Most of his work I did not appreciate in fact, despised. However, this film Capitalism, is excellent. I am involved in the banking world & am glad it was exposed as acurately as Michael did. It is a travesty & an outright crime Wall Street et al played on us. I think this author is wrong for calling Michael a hypocrite. He has the right to make money on this film just as you have that same right & opportunity. The message is clear in the film and is well documented and is completely independent of what he earns. You need not tear down his message with petty thoughts regarding his earnings but stand up against those institutions & politicians who are killing this nation. The problem is real & much bigger than we are lead to believe - “it’s a hard rain gonna fall”

I think this author is wrong for calling Michael a hypocrite. He has the right to make money on this film just as you have that same right & opportunity.

One cannot at once call for an end to capitalism as being an evil that is destroying people and this country and then turn right around both use and encourage others to use the same capitalist system to make money for themselves. Those two positions are in opposition to each other. Espousing both positions does indeed make Michael Moore a hypocrite, especially when a “democratic” alternative such as the one I outlined exists for him to distribute his message.

The message is clear in the film and is well documented and is completely independent of what he earns.

The very fact that Moore is earning money from this film THROUGH CAPITALISM means it is NOT independent of the message in the film. It in fact negates the message of the film as Moore is proving that he himself will not let go of capitalism, even when an alternative such as the situation I outlined exist. If Moore cannot or will not let go of capitalism, how can I believe he believes it is evil? How is it evil? If it’s so evil, why would he have anything to do with it? The message and the messenger are, in this case, not separate.

You need not tear down his message with petty thoughts regarding his earnings but stand up against those institutions & politicians who are killing this nation.

One more time for the people in the back… THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL SITE. The purpose of Moorewatch is to question, fact-check, and debunk the work of Michael Moore. We do not make political “calls to action” here because this is NOT a political site. Please familiarize yourself with this site and its purpose before making comments like these in the future.

To DonnaK,

First off I want to apologize about adding a “political” message, I did not read the rules & made a mistake. Now on to the heart of the matter - commenting on your… attack of my original message.

DonnaK, you have lost the ability of being objective because of your obvious distain for Michael Moore. The beginning of my original comment I stated my dislike for his movies. I do not agree with the slant & misinformation he made regarding gun control in Bowling for Columbine.

Exercising his constitutional free speech right to trash Bush in 9/11 was another distasteful & sophomoric display of film making that aligned with the liberal thinking, high and mighty Hollywood fools. Personally, I thought he sold himself out ... big time!

Based upon your rebuttal/rebuke & your absurd “pay as you like” 60’s ideology, my question for you is - if he made this movie, funded it all himself, paid theater owners the rent & allowed people to come and see it free - no donations accepted, then would his capitalism message be (more) valid?? (Hint -It’s a rhetorical question). Wake up little Snoozie, the truth in this film and is independent to the film maker.

As stated before, I am heavily involved in the banking world and everything he documented in the film is accurate. Wall Street greed that ended up throwing people out of their houses and onto the street is real, people losing jobs they have had for decades is not funny, I’ve seen it first hand. Banks were making loans that made no sense to the point they had to change their analytics to make them work is insanity. Then when the fit hit the shan & things finally unravelled as many of us predicted, those mortgage backed securities got wiped out which was a considerable amount of personal wealth - retirement accounts of real people, most of whom are blue collar. Again, these are real people just like you and me.

I stand up and applaud this movie because it is a subject that needs to be exposed and that is independent of any opinions or biases of Michael Moore. I’d suggest that you do what you say - “to question, fact-check, and debunk the work of Michael Moore” or more accurately - question, fact check then debunk Michael Moore’s work if those facts prove exaggerated or erroneous. That’s what intelligent people do. By the way, if this is considered political, too bad - too many good honest people have gotten hurt and we need to know it, so there!

Just a thought…

Now I haven’t seen the movie. Consider it my “vote” in Moore’s so-called “Democratic” economic system.

Since you’ve seen it, I’ll ask you. How’s the section of the movie about the Federal Reserve? Certainly any film dissecting the financial meltdown would have to contain a lengthy discussion about the role of the Fed in creating our mess.

And how’s the part where Moore talks about government intrustion into lending? There must be a part where he describes the Community Reinvestment Act and other laws which forced banks to lend money to people who couldn’t pay it back.

