Michael Moore

[Zaelath]

Yeah, Moore handing out fluro orange wallets so black guys wouldn't get shot for pulling a black wallet on a cop (or candy bar), Nazi.

Moore suggesting that european economies function just fine for the most part with 6 weeks or more annual leave instead of 2, lazy hippy.

Sure he's sensationalist, almost as sensationalist as say Bush after 9/11, except he didn't get Americans to cheer when congress voted away their right to have some say in where and when you go to war, or give Rummy the kind of powers you used to only read about in novels about evil eastern block secret police.

Some one should stop him before he makes one of those fantasy movies about the holocaust.

[Kylere]

Michael Moore - Stupid Fat Environment Ruining Druggie White repressed homosexual who alters facts and reality to build propaganda against those he dislikes.

Rush Limbaugh - Stupid Fat Environment Ruining Druggie White repressed homosexual who alters facts and reality to build propaganda against those he dislikes.

(now before anyone gets on the homosexual thing, I did not say it was bad, the fact that they are in denial IS bad however.)

They only thing scary is the number of parroting dittoheads they both possess, the dumb fuckers too unable to seperate myth from reality.

man you are on a roll today Kylere!

what signs do you have that EITHER of them are repressed homosexuals? Do you even know what one is or are you pulling a pot-calling-kettle so no one will notice you?

I think men sleeping with men is absolutely fucking disgusting. But I do not dispute their right to practice such things with consenting adults. I do not even understand why women like men, from the things I hear other guys say, most women would be better off alone than with a dude. In light of this, two dudes is really fucking pathetic. But that is entirely another issue.

The primary reason I think they are both repressed homosexuals is that a friend of mine ( who knows my views and is gay, but unlike some kneejerk whiny bitch understands that I can be against something but not feel it should be illegal) stated clearly that between the two of them only a drag queen who was also gay could ever match their level of sheer dramaqueen bitchiness.

[Kylere]

Yeah, Moore handing out fluro orange wallets so black guys wouldn't get shot for pulling a black wallet on a cop (or candy bar), Nazi.

Moore suggesting that european economies function just fine for the most part with 6 weeks or more annual leave instead of 2, lazy hippy.

Sure he's sensationalist, almost as sensationalist as say Bush after 9/11, except he didn't get Americans to cheer when congress voted away their right to have some say in where and when you go to war, or give Rummy the kind of powers you used to only read about in novels about evil eastern block secret police.

Some one should stop him before he makes one of those fantasy movies about the holocaust.

The only way a Michael Moore could make a movie about the holocaust and have the same level of accuracy as he used in Roger and Me would be to have it occur during WWI, have Poland be the country setting up the camps and executing people, and have it all be the fault of a multinational comglomerate. Because that is the level of accuracy and fact he practiced while slandering my hometown and GM.

Do some fucking research, when cornered even his Fatassedness Moore admits he does not care about the facts.

[vn_Tanc]

The only way a Michael Moore could make a movie about the holocaust and have the same level of accuracy as he used in Roger and Me would be to have it occur during WWI, have Poland be the country setting up the camps and executing people, and have it all be the fault of a multinational comglomerate

Exaggerate much?

Because that is the level of accuracy and fact he practiced while slandering my hometown

I think we've found the source of all this hurt-pussy-bitching.

Do some fucking research, when cornered even his Fatassedness Moore admits he does not care about the facts.

Show me the quote. That's pretty fucking rich coming from a documentary maker. Sure he spins stuff but there's an awful lot of documented truth in his work. How much of it has to be true before you feel a sense of outrage? Because it certainly isn't 105% fiction as you are making out.

[Kylere]

Show me the quote. That's pretty fucking rich coming from a documentary maker. Sure he spins stuff but there's an awful lot of documented truth in his work. How much of it has to be true before you feel a sense of outrage? Because it certainly isn't 105% fiction as you are making out.

You are proving yourself to be one of those people that are a great example of the dangers coming from the Moore/Limbaugh ends of the political spectrum. HE IS A FAT FUCKING LIAR. He knows the true basis of propaganda well, tell the big lies often enough and people believe you. Whenever he is cornered on his abuse of truth he claims it is all comedy but then he talks about what a serious documentarian he is. This is a conflict between truth and fiction. I lived in Flint during the time period he filmed, and the following is fact.

