who is michael moore? is he a socialist?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The title of Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," may be ironic, but there's nothing subtle about the message, right from the opening scenes.

The two-hour documentary begins with footage of a family being evicted from their foreclosed home by a half dozen police officers. Then he presents more incriminating evidence: a bankrupt Chicago factory where workers are denied pay, a privately run juvenile prison that paid off judges to give convicts longer sentences, and last year's $700 billion bailout of the banking system.

Moore, 55, ends with this conclusion: "Capitalism is an evil and you can't regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for everyone."

The writer-director-partisan, who rose to prominence after his 1989 takedown of GM in the documentary "Roger & Me" and his mainstream hit "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004, spoke with Fortune on the eve of his film's Wednesday opening in New York City and Los Angeles (it opens nationwide on Oct. 2).

Moore talked about how his Catholic upbringing influenced the film, why Corporate America still irks him, and how to fix his economically troubled home state of Michigan. Excerpts:

You've said you started filming "Capitalism: A Love story" a year and a half ago. Did the film change after Lehman went bankrupt and the stock market crashed?

I've thought about this for 20 years. Ever since "Roger and Me," I've felt the problem here is an economic system that is unjust and unfair. It's not democratic. And I keep making these films but I dance around the subject: it's General Motors here, the health-care industry there, and I started thinking, "Why don't I just name it?"

I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it's not a Democratic economy. And it's not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn't work.

[The wealthiest Americans] proved that the free market is something they really don't believe in, they don't believe in competition, they actually do believe in socialism, that we the people should use our tax dollars to keep them in their mansions and their yachts.

I think they exposed themselves to a lot of middle class people who did believe in their system and they showed everybody the Ponzi scheme that it is. It's set up like a pyramid, so that the richest 1% at the top have more financial wealth than the 95% beneath them.

But the trick here is to get the 95% believing that if they work hard and slave away, they would get to the top of the pyramid. Of course, as we know, only a few people can stand on top of a pyramid. The fact that this crash exposed our economic system as a corrupt scam was something I didn't intend on happening while I was making the movie.

How is this film different from your previous ones?

I talk about my religion, which I have never talked about. I think religion should be a private matter. But I thought it was important to this discussion. I'm not a proselytizer, but I do have very strong beliefs and these beliefs were formed not in the school of Karl Marx, but in the Catholic Church. Priests and nuns taught me these lessons of how we're to treat each other, how we're to treat the poor, and how we're to divide up the pie.

I'm one of the few people on the left who's been fortunate to have access to a mainstream audience. I'm always thinking about ways to communicate with them and stay true to myself, because I am them, and I come from Middle America. I have very conservative values that go contrary to the fictional character that's been created of me by Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the Fox News Channel. I've been with the same woman for 30 years, I don't invest my money in anything but a savings account.

Has your view of corporate America changed since your first film, "Roger & Me," opened in 1989?

I've become all the more agitated, especially with what I've seen and with having a peak behind the curtain. Having the life I do, working in an industry that's owned by major corporations. [Moore's film is distributed by a unit of Liberty Media, whose CEO John Malone is a formidable capitalist.]

Just a couple weeks ago, the film was going to debut in the Toronto Film Festival in the Elgin Theatre. Visa sponsors the theater, so during the festival it's called the Visa Screening Room. So they had [the film studio] call me to ask, Is there any reference against Visa in the movie? And this is while they're still deciding whether to put the movie in the festival.

Are there any good things happening in American business?

I see very little support for the things we really need to be investing in. Where's the cure for cancer? Where's the bullet train to take us from New York to L.A. in 10 hours? Where are the alternative energy systems to save us when we run out of oil?

I wish these were the priorities. But when Wall Street sucks up our best mathematicians, physicists, engineers, when they should be working on these other things and instead they're working to create derivatives ... c'mon. We're in deep, deep trouble. We need the best minds working on these things.

You live in Michigan, where you were born and raised. How can Detroit be saved?

It revolves around good-paying jobs. We've allowed the middle class to be decimated over the last 30 years. We've allowed our industrial infrastructure to collapse. So instead of initially giving bailout money to a General Motors that was never going to change or to banks so they can cover losses from crazy betting schemes, this money should be going to helping to create jobs in places like Detroit. People need to work. There are so many things we need to build and create for the 21st century.