Since you’re so heavily involved in banking, perhaps you could tell us how a bank can risk money it really doesn’t have by lending it to peole who really can’t pay it back, and then ask the government to foot the bill when things go South? Somehow, that sounds more like socialism than capitalism to me. But I’m not a banker, so I’ll defer to your expert banking opinion.

First off I want to apologize about adding a “political” message, I did not read the rules & made a mistake.

No apologies are necessary. It simply becomes tiresome when people come here and either 1) claim this is a right-wing site (it’s not), or 2) expect us to be politically active on issues. That is where my frustration originates - I’m sure you can understand it gets to be repetitive on my and the other authors parts.

DonnaK, you have lost the ability of being objective because of your obvious distain for Michael Moore.

I’m going to have to stop you right there before we continue. It is true that I do not agree with much of what Moore says and does. It is true that I harbor some bad feelings over past actions of his. It is true that if Moore presents a fallacy as a truth I will call him on it and decry his actions. It is NOT true that I hate Michael Moore. I dislike what he does but as I do not know him I cannot say that I dislike him as a person. There is a vast gulf between disliking what some one does and disliking who they are. My disdain stops with Moore’s work and I would like to make that clear.

I appreciate the fact you you yourself show that you realize that Moore has presented fallacies as truth in his past works. I am glad to see you say that you feel that he has sold out in the past. I feel then I must ask you this - if he has already sold out in the past, why do you believe it is impossible that he is repeating the same behavior now?

I understand that you have experience in the banking industry and that you feel Moore’s facts about said industry are true and valid. You may well be right - I have not seen the movie yet and thus cannot comment on the validity of those facts.

However, I *can* comment on the hypocrisy of his message about the evils of capitalism and his actions which support it. It is a dichotomy of thought and action that makes no logical sense and, especially when alternates like the one I discussed are available, makes him a hypocrite. Please note I am NOT criticizing the movie in this post. I am criticizing Moore’s words and deeds surrounding this movie. There is a difference.

So wait… Donna can’t speak, because she can’t be objective about Michael Moore due to not liking Michael Moore.

But… Michael Moore can speak, and be objective, about capitalism, despite not liking capitalism and at the same time partaking in capitalism.

... MOON LOGIC.

Belcatar -

See the movie, then ask your questions. Point 2 - You really cannot be that naive can you? We loan money to 3rd world countries knowing full well it’ll never get paid back.

On the homefront loaning issue, it is complicated but can be summed up in 2 general areas - greed & actuarial science. Greed is obvious & ties into the actuarial science which applies statistical models assessing risk - part of what I do. Banks make big profits loaning out (fees, points & amortization schedules) & through servicing contracts. Loan failure is acceptable as long as a high percentage of loans perform. Again, it is a very complicated & sometimes defies logic. Example - the Ford Pinto in the early 70’s had a gas tank the exploded when rear ended just right. Ford knew about the problem years before they applied the solution because they figured out the cost to settle lawsuits was far less than retrofitting the cars. When the trend began to change, they retrofitted saving them millions of dollars & strangely enough, giving them good press. It wasn’t about right or wrong, it was about dollars.

DonnaK -

I am an analyst & have worked the past 3 years on solutions for this very crisis which is why, I guess by training, I can separate things such Michael Moore & his movie content(s). My ability to solve problems successfully requires me to take existing components (in my field of loss mitigation - preemptive measures), lay them out in any random order and create an out of the box solution completely separate from my opinion of what I think is right. What makes things interesting is the highly fluid solution models due to the power of the instant information, which can sway things radically in a relatively short period of time. This never existed before in any time in history.

This afternoon I was bored and needed creative time to think and wandered into the theater, picked this movie because it was a MM movie & thought it would be chalk full of his warped views - the perfect way to derail my current state of mind. I had no idea what this movie was about when I sat down & was blown away by how well MM laid out the crisis. Like his other movies he was in it and narrated throughout the film but he was not a factor because, to me, the information was the star not his normal bias.

Here is the point of the movie (for me) - We are in a crisis - still, it’ll get worse before it gets better, the vail has been lifted off the rich & powerful & government, our current information vehicle - the internet & satellite, is more powerful than we can imagine & the speed is absolutely scary. Maybe Michael got lucky but he was right on the money & sad to say, he deserves kudos for this film. That being said, I still hold the opinion that he is a sensationalist & opportunistic and a grossly over weight goof.

