idea that people get jobs because they are the best "qualified" for the job is simply ridiculous. Have you ever worked for a corporation? And the people you saw there were the best qualified? What are you talking about? People get jobs for all kinds of reasons. Some get them because they went to the same college as the people hiring; others get hired because they are the nephew to the CEO; it always helps if you have somebody powerful in your circle of friends and family."
While the idea that we are a meritocracy now is ridiculous, to assert that we should further ourselves from it even more just because we aren't currently a meritocracy is much more ridiculous. While most of those things that you said may be true, in regards to people currently getting jobs for arbitrary and subjective reasons, the answer isn't to then allow people to start getting jobs based on even more subjective and arbitrary things such as race, gender, sexuality, etc. but rather to crack down on the subjective and arbitrary reasons for which people may be getting their jobs now.
"Qualifications are overrated!!"
Haha! As I said earlier, I will be addressing this point a bit later in this comment.
"Another example, which one of the last 5 US president would you consider to have been the best qualified for the job? Ronald Reagan? No!! He was already struggling with Alzheimer's. George Bush Sr? No, the guy couldn't even put an independent thought together. Bill Clinton? No, the guy was just a smooth liar. He never believed in being truthful. Everything that came from his mouth was a lie. George Bush Jr? No the guy looked liked he was brain-damaged in childhood. Obama? Do you really believe he is the best qualified person for that job right now? I don't."
As far as the 5 U.S. Presidents that you listed go, 4 out of 5 of them were the most qualified for the job at the time that they were elected because how qualified a person is to be the U.S. President isn't based on any one's personal opinion, but rather the opinion of the country as a whole. The person that gets the majority vote is the one that is the most qualified for the job of U.S. President, because how well qualified someone is to be in that particular position is based on who the American people as a whole want. Now, the one exception is George Bush Jr. who got the most Electoral Votes but not the majority, popular vote. As far as the electoral college goes it is something that should be taken away as it is something that goes against having a meritocracy and gets in the way of the voice of the American people when it comes to picking the U.S. President. This is all, sadly, unimportant to the debate as I never did claim that we ever had a meritocracy or have a meritocracy and only that it should be the system that we should have, as I mentioned in the first reply I made in this comment.
"It amazes me every time I see these shaky arguments against affirmative action policies on the grounds that people should be the best qualified for whatever jobs they are hired for."
It amazes me that you believe that people should be hired to do a job based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. rather than their ability to be competitive and do that job better than other hopeful applicants and people in that line of work. Hiring someone based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. is just as racist, sexist, and bigoted as firing someone for their race, gender, sexuality, etc. Lets work to take arbitrary and subjective reasons for hiring someone out of the system, not to put more in.
"And very often the people making these arguments have jobs themselves and they are obviously not the most qualified people for those jobs."
But not always. Don't make hasty assumptions.
"They can continue to pretend to be morally superior to the rest of us in large part because they never bother to define what they mean by 'best qualified for the job." Is it the applicant's academic achievement? their prior job experience? their moral character? What is it exactly? Who decides? On what criteria?"
Why are you bringing morality into this? This isn't much of a moral argument, at least not when referring to how well someone can do a job or not. As far as the criteria that is decided upon, well that all depends on the job and what is required to do such a job. The criterias that are taken into account are decided by the company, business, etc. and must be directly tied to the work or job position they are hiring for and I'm sure that things like academic achievement, time on the field, prior job experiences in another field, and how well they meet the requirements to do the specific job that they are going for are all taken into account.
"I agree with you the concept of meritocracy is "crazy." There is no such a thing."
Remember how I said that I would be discussing how we could have a future meritocracy at a later point in this comment? Well, we have reached that point! While, once again, I never did claim that there was such a thing as a meritocracy right now or that there has ever been one I did claim that there should be one, here is how we could get one. First and foremost, lets not make the situation worse by having quotas that must be met in any workplace and I'm talking about quotas of any kind, besides the actual number of job positions that must be filled in general, of course. The first thing we need to do is stop advocating for equal representation of any group of people in any part of the work force, or other areas as well, such as learning institutions like colleges or universities. The next thing is to prevent people from hiring based on arbitrary or subjective reasons, such as simply being from the same university or college as the employer, or being a relative of the employer (unless we are talking about a family business). Basically all we have to do is get rid of ways in which employers could hire someone for subjective or arbitrary reasons, rather than for reasons directly pertaining to how well that individual can do the job compared to the other people that are applying to get that position. Its not all that difficult and not all that far-fetched.