I would do what my friend Dan Kildee is doing in Flint, Michigan. He's the county treasurer and he's taken over 9,000 homes that have been abandoned. He's tearing them down and his idea essentially shrank the city in physical size. They restored neighborhoods by building parks, fields and woods.

For crime in Detroit: what is the chance, if the person down the street is making $50,000 to $60,000 a year, [that he would] break into your home to steal your TV?

You tried to get Hank Paulson on the phone in the film, but weren't successful. If you got him on the phone today, what would you ask?

If I had a chance to talk to him, I'd want him to come clean and tell me the truth about how he rigged this whole thing. Tell us what happened because we don't know the details. How did so many Goldman people end up in the administration? How is it that Goldman's chief competitors are left to die -- not bailing out Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns falls apart, Merrill Lynch is absorbed into Bank of America -- and look who's left standing: the company that's got all their boys inside the administration.

If capitalism is evil, what's the solution?

Some people say to me, democracy is not an economic system, it's a political system. My answer to that is, you think capitalism has nothing to do with politics?

Let's quit talking like we're back in Economics 101. Capitalism is not only an economic system that legalizes greed, it also has at its foundation a political system of capitalism that is, "We have to buy the political system because we don't have enough votes. We're only 1% of the votes. We have to buy the people, and we have to buy the people by convincing them if they work hard, they too can be rich one day." [Americans] have gone along with it for the last 30 years.

quite obvious that he is against capitalism, and his views seem very socialistic, where he wants to "divide up the pie."

i saw his interview on leno and he seemed like a nutjob.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The title of Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," may be ironic, but there's nothing subtle about the message, right from the opening scenes.

The two-hour documentary begins with footage of a family being evicted from their foreclosed home by a half dozen police officers. Then he presents more incriminating evidence: a bankrupt Chicago factory where workers are denied pay, a privately run juvenile prison that paid off judges to give convicts longer sentences, and last year's $700 billion bailout of the banking system.

Moore, 55, ends with this conclusion: "Capitalism is an evil and you can't regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for everyone."

The writer-director-partisan, who rose to prominence after his 1989 takedown of GM in the documentary "Roger & Me" and his mainstream hit "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004, spoke with Fortune on the eve of his film's Wednesday opening in New York City and Los Angeles (it opens nationwide on Oct. 2).

Moore talked about how his Catholic upbringing influenced the film, why Corporate America still irks him, and how to fix his economically troubled home state of Michigan. Excerpts:

You've said you started filming "Capitalism: A Love story" a year and a half ago. Did the film change after Lehman went bankrupt and the stock market crashed?

I've thought about this for 20 years. Ever since "Roger and Me," I've felt the problem here is an economic system that is unjust and unfair. It's not democratic. And I keep making these films but I dance around the subject: it's General Motors here, the health-care industry there, and I started thinking, "Why don't I just name it?"

I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it's not a Democratic economy. And it's not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn't work.

[The wealthiest Americans] proved that the free market is something they really don't believe in, they don't believe in competition, they actually do believe in socialism, that we the people should use our tax dollars to keep them in their mansions and their yachts.

I think they exposed themselves to a lot of middle class people who did believe in their system and they showed everybody the Ponzi scheme that it is. It's set up like a pyramid, so that the richest 1% at the top have more financial wealth than the 95% beneath them.

But the trick here is to get the 95% believing that if they work hard and slave away, they would get to the top of the pyramid. Of course, as we know, only a few people can stand on top of a pyramid. The fact that this crash exposed our economic system as a corrupt scam was something I didn't intend on happening while I was making the movie.

How is this film different from your previous ones?

I talk about my religion, which I have never talked about. I think religion should be a private matter. But I thought it was important to this discussion. I'm not a proselytizer, but I do have very strong beliefs and these beliefs were formed not in the school of Karl Marx, but in the Catholic Church. Priests and nuns taught me these lessons of how we're to treat each other, how we're to treat the poor, and how we're to divide up the pie.

I'm one of the few people on the left who's been fortunate to have access to a mainstream audience. I'm always thinking about ways to communicate with them and stay true to myself, because I am them, and I come from Middle America. I have very conservative values that go contrary to the fictional character that's been created of me by Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the Fox News Channel. I've been with the same woman for 30 years, I don't invest my money in anything but a savings account.