Justa Thought:

Your credentials are impressive. Let me give you mine.

I’m a deconstructionist with a degree from Yale University. I take ideals - all kinds of ideals - and break them down into their most basic parts. I examine each part to understand its nature, how it is used, why it is there, and what effect it has on the other pieces of the grander ideal. I then look at every possible way the pieces can be put back together and examine every possible view, counterview, and conceivable interpretation of the ideal, both whilst it is whole and in pieces. I learn how the pieces fit together, which have the most import, and which are unnecessary or distracting. I then put the whole thing back together with a complete and total understanding of every aspect of the ideal and offer any of a vast number of conclusions I might have discovered during my studies.

I am a critic, born and bred. I interpret, understand, and study things. I specialize in the written word but the science of deconstruction can be applied to all aspects of life, and I apply it in such a way. I assure you that I am fully and completely qualified to watch, interpret and judge any film, no matter who made it or why. Make no mistake… I am very good at what I do.

While I understand that you feel passionately about the subject of the movie, you have yet to address the issue I raised in my post. You continue to gerrymander around my points with political speak and financial debris. While your qualifications may be impressive, your argument - or lack thereof - is not. Either stick to the point of my post or move along, please. Explain to me why this “sensationalist & opportunistic goof” should NOT wear the label of hypocrite when his actions and his message lie in direct contradiction of each other. When you decide to give a serious, thought out answer to that question we can speak again. However, until that point arrives, I highly suggest you take a moment and stop underestimating those with whom you are in debate.

Thank you.

We (meaning the United States) loan money we don’t have to people who we know aren’t going to pay it back. I agree with this. I fail to see how this makes me naive. I do see how lending money to people who aren’t going to pay it back would lead to the lender not having any money. When you owe more money than you have, it’s called debt. The U.S. has a huge debt. When you spend more than you take in during the course of a year, it’s called a deficit. The U.S. has a considerable deficit as well. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a banking analyst to see that operating with big debts is bad economic policy.

And as I understand it, the financial meltdown occured because banks lent money to people who couldn’t pay it back, which resulted in the banks running out of money.

The Ford Pinto doesn’t have a lot to do with loaning money to people, does it? I understand that Ford saved money by settling suits. The fact that Ford even made the Pinto in the first place is bad enough. If you’re going to give an example of greed vs. science, why not use an example of a bank lending someone money, when they knew that the person couldn’t pay it back. The only way a bank would do that was if they knew someone else would pay. (That would be U.S. taxpayers, the people who lend money to third world countries knowing we’ll never see it again.)

Let me give you an example from my own life. I applied to my bank for a $8000 car loan. They denied me because I didn’t have the income level appropriate to the risk. Instead, they offered me about $6,000. I’m grateful that they reduced their offer commensurate to my income level. It protected them and it protected me. If my bank could do it, why not others?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Michael Moore was right on, when he skips over the fact that his beloved Obama voted for bank bailouts?(I heard that in his interview with Hannity.) Is it “right on” to leave out important details that alter the way we perceive a given subject? How could he be right on if he neglects to mention the role of the Fed? How can he be right on if he equates central economic planning (the Fed, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, economic stimulus, etc. with capitalism? Government intervention is not capitalism, it’s socialism.

Go ahead and use small words so that I’ll be sure to understand, since I seem to be incapable of understanding the heady world of greedy capitalistic banking.

I would love to make a documentary film where I bring a medical patient to Michael Moore and invite him to pay the medical bills for the patient.

After all, since Moore hates capitalism, he should have no trouble footing the bill, since money and private property are evil. So it would be funny to see him weasel out of paying.

Also, I’m sure Moore is donating 100% of his profits from the Capitalism movie, since capitalism is so evil, right?!

Also, when I finally watch the movie I’m going to watch it for free by getting it from my local library. After all, I would not want Moore to be burdened with making a profit, since that is evil and capitalistic.

Yale lady, you are unbelievable! You stand up on your soap box waive your credentials, gift, strength & whatever in the vain attempt to put me in my place. Wow, I am truly impressed, glad I gave Yale a miss.