70% of what he depicted occured BEFORE 1986 when he stated, implied or inferred that it did.
Most of the timeline was inaccurate
The Rabbit chick lives in Clio, which does not even border on Flint, that is like blaming things that happen in New York on Virginia.
The people being evicted, staged

Salon.com talks about his tendancy to lie and act like those he attacks at http://www.salon.com/june97/media/media970606.html

Spinsanity.com covers some bowling for columbine inaccuracies at http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?200 ... l#85712328

The ultra left mag Counterpunch calls him out on backing Clark because he did zip for research about him. http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html

Moore is bigger on conspiracy theories than on the facts http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4777245.html

When Moore appeared on CNN's Moneyline, host Lou Dobbs asked him about the inaccuracies in the book. Moore replied, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
http://www.tribute.ca/DIRECTORS/BIOS/1018.htm

"In Roger & Me, for instance, Moore has been criticized for juggling the chronology of his account of what happened to Flint, Mich., after General Motors closed its plant and threw the population into economic disarray."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... nment/Film

"MOORE: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know. "
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/12/mlld.00.html

"Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories." "
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread ... =300000457

[Lalanae]

kylere, there is a difference between megalomania and being a drama queen. You (and your gay friend) need to discern the difference before you continue to look like idiots calling people repressed homosexuals. Both Limbaugh and Moore are megalomaniacs. They do NOT exhibit the traits of repressed homosexuality.

and yes, we all know your views on homosexuality because you explain them everytime homosexuality is brought up. It almost smacks of defensiveness. Now THAT kind of behavior could be considered a trait of repressed homosexuality

[Cartalas]

Vn_Tanc has just been bitch-slapped with the facts.


Good job Klylere!


Vn-Tanc

[Adex_Xeda]

Don't be haten!

[Forthe]

Come on now. The free gun with a bank account was funny!!

[Kylere]

kylere, there is a difference between megalomania and being a drama queen. You (and your gay friend) need to discern the difference before you continue to look like idiots calling people repressed homosexuals. Both Limbaugh and Moore are megalomaniacs. They do NOT exhibit the traits of repressed homosexuality.

and yes, we all know your views on homosexuality because you explain them everytime homosexuality is brought up. It almost smacks of defensiveness. Now THAT kind of behavior could be considered a trait of repressed homosexuality

Nah, but if I fail to make them clear even once you will jump on them and try your best to call me a homophobe ( not fearing it, I cannot be) or a bigot ( Not supporting it, but not banning it, I am not) You like to take cheap shots unless someone clarifies exactly how they feel about the issue whenever it is mentioned. Now for a fact, they are both drama queens, and that is your issue of denial not mine, if you think either is a passionate human being with very little self interest who is willing to hear everyone out, you are decidedly wrong.

[Lalanae]

kylere learn to read

Both Limbaugh and Moore are megalomaniacs. They do NOT exhibit the traits of repressed homosexuality.

there is a difference between megalomania and being a drama queen.

you obviously don't know the difference. Read some freud, learn what repression is and how it manifests itself, and try again.

[Kelshara]

Good job Klylere!

I love it when people kiss ass but misspell the name of the ass they are kissing..

[Lohrno]

I dunno I'm mostly in line with the whole liberal camp here, but...

I don't like Moore much. I started reading one of his books, and found that I don't like his style. It's much too ranting, and it's not too believable that he has much credibility. Perhaps he does have some points, I just don't like his style.

Al Franken on the other hand...

-=Lohrno

[Kylere]

kylere learn to read

Both Limbaugh and Moore are megalomaniacs. They do NOT exhibit the traits of repressed homosexuality.

there is a difference between megalomania and being a drama queen.

you obviously don't know the difference. Read some freud, learn what repression is and how it manifests itself, and try again.

I know repression, it is what happens when you deny your inner republican child Lalanae

[vn_Tanc]

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions

So there's a couple of pieces mentioned in two of his works.

Sure he spins stuff but there's an awful lot of documented truth in his work. How much of it has to be true before you feel a sense of outrage? Because it certainly isn't 105% fiction as you are making out

Subtract what you've listed above from that book and film - how much of what's left is acceptable to you? Have you seen the film or read the book?

Cos I actually read your links and they are, largely, pretty thin "debnkings":

He's been accused of being flat-out wrong in Bowling for Columbine: The least serious of his alleged mistakes is how he arrived at his film's title, a reference to his notion that teens Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went bowling the morning before they went to school and killed 13 people (police reports apparently say the two skipped their morning bowling class; Moore maintains he is correct).