Has your view of corporate America changed since your first film, "Roger & Me," opened in 1989?

I've become all the more agitated, especially with what I've seen and with having a peak behind the curtain. Having the life I do, working in an industry that's owned by major corporations. [Moore's film is distributed by a unit of Liberty Media, whose CEO John Malone is a formidable capitalist.]

Just a couple weeks ago, the film was going to debut in the Toronto Film Festival in the Elgin Theatre. Visa sponsors the theater, so during the festival it's called the Visa Screening Room. So they had [the film studio] call me to ask, Is there any reference against Visa in the movie? And this is while they're still deciding whether to put the movie in the festival.

Are there any good things happening in American business?

I see very little support for the things we really need to be investing in. Where's the cure for cancer? Where's the bullet train to take us from New York to L.A. in 10 hours? Where are the alternative energy systems to save us when we run out of oil?

I wish these were the priorities. But when Wall Street sucks up our best mathematicians, physicists, engineers, when they should be working on these other things and instead they're working to create derivatives ... c'mon. We're in deep, deep trouble. We need the best minds working on these things.

You live in Michigan, where you were born and raised. How can Detroit be saved?

It revolves around good-paying jobs. We've allowed the middle class to be decimated over the last 30 years. We've allowed our industrial infrastructure to collapse. So instead of initially giving bailout money to a General Motors that was never going to change or to banks so they can cover losses from crazy betting schemes, this money should be going to helping to create jobs in places like Detroit. People need to work. There are so many things we need to build and create for the 21st century.

I would do what my friend Dan Kildee is doing in Flint, Michigan. He's the county treasurer and he's taken over 9,000 homes that have been abandoned. He's tearing them down and his idea essentially shrank the city in physical size. They restored neighborhoods by building parks, fields and woods.

For crime in Detroit: what is the chance, if the person down the street is making $50,000 to $60,000 a year, [that he would] break into your home to steal your TV?

You tried to get Hank Paulson on the phone in the film, but weren't successful. If you got him on the phone today, what would you ask?

If I had a chance to talk to him, I'd want him to come clean and tell me the truth about how he rigged this whole thing. Tell us what happened because we don't know the details. How did so many Goldman people end up in the administration? How is it that Goldman's chief competitors are left to die -- not bailing out Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns falls apart, Merrill Lynch is absorbed into Bank of America -- and look who's left standing: the company that's got all their boys inside the administration.

If capitalism is evil, what's the solution?

Some people say to me, democracy is not an economic system, it's a political system. My answer to that is, you think capitalism has nothing to do with politics?

Let's quit talking like we're back in Economics 101. Capitalism is not only an economic system that legalizes greed, it also has at its foundation a political system of capitalism that is, "We have to buy the political system because we don't have enough votes. We're only 1% of the votes. We have to buy the people, and we have to buy the people by convincing them if they work hard, they too can be rich one day." [Americans] have gone along with it for the last 30 years.

quite obvious that he is against capitalism, and his views seem very socialistic, where he wants to "divide up the pie."

i saw his interview on leno and he seemed like a nutjob.

He's just a complete moron, spewing stupidity that's happily lapped up as "truth" by nutty left wingers. Think of him as the left equialent of Ann Coulter.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
He's just a complete moron, spewing stupidity that's happily lapped up as "truth" by nutty left wingers. Think of him as the left equialent of Ann Coulter.

don't know who she is either.
all i know about michael moore was he that had a controversial politically charged film a couple years back that i did not watch.
i do not know what he stands for and want to see how ATPN'ers view him.

 

[ElFenix]

i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

There is no such thing, since any system would reflect the reality of the nature of the humans that are part of the system. Idiots like Moore think there's some sort of magical socialist utopia that bypasses these inherent evils and replaces them with goodness. :laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

I've thought about this for 20 years. Ever since "Roger and Me," I've felt the problem here is an economic system that is unjust and unfair. It's not democratic. And I keep making these films but I dance around the subject: it's General Motors here, the health-care industry there, and I started thinking, "Why don't I just name it?"

I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it's not a Democratic economy. And it's not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn't work.

