Capitalism: A Love Story -- New Moore Movie

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't always agree with Moore, but I do like his sense of humor and find his schlocky films rather entertaining. I hope he'll do his next film on global labor arbitrage.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: bamacre
The preview alone shows it's nothing more than a 2-hour straw man. Presenting capitalism as big banks in collusion with government, and bashing it. MM has made a lot of money selling his shit to morons.

What else is it?

Fascism, or another description crony capitalism. That is Bamcare's point. MM will present what is basically the state and big business as an organic entity as capitalism to scare people into believing they need bigger govt. When the simple fact is the size and makeup of the current govt causes it to be joined at the hip with big business.

 

[Infohawk]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel for Moore. He doesn't have to attack capitalism, just the perverted bailout capitalism that we saw last year.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
The preview alone shows it's nothing more than a 2-hour straw man. Presenting capitalism as big banks in collusion with government, and bashing it. MM has made a lot of money selling his shit to morons.

Which morons? The ones that had only just recently been chanting, "Get out of the way and let the markets work?"

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

What is ironic, Moonbeam, is that you will go to the movie theatre and have a choice upon which movie you will pay to see. And even further, MM is complaining about an economic system which allows him to make the movie in the first place. And you'll likely choose to see his movie. Isn't capitalism grand?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: bamacre
The preview alone shows it's nothing more than a 2-hour straw man. Presenting capitalism as big banks in collusion with government, and bashing it. MM has made a lot of money selling his shit to morons.

Wait, are you denying that Wall St. is colluding with the government?

Hmm... you do know that Wall St. contributes vast amounts of money to politicians to help them get elected.... I wonder why.

I am not denying this. I am denying that this is capitalism. And I'm 100% correct.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

That sounds like a great teaching method, assuming you have kids that care about doing well. So I think I see the problem with it.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

Why would I ever want to be joined to learn with dumbf*cks (in one way or the other)? Why would we not want each kid to perform to their best potential, and what develops develops. Those who are not as smart and/or not as driven, can change oil the rest of their lives. Those that are smart and/or are driven, can succeed to whatever potential they can reach.

Sounds ideal, does it not? (unless, you're one of the less smart/driven people...then of course you'd want the others held back by the likes of yourself so you yourself don't get marginalized)

 

[Patranus]

I think it is funny how he is able to do what he does BECAUSE of capitalism....

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

What is ironic, Moonbeam, is that you will go to the movie theatre and have a choice upon which movie you will pay to see. And even further, MM is complaining about an economic system which allows him to make the movie in the first place. And you'll likely choose to see his movie. Isn't capitalism grand?

I complain about my car when it doesn't work properly but I still have to drive it.

You can criticize something without outright condemning its existence. Sure his movie will *probably* suck but you're judging it before the fact. Think about what you're saying.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

Why would I ever want to be joined to learn with dumbf*cks (in one way or the other)? Why would we not want each kid to perform to their best potential, and what develops develops. Those who are not as smart and/or not as driven, can change oil the rest of their lives. Those that are smart and/or are driven, can succeed to whatever potential they can reach.

Sounds ideal, does it not? (unless, you're one of the less smart/driven people...then of course you'd want the others held back by the likes of yourself so you yourself don't get marginalized)

Exactly. Survival of the fittest is the natural order of the universe and for reasons that should be obvious, the less fit one is for survival in this universe, the less they favor this natural order while the fittest are happy with things just the way they are. But who is fittest is determined by the prevalent conditions of the universe at any given time so on any given day the universe could decide to swap labels on the list of "fittest" and the list of "destined for extinction." Just keep that in mind. Everything is relative. You're only "fittest" until circumstances change and you're not any more. To put it in perspective, if you are the only person with an IQ of 180 in a room full of 100 people, the rest of whom are literal idiots, and that room represents your universe, you are the oddball. Unfortunately, looks like our planet, or at least the U.S., is headed that direction.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

Why would I ever want to be joined to learn with dumbf*cks (in one way or the other)? Why would we not want each kid to perform to their best potential, and what develops develops. Those who are not as smart and/or not as driven, can change oil the rest of their lives. Those that are smart and/or are driven, can succeed to whatever potential they can reach.

Sounds ideal, does it not? (unless, you're one of the less smart/driven people...then of course you'd want the others held back by the likes of yourself so you yourself don't get marginalized)

Those poor kids that got blown away by some losers thought the same thing. He who pulls people up instead of walking on their heads is superior and has the better strategy for survival.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Exactly. Survival of the fittest is the natural order of the universe and for reasons that should be obvious, the less fit one is for survival in this universe, the less they favor this natural order while the fittest are happy with things just the way they are. But who is fittest is determined by the prevalent conditions of the universe at any given time so on any given day the universe could decide to swap labels on the list of "fittest" and the list of "destined for extinction." Just keep that in mind. Everything is relative. You're only "fittest" until circumstances change and you're not any more. To put it in perspective, if you are the only person with an IQ of 180 in a room full of 100 people, the rest of whom are literal idiots, and that room represents your universe, you are the oddball. Unfortunately, looks like our planet, or at least the U.S., is headed that direction.