Anyways, before I end this already lengthy reply I will add one more thing. You never did tell me what sort of privilege I was enjoying. You mentioned that I was enjoying some sort of privilege and I kindly asked that you elaborated on what this privilege was, and if there are multiple privileges that you suspect that I enjoy do point them out to me. As I previously said, I am very curious to see how much you actually know about me, for all I know you're some sort of psychic or maybe your assumptions are actually baseless and you know absolutely nothing at all, and I'll go ahead and assume the latter of the two.
Anyways, thank you for reading and for your time, and I do sincerely hope that you do not leave me hanging on my request once again.
Why is requiring a certain quota of women in parliament a good thing? Can anyone explain that to me?
having a "quotas never good. but having a system that encourages an accurate representation is something to aspire to.
+Collin Pittman The qouta is at least 40% of either gender. at least 40% women or 40% men. I'm guessing (no facts to back this up) that it will make sure parliament always have a male perspective and a female perspective. This was enacted during a time where women had absolutely no say in politics which wasn't that long ago. Im assuming. Good question though
+Collin Pittman because studies show that women are not less educated than men (often even the opposite), they are not less able to lead and are able to make informed and tough decions just as well as men but are often marginalized and held back by the "boys club" that is politics.
I am also not a fan of quotas in general but women make up 50% of the population so why should't they make up 50% of the population's representatives?
+BONE211 You're right when you say they are just as capable of leading. I also think women are just as capable of being fairly elected.
+Collin Pittman its not fair when men have a monopoly over it..
As a guy living in one of the countries he invaded (the country of easy-to-surrender-cheese-lovers), I think the image he gives of these countries is a bit embellished, but the idea of "what you think is awful works pretty well somewhere else" is interesting, not only for the US.
Human basic needs should ALWAYS come first! Housing, food, healthcare, and etc...we all live on this planet together!
This is the first time i see Moor without a hat lol
Here in Portugal the drugs are decriminalize not legal. There is a difference.
I need to check this movie out
It is amazing !
Oh! So NOW Bill is finally feeling the Bern
This doc is in my top five favorite films.
You know it is funny that we could come up with rules like, "there must be a minimum number of women at a particular work place, in a sector and all that". It is so disturbing how it isn't a problem but becomes one when we turn tables with the rule.
I'm seventy one year old this movie or info the best things I see in my life
America was ring design in my life
I live in Europe and no successful businesswoman here wants quotas.
+Antagonista You've gone around, met all of them, and asked them whether they were for quotas? Aren't you overstating your point here?
Masikini Yes, I have met everyone of them. Every single one. Jeez.
Here’s a good motto for America. “America, Pay more, Get less.”
Michael Moore is an original badass
Small but very important statement "I would rather live here" think about that. Also says it is not perfect, generally but fully explain the positives. I'm going to watch the movie though because my conclusion of such short info can be very wrong.
Haha wtf they have to have a quota on men and women in parliament? No thanks
Misogynistic fuck
+Zacc Wanted equality of opportunity instead of forced equality of outcome is misogyny? You stupid fuck.
+Benjamin Shultz excuse me?
Hard Candy-e Zacc is*
+Benjamin Shultz oh Ight Ight
Honestly, when they keep saying "I'd rather live here" as a caveat it makes people discount any changes.
no show this Fri :(
Valgehiir is heart broken
As a Finn, I can tell you our prison system is an absolute joke! While you can make the argument of human rights, good conditions for the inmates etc. The whole thing is basically a holiday resort, and that should not be the case.
I've seen the movie, it was great! also hilarious! recommend!
When was anybody last worried about the lira to dollar exchange rate?
All to often I hear people from the US say, "ah, but Europe is a mess"...
What has that to do with anything, if we are talking about basic ideas?
US is a mess, does not change that certain parts of the US constitution, give a greater degree of protection for it's citizen, than anywhere else in the world! Why would I as a citizen of a European country not want to apply that part, into my own nations constitution?
I would only agree with affirmative action on the condition that it be awarded on a case-by-case basis to people who actually deserve a little bit more opportunity.
I would only agree with workplace quotas based on gender/ethnicity on the condition that every other factor aside from gender/ethnicity are approximately normalized and equal.
Anyone here in the U.S. - if you think it's so good in Europe - GO!
I don't want to pay more for anything till the government is more efficient with all the money they collect atm
How to destroy you own point; "Here's all these reasons Europe is better than America... but no, I wouldn't want to actually live there."