[The wealthiest Americans] proved that the free market is something they really don't believe in, they don't believe in competition, they actually do believe in socialism, that we the people should use our tax dollars to keep them in their mansions and their yachts.

LOL

How can the wealthiest people in this country believe in socialism AND want us to support their yachts? He can't even keep is buzzwords straight. What a fucking joke.

Also, how the fuck can he claim that capitalism doesn't work when, in the very next sentence he says that we don't live in a capitalist world, rather we live in a socialist one?

*headasplodes*

 

[yllus]

His books are some of the most intellectually insulting things I've ever read, in that he believes people might actually agree with the tripe he put on paper.

I don't believe he's actually against capitalism and for socialism - he's just a populist whose fifteen minutes have long been up.

Edit: Er, not that capitalism and socialism are mirror opposites of each other.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

Well, I guess if there's no corruption free system, then there's point to any discussion of any corruptin in any system. Mafia owend? Whatever, it's all the same.

 

[Craig234]

I just watched an interview with Moore.

He was asked 'is Capitalism evil?' His answer was that traditional capitalism, where people provide goods and services and make money, was good.

But he said that's not our system today, that's dominated by the Financial companies who don't make anything, but just profit by moving money around.

He said that type of capitalism is bad.

Edit: found the link from the other thread.

You have to click the upper left video to get to the Moore info.

Link

 

[BeauJangles]

The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

 

[miketheidiot]

I wish these were the priorities. But when Wall Street sucks up our best mathematicians, physicists, engineers, when they should be working on these other things and instead they're working to create derivatives ... c'mon. We're in deep, deep trouble. We need the best minds working on these things.

MM make reasonable points fairly often, only he is kinda of a douche like most political commentators. That and he is a liberal douche, which really gets the more prominent and numerous conservative ones riled up.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

 

[Genx87]

I havent seen the movie, only the previews. One of the things in the previews is it looks like he goes after big govt as well for colluding with big business.

If true that can explain why some of the hollywood elite who used to support him are now publicly goign after him.

The funny thing for people like Moore is they believe the answer to the problem is bigger govt. All bigger govt does is up the anty for big business to surgically implant itself into the ass of Big Govt.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

i don't believe that's what he's saying at all.
you're just twisting his words.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

I've thought about this for 20 years. Ever since "Roger and Me," I've felt the problem here is an economic system that is unjust and unfair. It's not democratic. And I keep making these films but I dance around the subject: it's General Motors here, the health-care industry there, and I started thinking, "Why don't I just name it?"

I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it's not a Democratic economy. And it's not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn't work.

[The wealthiest Americans] proved that the free market is something they really don't believe in, they don't believe in competition, they actually do believe in socialism, that we the people should use our tax dollars to keep them in their mansions and their yachts.

LOL

How can the wealthiest people in this country believe in socialism AND want us to support their yachts? He can't even keep is buzzwords straight. What a fucking joke.

Also, how the fuck can he claim that capitalism doesn't work when, in the very next sentence he says that we don't live in a capitalist world, rather we live in a socialist one?

*headasplodes*

Uhmmm, I think the joke is on you. What he's saying is that the wealthiest Americans are the recipients of socialism in their favor, having our tax dollars socialistically redistributed to them. His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

You don't have to agree with him, but his points are certainly not head-exploding.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: yllus
His books are some of the most intellectually insulting things I've ever read, in that he believes people might actually agree with the tripe he put on paper.

I don't believe he's actually against capitalism and for socialism - he's just a populist whose fifteen minutes have long been up.

Edit: Er, not that capitalism and socialism are mirror opposites of each other.

This :thumbsup: Michael Moore is a tool who panders to whatever anti-government cause will let him sell the most books and movies. That he spoke with Fortune magazine to promote his film is only evidence that he is a hypocrite and no better than those he criticizes.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

This :thumbsup: Michael Moore is a tool who panders to whatever anti-government cause will let him sell the most books and movies. That he spoke with Fortune magazine to promote his film is only evidence that he is a hypocrite and no better than those he criticizes.

That's just wrong. You're better than that.

You're saying that he'd just as happily go out and make movies with right-wing advocacy, if he could make more money doing that? That's quite wrong.

And speaking with Fortune magazine is not hypocritical whatsoever.