I agree, especially with the bolded. The fittest may be the fittest in the environment they thrive in, and may be completely lacking in an environment they are not adept enough to deal with. That's just the breaks of life.....

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

I read your disclaimer. But I'm wondering, what exactly are you trying to suggest to us, Moonbeam? That to some extent the Columbine killers were just committing an act of justice by gunning down bullies and other people they felt had mistreated them?

Put this together with this, where you can learn about cooperative, instead of competative learning, if you are interested.

Why would I ever want to be joined to learn with dumbf*cks (in one way or the other)? Why would we not want each kid to perform to their best potential, and what develops develops. Those who are not as smart and/or not as driven, can change oil the rest of their lives. Those that are smart and/or are driven, can succeed to whatever potential they can reach.

Sounds ideal, does it not? (unless, you're one of the less smart/driven people...then of course you'd want the others held back by the likes of yourself so you yourself don't get marginalized)

Those poor kids that got blown away by some losers thought the same thing. He who pulls people up instead of walking on their heads is superior and has the better strategy for survival.

Maybe, except what they also thought was they could tease and ostracize those two, along with a bunch of others that didn't end up getting shot. Maybe if people were a little nicer to people, those things wouldn't happen.

That still doesn't mean we drag down the stars so they can plod along with the retards, just so the retards feel better. If the retards want to feel better, they can find something they're good at and do it.

In short: Just because you can't swim, don't drag me under with you.

Chuck

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Only Moore movie I've seen is Sicko. I thought it was somewhat interesting but poorly done; it isn't real journalism but it does pretend it is and people often buy into it like it is. It simply isn't professional or objective.

Huh, I haven't seen Sicko, but I saw an interview with the former marketing head of a major heath insurance company. He said Sicko was spot on and to the point, which lead them to invest massive resources in disseminating propaganda to mislead people into believing otherwise. Anyway, can you substantiate your criticism?

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Any "valid points" he makes are the exception, not the rule. I am definitely not a "far-right wingnut," and I still think Moore's a total douchebag -- along with anyone else who might fit in at Dailykos.

Do you have anything but hot air to back that up?

Originally posted by: Patranus
I think it is funny how he is able to do what he does BECAUSE of capitalism....

I think it is disturbing how you have confused capitalism with freedom of speech.

 

[StageLeft]

Huh, I haven't seen Sicko, but I saw an interview with the former marketing head of a major heath insurance company. He said Sicko was spot on and to the point, which lead them to invest massive resources in disseminating propaganda to mislead people into believing otherwise. Anyway, can you substantiate your criticism?

I cannot remember many specifics now but that was the impression I came home with. One example I do remember involved something about an ambulance and somebody having to pay for it. It's vague now but it was silly. Basically what moore does is make a quick point and jump to another. Anybody representing the opposition of his assertions would have questions that are reasonable and which are not answered in his quick points as he jumps around and around. Almost everything is either out of context and doesn't add meaningful discourse.

 

[kylebisme]

While again I have not seen Sicko, I have appreciated how much information Moore packs into the films of his I have seen, and never found them lacking context or relevance. I have seen people argue as much about those films, but like here not able to reasonably substantate those arguments.

By the way, here is the interview where the former marketing head of a major heath insurance company talks about Sicko:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: rudder
I will definetly see this one. Because I am sure Michael Moore won't mind me downloading via torrents and watching it at home when it comes out.

reported.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Any "valid points" he makes are the exception, not the rule. I am definitely not a "far-right wingnut," and I still think Moore's a total douchebag -- along with anyone else who might fit in at Dailykos.

Do you have anything but hot air to back that up?

Back what up? My opinion about Moore and his mostly worthless productions?

 

[kylebisme]

Your claim that his productions being lacking valid points is lacking in valid points.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Any "valid points" he makes are the exception, not the rule. I am definitely not a "far-right wingnut," and I still think Moore's a total douchebag -- along with anyone else who might fit in at Dailykos.

Do you have anything but hot air to back that up?

Back what up? My opinion about Moore and his mostly worthless productions?

Why does anyone think their opinion is holy just because it is an opinion?

I think what he was asking was, why do you feel that way?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Columbine Columbine? Wasn't that a mass killing in a school diagnosed as having been caused by competitiveness where a few losers taught some winners there's more to the game than meets the eye?

What is ironic, Moonbeam, is that you will go to the movie theatre and have a choice upon which movie you will pay to see. And even further, MM is complaining about an economic system which allows him to make the movie in the first place. And you'll likely choose to see his movie. Isn't capitalism grand?

I was thinking this. Exactly.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: rudder
I will definetly see this one. Because I am sure Michael Moore won't mind me downloading via torrents and watching it at home when it comes out.

reported.

Oh, the horror.