HOLY SHIT ROFL THEY WERE _SUPPOSED_ TO GO BOWLING BUT DIDNT OMG OMG OBVIOUSLY THE ENTIRE MOVIE IS JUST INNACCURATE PROPAGANDA!!!.
All of those links refer to this and the scene in the bank with the gun. The point of that piece, if you've seen the film, is the free gun with the bank account. Not the actual collection of it from said bank. Availablilty of weapons and their impact on US society. Ya know. The point of the film.
Your other links are mainly right-wing eyewash apart from the ultra-left ranting about war criminals. I'm not big a big listener to either of those groups.
The criticisms of SWM are similarly weak though I can see how you might get concerned if you truly believe people read books without engaging their critical faculties. Luckily I don't. But as I've said before on this forum, only about 3% of that book has to be true for the situations mentioned to be totally unnacceptable.
I've only seen snippets of Roger & Me so can't really comment. If you maintain the closing of the GM plan had no effect on Flint and everything is just peachy then I'll believe you as you have first hand knowledge.

[Kylere]

Tanc, even with facts you cannot face reality, GM closing plants killed Flint, but Michael Moore went after the wrong target. The UAW is what killed automanufacturing in Flint Michigan but he would not dare attack a left wing bastion of power. GM could see the writing on the wall, dealing with the UAW meant the cars were not going to get better, and that they would drop into a loss of profit.

You evade all the rest of the facts here, Michael Moore takes his fat ass into situations, makes a progaganda film while ignoring the truth to increase the effect then while around his supporters he calls it a documentary effort, but when called on his inaccuracies he calls it comedy.

This is tantamount to me saying, "I bet my cock stretches out your mothers lips and makes them feel weird when she kisses you" and then saying I was just joking when you get mad.

[nobody]

"patriots must always stand ready to defend their country against their government" - Edward Abbey

i don't agree with Micheal Moore, i think he's a self rightous and extreme, but it takes people questioning our leaders to keep our gov't working. if we all blindly followed we wouldn't be a democracy.

[vn_Tanc]

Tanc, even with facts you cannot face reality

Um, what?

GM closing plants killed Flint, but Michael Moore went after the wrong target. The UAW is what killed automanufacturing in Flint Michigan but he would not dare attack a left wing bastion of power. GM could see the writing on the wall, dealing with the UAW meant the cars were not going to get better, and that they would drop into a loss of profit

If that's your take on it - fine. I all ready made my position quite clear :

I've only seen snippets of Roger & Me so can't really comment

See?

You evade all the rest of the facts here

Actually, no. I made a point of reviewing all the facts you presented. I just don't see them as completely undermining 100% of what Moore says in Columbine or SWM. In fact I think you only do so because you take comfort from it. You so badly don't want to hear what he has to say you'll grab any straw floating past and call it a lifeboat.
The gun in the bank, the details of what the columbine killers did before their spree, the taliban funding issue and the misrepresentation of the fighter spending are almost entirely inconsequential in the larger picture of what is said in that film and that book. When reading SWM I took the figures with a grain of salt anyway. Electoral fraud, a society of fear, how up themselves the NRA are, accessibility of weapons, crime on TV, government misbehaviour - these are the important issues addressed in these works. None of the "debunking" even comes close to damaging the facts Moore presented on these issues. They all touch on peripheral non-issues and attempt to leverage that into making people believe it's ALL fiction when it patently is not.

[Kylere]

By your argument Tanc, it is okay to lie, mislead and misrepresent the truth.

You should be a politician.

[Cartalas]

Good job Klylere!

I love it when people kiss ass but misspell the name of the ass they are kissing..

Geee is that all you could find?


weak!

[vn_Tanc]

By your argument Tanc, it is okay to lie, mislead and misrepresent the truth

I don't recall making a value judgement on it either way. I'm just a habitual skeptic.

You should be a politician

I am wounded to my very core.

[rhyae]

pets or meat

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/


Very interesting. Nice to see someone out there trying to bring to light what this half-truth telling mother fucker is doing.

[Avestan]

Moore suggesting that european economies function just fine for the most part with 6 weeks or more annual leave instead of 2, lazy hippy.

There are a number of reasons why the US is the richest country in the world and you just named one of the biggest ones.

Say what you will, but that 4 week difference makes a gigantic difference. There is nothing wrong with 6 weeks of leave a year, but when your annual productivity or average salaries lag behind those in the US, this is the number one reason.

[kyoukan]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/


Very interesting. Nice to see someone out there trying to bring to light what this half-truth telling mother fucker is doing.

finally someone totally unbiased to tell us like it is.

[Zaelath]

Moore suggesting that european economies function just fine for the most part with 6 weeks or more annual leave instead of 2, lazy hippy.

There are a number of reasons why the US is the richest country in the world and you just named one of the biggest ones.

Say what you will, but that 4 week difference makes a gigantic difference. There is nothing wrong with 6 weeks of leave a year, but when your annual productivity or average salaries lag behind those in the US, this is the number one reason.

How about I say this; the reason the United States is so rich is because it's resource rich.