I miss this Bill Maher
I wonder why are there so many reactions to other movies out there on the internet but so few if any to this movie.. I wonder I wonder..
Moore enumerates all these great benefits in Europe, but then says "I would rather live here". Why would he rather stay in the U.S.?
I think he needs to say that. Otherwise he will immediately receive the standard accusation of not "being a patriot", which apparently renders all your arguments worthless in the US - no matter how justified they may be.
Something you Europeans will never understand about the America is that America itself was founded on an ideal. I know European countries, or any other countries for that matter, were not. But the US was founded on a set of ideals that most Americans highly value. Those ideals mean that even though the country needs some changes, we’re willing to stay here and stick it out even though it may not be great. Same as how our founders stuck it out during the American Revolution to make a better country.
Wow
Understanding is key few can get the point of that.
FEELTHE BERN?!:) Thanks, Real.:)
He just undermined his whole movie with the sentence "i would rather live here".
How is the movie supposed to have any impact if the guy who makes it says that?
“I’d rather live here.” Because if I don’t get my Burger King by 9 AM I’m not a happy camper.
So much butthurt in these comments because...Moore is correct. If he wasn't right, his work would just be ignored.
+On The Offensive lol
Who is David Icke?
No more Oreos for Michael Moore!
Sure, health-care is an american idea... sure, sure....
+Frankish Empire the only Bismarck they know is the capital of North Dakota
+BONE211 Handsome gesture of the good people of North Dakota for remembering him.
+Frankish Empire Actually they didn't give a shit about Bismarck. They used his name to entice German investors for the railroad and attract German immigrants to the area.
0:41 Suomi mainittu
How Germany teaches their TRUE history everyday in every public classroom...this is a MUST DO in America!!!
I'm with you up to 0:49 Iceland having a gender based limit n Parliament and upper management is regressive Bill.
+OnePieceNation I would disagree.
The world we live in has many capable female leaders. These same women live in a world where a lot of men, whether consciously or unconsciously, don't trust women to be leaders. It is a good thing when the parliament reflects what the public looks and thinks like. Politicians should be elected based on merit but there ought to be something in place to guarantee that that merit is recognised.
How can it be labelled regressive to ensure that both men and women have an even platform to stand on when entering parliament?
Jacob Wootton "These same women live in a world where men, whether consciously or unconsciously, don't trust women to be leaders" baseless assertion citation needed. The parliament should be selected on merit only not on the composition of the population, equality of outcome is inherently discriminatory. Yes merit should be recognized but not on arbitrary things like race, gender and sexuality. Because it is equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity which is egalitarian. Equality of outcome is soft racism, misogyny and discrimination because it basically tells minorities that they cannot become members of parliament on their own merit instead the selection process have to be changed or rigged in the case of Canada to make sure that women and minorities are included, its the soft bigotry of low expectations.
+OnePieceNation great insight
You make an interesting point but I have to disagree once more. I don't think the game has to be rigged in order for women or minorities to be elected into parliament. I think the game is already rigged and has been for centuries. The white man has long been the typical leader of Western nations and now as other groups are gaining more ground, it makes sense that members of these demographics are trying to guarantee that their voices are heard.
I live in Australia, a really diverse country. We have a lot of Greeks, Vietnamese, Lebanese and Aboriginal people but if you were to judge what we'd look like based on our parliament, you'd assume that we were a bunch of white guys with only a handful of women. And this does affect policy. Women still get paid less than men here, less than that of women in some of the nations Moore discusses. We're harsh on refugees, of which our country is filled, both first generation and their descendants. The policy here I feel would shift dramatically if their voices were better heard on the parliamentary stage.
+Jacob Wootton Okay, so do women especially need women to talk in their interest?
Because i'm not sure how women like bachmann, palin, fiorina or coulter really reflect alot of womens interests really.
Its so sexist to say that men can not understand the problem women have and what can be done for them politically.
I'm italian. Believe me, we're not happy
+10anto82 thank you for your comment, that's why I love Internet
Have a nice day
Perhaps instead of quotas, employers will have no access to an applicant name (which gender identity and racial/ethnic identity can be either inferred or deduced), biological sex, or racial/ethnic identity, only a designated number. Applications will then be evaluated in terms of favorability before face-to-face interviews commence, whereafter the initial nameless evaluations are compared to the outcomes of employment.