No better than those he criticizes? When he criticizes corrupt and criminal people who milk the system for billions, he's the same as them? You're really just pulling Glenn Beck here.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Moore, but you are not making them. Regain your composure.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

Over the last fifty years, the vast majority of this country has enjoyed wealth on an unparalleled level in human history. Yes, some people have enjoyed more of that wealth, but every single index we have of quality of life has been continually rising for every member of society over the last half century.

The people who aren't rich aren't losing, they just don't win as much as the people who make it big. And you know what? That's life.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm, I think the joke is on you. What he's saying is that the wealthiest Americans are the recipients of socialism in their favor, having our tax dollars socialistically redistributed to them. His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

You don't have to agree with him, but his points are certainly not head-exploding.

Right, but he's throwing the "socialism" buzzword in there just to attract attention. The easier, and more correct way for him to make his point is to say that there are a small group of people stealing money from the rest of us. There. No socialism involved.

Anyway, Moore is so far off track here that it hurts. Our society has survived much greater imbalances of wealth. We've gone through periods where the every-day worker was truly boned no matter what he or she chose to do. While we do have swings away from the mean, the truth is that the wealth gap has been narrowing and, while it may be getting bigger right now, that doesn't mean we need to blow the system up.

His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

I'd just like Mr. Moore to explain a system where there is no potential for this to happen. It's easy to sit back and criticize everything you see around you, but when you propose no effective means for change, lace your interviews with buzzwords, and expect everyone to kiss your feet like you're some sort of genius ... that's when we've gotten far, far off track.

From what I've read about this documentary, it will add nothing to the actual conversation of how to fix this country besides thrusting ideals and labels into the forefront.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

Well, I guess if there's no corruption free system, then there's point to any discussion of any corruptin in any system. Mafia owend? Whatever, it's all the same.

not at all my point, but thanks for going to an illogical extreme yet again.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

This :thumbsup: Michael Moore is a tool who panders to whatever anti-government cause will let him sell the most books and movies. That he spoke with Fortune magazine to promote his film is only evidence that he is a hypocrite and no better than those he criticizes.

That's just wrong. You're better than that.

You're saying that he'd just as happily go out and make movies with right-wing advocacy, if he could make more money doing that? That's quite wrong.

And speaking with Fortune magazine is not hypocritical whatsoever.

No better than those he criticizes? When he criticizes corrupt and criminal people who milk the system for billions, he's the same as them? You're really just pulling Glenn Beck here.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Moore, but you are not making them. Regain your composure.

Right-wingers aren't populist, so I wouldn't expect him to forgo his own biases - it'd make his job all the more difficult. Moore doesn't make expose`s or documentaries, Craig - he finds some stuff that pisses him off and he makes a 190-proof anti-O'Reilly film & book about it, much in the same vein. Were he a bit less of a self-styled Tarantino of film & politics, I could probably stomach him. Reforming the system is one thing, but calling it evil is simple bias.

My composure is fine - I just have this personal failing where I categorically dismiss nutjob extremists who refuse to consider the opposite point of view because there are just too damned many of them in the world to make sense of them - and I make no apologies for it. Example - I dont even know WTF Glenn Beck is.

I'm simply tired of sorting through the 'passionate' bias of people who are so sure they know better in order to find something out. Surely you can relate somewhat to that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

Well, I guess if there's no corruption free system, then there's point to any discussion of any corruptin in any system. Mafia owend? Whatever, it's all the same.

not at all my point, but thanks for going to an illogical extreme yet again.

I stand by my response. That's how rhetoric works.

Someone posts "George Bush caught eating babies on video".

A bush apologist posts back, "I haven't seen a president yet who was without some flaw."

Now, what is the point there? To minimize the issue. You can say all day you didn't exactly defend the wrongdoing, but that's the effect.

IMO, that's the only point I see in your post. And my post pointed that out.

Feeel free to say what your actual point was if you claim it was something else.

My post points out the illogic of your point by takng your point to its logical impoication, which you think it 'going toan illogical extreme'.

That's often the response by logic-challenged people.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: yllus
His books are some of the most intellectually insulting things I've ever read, in that he believes people might actually agree with the tripe he put on paper.

I don't believe he's actually against capitalism and for socialism - he's just a populist whose fifteen minutes have long been up.