You're "work ethic" lags a long way behind the Japanese who work themselves to death, literally, and yet they're $1,000 USD behind you in GNP per capita. How come?

Besides, unless you have 100% employment, another couple weeks holidays will increase your productivity not decrease it, and generate a few more jobs. There will probably be a small loss in the bottom line for larger companies that staff for leave, but it won't be a straight line equation.

*shrug* if working yourself to death while your president has 8 months off a year floats your boat, more power to you.

[Avestan]

Moore suggesting that european economies function just fine for the most part with 6 weeks or more annual leave instead of 2, lazy hippy.

There are a number of reasons why the US is the richest country in the world and you just named one of the biggest ones.

Say what you will, but that 4 week difference makes a gigantic difference. There is nothing wrong with 6 weeks of leave a year, but when your annual productivity or average salaries lag behind those in the US, this is the number one reason.

How about I say this; the reason the United States is so rich is because it's resource rich.

You're "work ethic" lags a long way behind the Japanese who work themselves to death, literally, and yet they're $1,000 USD behind you in GNP per capita. How come?

I can propose a lot of reasons:

1. Japanese corporate culture is wicked. You are not incentivised to come up with ideas, just to do what your boss tells you to. This leads to a lack of creativity and in the end, a lack of productivity. This, I believe, is also the number one reason for their economic crash.

2. You say that the Japanese work themselves to death, but Americans work more hours per year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm

I chose that link specifically because at first glance, it is counter to a lot of what I am saying so please do not call it biased.

3. Resources. I will not deny that when you compare us to the Japanese, the US has a lot more natural resources. Japan has to import about 80% of its food. . .the US is the largest food exporter in the world. Gasoline, precious metals, etc. The other side of this coin is that Japan only maintains a token military force whereas the United States spends a significant amount of its capital on the military. This allows Japan to focus on their economy.

Besides, unless you have 100% employment, another couple weeks holidays will increase your productivity not decrease it, and generate a few more jobs. There will probably be a small loss in the bottom line for larger companies that staff for leave, but it won't be a straight line equation.

Actually a country should never have 100% employment. I believe the optimal rate is about 4% (someone who has had Econ more recently than I have can correct me). If you do not have a 4% unemployment rate, you have no availablee workers. That being said, this has never been a problem in the United States and never will be. If we ever needed more workers, we would not cut down on our hours, we would open up the borders a little more.

*shrug* if working yourself to death while your president has 8 months off a year floats your boat, more power to you.

I work about 90 hours a week. I don't do it for my President or for my country, but because I am motivated to create something I can be proud of and, if you will, get a taste of the American Dream. I do not want to see our average days off per year increase because I know that the amount I work gives me an advantage over everyone around me who doesn't. . .and I like that. In the age of outsoursing of American (and other) jobs, I know that I will not be replaced because I am willing to do a hell of a lot more than other people. I would be lying if I said I was not proud of that.

[Fairweather Pure]

I work about 90 hours a week. I don't do it for my President or for my country, but because I am motivated to create something I can be proud of and, if you will, get a taste of the American Dream. I do not want to see our average days off per year increase because I know that the amount I work gives me an advantage over everyone around me who doesn't. . .and I like that. In the age of outsoursing of American (and other) jobs, I know that I will not be replaced because I am willing to do a hell of a lot more than other people. I would be lying if I said I was not proud of that.

Yes, because companies treat an understand you as an individual. They know and respect your contributions to thier continued success and profit.

Haha. Who are you kidding? People like you are the first to get laid off. I don't envy the wake up call you're bound to recieve someday. There's a reason the the vast majoirty of Americans believe they have no job security. It's because we don't.

[Avestan]

Who the fuck is talking about job security? I can assure you that I am not getting laid off. . .100%.

how can you possibly even consider making a statement like you just did without even meeting me.

Wide sweeping generalizations do no one any good. You sound bitter. Get a job. (this might involve getting out of the house)

[Fairweather Pure]

First off, please realise that your job dosen't mean shit to anyone but yourself. Having said that, a job is a means to happier things in life for most people. I work to live, I don't live to work. When I see someone who brags that they work 90 hours a week, I see a fool with fucked up priorieties in life.

Having a whopping 4-5 hours a day for yourself, friends and family is a crime IMO (assuming you sleep at least 6 hours). To each thier own though. If that's your idea of how to live your life, by all means have at it.

The interjection of job security that I posted above was hoping to infuse some reality into your 90 hour work week delusions of grandeur where you assume it gives you some sort of advantage over a co-worker who chooses family (hell, just a life in general) over work. When shit rolls down hill, it hits everyone on the way, no matter how hard you work or take pride in your job. That's the American dream.