6-8 weeks paid vacation?! Holy crap. O.O
My opinion just like everybody else does not matter. and if I write it down here... still nothing is going to change. And even if Michael Moore has an opinion... it does not mean he is right about what he is saying.
Imagine if Michael Moore was president and Bill Maher was vice president and Bernie Sanders replaced Paul Ryan...wow what would U.S be like if that happened.
Actually really enjoyed this movie
Michael is trying hard to bring the mullet back
"They have to have 50% company CEOs as women. . ."
I'm curious.
Has any company ever been fined for not hiring a man?
its not 50% companies son, its board of members that was mentioned.
and it has to be min 40% for men and women EACH,
max 60% of any sex, not more than that.
cUrioUs huh
MURICA = giving up on ourselves. I feel that every day. LOL.
Agree with everything but that Iceland women quota thing, everything should be merit-based. People should not be discriminated based on their gender which is what selecting women over men just becasue they're women is.
Just to clarify some of the things Moore talks about in his film, and to put it back in context... www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/michael-moores-where-to-i_b_8781292.html
Morris Berman dual processs
Taxes on people with no kids, health issues, legal troubles etc etc are unfair. Why should i pay taxes for things i dont need or use???!!!
Quotas, affirmative action and reparations of any sort piss me off to no end, how are they good?!
if WE pay collectively through tax WE get wholesale prices.
Maybe it's because I'm Swedish, but in my country it doesn't look good to walk around the Swedish flag in public.
If Bill Maher was living in Venezuela he would be Bernie Sanders rice cakes!!!!!
Bill Gates and Robert Herjavec having a chat.
Did he say Lira?
As much shit companies and corporations dump their shit into *OUR* streams, Italy doesn't even stack up against the states.
when you compare the standard of living in Ireland to America it's hilarious.
Que excelente documental anti EUA y feminista! como no lo vi antes!!!
Truth bombs.
Moore is a fucking legend, probably the finest American ever!
Should we compare the convicts/criminals in Norway with our prisons here? Apples and Oranges. They have far less people per capita compared to the US
goddamn it's amazing to be australian.
i mean, sure, it's better to be a kiwi, i concede that
but they just keep coming to australia anyway.
Since when did Micheal Moore get Harry Styles hair?!
Italian lira? These guys are streets behind..
I don't blame anyone but the American voters. The people who wake up and go to work to earn a living needs to stop paying taxes to this government until we get a congress and President elect who actually makes the lives of those who work better! More vacation, paid sick days, more holidays off, etc. Our government has done nothing for us but line the pocket of the rich while we continue to struggle. It's time for real change!
I dare the US to try the Norwegian prison system in their country. Their system is far from perfect, but no way given their social issues the Norwegian system works there.
Why don't they talk about Greece?
I just love this version of history, where US 'invented' the same things USSR did decades before the US, but apparently, no one knows it.
America is a real trend setter and full of great people but where on earth is more diverse than Europe? not to mention it's proximity to Asia and Africa
It's incredible that Americans put up with it. In Europe, in return for our taxes we get services that benefit us like healthcare. In America, their taxes are wasted on its already bloated military, corporate welfare etc. And on top of that Americans pay a fortune to buy their own healthcare
In Portugal drugs aren't legal :s I am portuguese, I live here ! I wish they were legal :D Here they dont treat you like a criminal right away..
We just got gender quotas for the federal cabinet here in Canada. It's a horrible idea.
What's wrong with the death penalty?
touched on it right at the end- forget the numbers, what is the level of happiness and longevity of the people. That should be the driving force behind every government. Feel the Bern!
Watch it and share the ideas to make the US great (again?)
We don’t have payed vacation. Government force the company you work for to keep 12% of your salary. Then give it to you when you have vacation. Because they don’t believe you can save up.
the end of that movie sounds like "make america great again" to me
Only 4 years longer on average, the Italian lifestyle v the American one? I would say thats pretty amazing,you are doing something right obv,lol. Sure the UK's is worse by comparison :P
Having a requirement by law to have a certain percentage of the board be women or men is fairly discriminatory in itself.
We should remove the gender requirement and have a competence requirement instead, regardless if you're man or woman, if you're competent enough, maybe more competent than others, you get the job.
"Our idea", though? Equality as a socio-political notion was invented during the French Revolution.
I must say that in many cases Moore told too exaggerated things and not the ugliest faces of some European reality. He got partly good points which were truth but forget some other not so nice.
It is Amazing he dont talk about FAILED sweden!!!!
Good film :-) USA can be better. We like Sanders :-)