Real Time with Bill Maher: Michael Moore - Where to Invade Next (HBO) 

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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.

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..

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.

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"

@richter75 - If you were talking about Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9-11," I disagree with you. I did NOT think it was false.

+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.

America was ring design in my life

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

+10anto82 thank you for your comment, that's why I love Internet Have a nice day

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.

+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.

+On The Offensive lol

Who is David Icke?

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

+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.

Healthcare isn't a right, I have no right to pay for someone else's products. Get off your ass and work for it, or die on the street. Either way, not my problem.

+Jim Davis (Eastern Beaver) liberal use of circumstantial eye witness and prisecutorial witness testimony with the fear of mandatory minimums pkays a role the war on drugs has failed it is mostly the worker bees of the drug trade that are doing time

Jim Davis I never said don't read them their rights, I said once their in prison, it's every man for himself.