Edit: Er, not that capitalism and socialism are mirror opposites of each other.

This :thumbsup: Michael Moore is a tool who panders to whatever anti-government cause will let him sell the most books and movies. That he spoke with Fortune magazine to promote his film is only evidence that he is a hypocrite and no better than those he criticizes.

Pretty much. I'm sure that if he grew up in the U.S.S.R. (but one in which criticizing the regime didn't lead to prison) he'd be hawking the upsides of capitalism today instead. Mr. Moore is for money, not for opening eyes or changing opinions.

The central thesis of his books is always the same - you are a tool of the elites if you ever find yourself agreeing with them. Just be happy with what you've got instead of yearning to be one of them. Now there's something to be said for being happy with your lot in life when you know you can go no further, but that's not the message he's spreading.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I stand by my response. That's how rhetoric works.

Someone posts "George Bush caught eating babies on video".

A bush apologist posts back, "I haven't seen a president yet who was without some flaw."

Now, what is the point there? To minimize the issue. You can say all day you didn't exactly defend the wrongdoing, but that's the effect.

IMO, that's the only point I see in your post. And my post pointed that out.

Feeel free to say what your actual point was if you claim it was something else.

My post points out the illogic of your point by takng your point to its logical impoication, which you think it 'going toan illogical extreme'.

That's often the response by logic-challenged people.

you see what you want to see because you come in here looking for a fight. point being don't toss the baby out with the bathwater to avoid corruption. instead tackle corruption for what it is, rather than using it as a basis to proclaim the whole thing unworkable (you'd soon run out of isms to work with if you did that). i think we'd agree on that, but instead you view things as hostile. chill out a bit.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

Over the last fifty years, the vast majority of this country has enjoyed wealth on an unparalleled level in human history. Yes, some people have enjoyed more of that wealth, but every single index we have of quality of life has been continually rising for every member of society over the last half century.

The people who aren't rich aren't losing, they just don't win as much as the people who make it big. And you know what? That's life.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm, I think the joke is on you. What he's saying is that the wealthiest Americans are the recipients of socialism in their favor, having our tax dollars socialistically redistributed to them. His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

You don't have to agree with him, but his points are certainly not head-exploding.

Right, but he's throwing the "socialism" buzzword in there just to attract attention. The easier, and more correct way for him to make his point is to say that there are a small group of people stealing money from the rest of us. There. No socialism involved.

Anyway, Moore is so far off track here that it hurts. Our society has survived much greater imbalances of wealth. We've gone through periods where the every-day worker was truly boned no matter what he or she chose to do. While we do have swings away from the mean, the truth is that the wealth gap has been narrowing and, while it may be getting bigger right now, that doesn't mean we need to blow the system up.

His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

I'd just like Mr. Moore to explain a system where there is no potential for this to happen. It's easy to sit back and criticize everything you see around you, but when you propose no effective means for change, lace your interviews with buzzwords, and expect everyone to kiss your feet like you're some sort of genius ... that's when we've gotten far, far off track.

From what I've read about this documentary, it will add nothing to the actual conversation of how to fix this country besides thrusting ideals and labels into the forefront.

A short response:

You are really a classic example of a right-wing ideologue. You preach the faith - and you invent the facts to fit it.

Your post would need a detailed point by point response to really show this, but for now that's a high level comment.

For a start though, you are - right-wing ideology incoming - really minimizing the issue of the concentration of wealth. You make it sound harmelss - so what, you drive a Chevy and a rich guy drives a Lamborghini, doesn't hurt you - which is very much not the case. There are all kinds of problems an excessive concentration of wealth brings, which you appear blissfully ignorant about, not the least of which is the takeover and undermining of our democracy.

Our society has survived much greater imbalances of wealth.

Got evidence of the levels of concentration of wealth over history? Or did you just make that up because it says what fits your ideology?

Fact is, after the big cncentrations of wealth peaking just before the great depression, they were far lower for decades, until a reversal began with Ragan - and are now often higher.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Moore's net worth is estimated to be somewhere @ $50 million dollars. Ironically, he's one of those very same rich bastards that he pretends to despise. When he wants to spread the wealth he means everyone elses wealth, not his own, which is how many socialists are. It's those other rich bastards that are the real problem, ya know.