I am not bitter. I'm just a realist.

[Avestan]

I have no qualms about my situation. I have a wife who is extremely supportive and she knows that I appreciate her attitude.

where you see a fool with fucked up priorities, I see myself as making an investment in my future. By the time I have kids, I will have a nice house, the money to pay for them to go to the best schools available and the ability to give them every advantage I can. I see that as my duty in life.

I work more, I make more. It really is that simple. You said " To each thier own. . .". Exactly. I choose this path and I expect to be able to do things down the road (when I am not working 90 hours a week) that others will not.

At first you attacked job security and now you are attacking my life decisions. I made a choice to work a lot, you made the choice not to. There is nothing wrong with either choice and that is where I have a problem with your attitude. If I want to work 90 hours a week, I do not want people telling me I can't or that I am silly to do so. It is my life. To each their own.

This ties into the original discussion because more people in the US decide to work longer hours for whatever reason. It is not our job to judge their reasons. It is our job to make a decision for ourselves about how much we work knowing that working less has consequences just as working more does. None of this was about personal choices, I used myself as an example only to maybe show an instance of someone who does not want Michael Moore(or anyone else) telling me how much I should work.

[kyoukan]

you get paid by the hour?

[Avestan]

I wish.

[kyoukan]

so how does working more get you paid more if you work on a salary?

[Avestan]

Indirectly. In my case, we are building something. . .the more revenue we are able to generate and the less costs we have, the more that is available in terms of salary. There is also a level of recognition that comes from working more. Eventually that leads to raises and/or promotions.

[Avestan]

going home. Thanks for the help procrastinating.

[kyoukan]

well that is just going back to the point that fairweather was arguing in the first place.

people who work their ass off like that are generally never acknowledged for their efforts. if you think that one day someone will take notice about what an amazingly hard worker you are then you can go ahead and keep doing it, but I can pretty much guarantee you that isn't the case. in fact even the opposite is true in a lot of cases. do you think someone in management is going to want to promote someone one step closer to their job who works twice as hard as they do?

if you're working 90 hours a week and expect that one day you'll be rewarded for it with a larger salary and sweet promotions because you've generated so much revenue for the company you work for then you are very seriously dreaming. you can work like that at a company for 20 years and the microsecond someone figures out that they can replace you with a machine or an indian and save the company ten cents a year you will be out of there so fucking fast you will probably forget to steal office supplies on the way out.

[Kylere]

90 hours a week of Work: $ X
65 hours posting to VV: $0.00

Bragging about your work ethic on a webboard while you are at work does not promote your own point, if you work 90 hours as a dumbass you would be better off doing 40 and hoping no one notices you.

[Alfan]

Actually, the Japanese economic woes can probably be traced to their pitiful banking infrastructure. But wasn't this thread about Michael Moore?

[kyoukan]

lots of things contributed to japan's recession and it really can't be pinned down on one single factor that pushed them over the edge. but yes banking infrastructure and excessive government spending on pork are probably the two worst.

generally speaking though the japanese have a pretty strong work ethic. and yeah they do work less hours than the average american. they also have a higher productivity which is what usually pushes them over the edge.

[Avestan]

90 hours a week of Work: $ X
65 hours posting to VV: $0.00

Bragging about your work ethic on a webboard while you are at work does not promote your own point, if you work 90 hours as a dumbass you would be better off doing 40 and hoping no one notices you.

Excellent point. Just got the juices going a bit today was all. That being said, I think I have said a lot more already than I intended about my own work habits.

I have never had a problem with my efforts being rewarded. I am sure that is a problem for some, but I have never felt that what I do has not been appreciated.

This will be my final post on this matter. . .I just do not feel like talking anymore about my personal schedule (never should have opened the door).

[Marbus]

<---- Agrees with Winnow

[Krimson Klaw]

well that is just going back to the point that fairweather was arguing in the first place.

people who work their ass off like that are generally never acknowledged for their efforts. if you think that one day someone will take notice about what an amazingly hard worker you are then you can go ahead and keep doing it, but I can pretty much guarantee you that isn't the case. in fact even the opposite is true in a lot of cases. do you think someone in management is going to want to promote someone one step closer to their job who works twice as hard as they do?

if you're working 90 hours a week and expect that one day you'll be rewarded for it with a larger salary and sweet promotions because you've generated so much revenue for the company you work for then you are very seriously dreaming. you can work like that at a company for 20 years and the microsecond someone figures out that they can replace you with a machine or an indian and save the company ten cents a year you will be out of there so fucking fast you will probably forget to steal office supplies on the way out.

This should be the post of the week.