My original point & subsequent theme of my posts was about the CONTENT of his movie, showing the emperor unclothed. I specifically & carefully separated my feelings of MM, if you remember, I am not a fan of him.

You carry on about your ability to take ideals & bore me with your yada, yada, yada diatribe about how intelligent you think you are (LOL) and, all the while begging someone to respect of your 1/2 thought out opinion and yet, you fully admit that you have never seen the movie, interesting. Go Yale!

And, I gotta quote this blustery gem of yours “I am fully and completely qualified to watch, interpret and judge any film”. Now, with regards to this film, how did you do that, by listening to a couple sound bites of MM??  Dare I suggest ... hypocrite?

Thank you for making my point & giving me something to giggle about today, it’s truly priceless!

Belcartar -

Let me give you a real live mortgage example that I personally documented & analyzed -

Latino gardner makes $4,000 per month, under the table (paying no taxes or tax return) qualifies for a “stated income loan” with Countrywide. The initial payment was $1,400 per month. Then his lender encourages him the refinance (mind you his ability to speak english is minimal at best) into another loan because his payments were going up due to a negative amortizing loan. Three years later I meet him and tells me in tears that his monthly payment is now $3,200 (income was unchanged). He qualified for 3 loans and eventually defaulted. Makes absolutely no sense does it? The loan agent should have been shot.

Now multiply this exact scenario by 1,000,000 people and you’ll have a taste of what has gone down the toilet & there is much more to come.

Yes, you are naive and should put your energies elsewhere away from these foolish authors.

In closing I’ll say that Michael Moore is not the enemy here, it myopic thinking you (all) demonstrate that is.

This ends my interest with this website.

PS
DonnaK, ask Yale for your money back. If they ask why, forward them your posts. I’ll bet they’d FedX you a check immediately, interest included!

Wow, do I feel put in my place by Justa Thought, and I wasn’t even involved in the conversation.

JT, I hope you’re not banned from the site even though you come across as amazingly pompous.  I also hope you haven’t truly left the site, because I have one nagging question:

What model gun was the lender holding to the Latino gardener’s head?  I really feel for the gardener because when I signed for my loans, there were no weapons involved, and I’m still grateful for that lack of intimidation.

Justa Thought:

You state that your post and your your subsequent comments have all been about the content of Moore’s movie. The point I keep attempting to drive into your head, the point I believe you are willfully missing, is that my post has NOTHING to do with the whole of the content of the movie. My post has EVERYTHING to do with the marketing and publicly stated *thesis* (through letters and interviews posted on this site and elsewhere) of the movie. I don’t have to have seen the film to comment on the dichotomy of those two messages. It’s obvious to all who bother to examine them.

As for the rest of your post, all it is is a jumble of insults and rambling nonsense. You have been bested and you full well know it. You cannot defend your position, you cannot seem to even bring yourself to discuss the points I made in my post, and I’m quite sure you feel rather embarrassed at this juncture. Please note that I have never once in this discussion insulted you, used harsh language towards you or demeaned you in any way. Why do you feel the need to do so with me?

I won’t ban you, no worries, but I doubt I’ll see much of you after this. I will, however, warn you. When you are commenting on a thread, keep your comments ON TOPIC, something you have been completely and utterly unable to do in this thread. If you do post again here I expect it NOT to revolve around anything other than the points I made in my post. If you are as intelligent as you claim to be, which I am sure you are, you should be able to follow that simple rule.

Thank you.

Yale lady, you are unbelievable! You stand up on your soap box waive your credentials, gift, strength & whatever in the vain attempt to put me in my place.

I believe you tried to do that in your post. She countered with her credentials because you challeged her and now you complain that she waived her credentials to put you in your place?

I am just a working stiff in the computer industry, and I can see that MM is being a hypocrite. Seeing or not seeing the movie has nothing to do with it (I have not seen it by the way). MM could be 100% accruate and be right in everyway about capitalism.

However, that is not the point. The point of the whole matter is that MM calls capitalism evil...but continues to practice capitalism to make money. If capitalism is so evil, then how come it is ok for MM to use captialism to make his money and everyone else should not?

Latino gardner makes $4,000 per month, under the table (paying no taxes or tax return) qualifies for a “stated income loan” with Countrywide. The initial payment was $1,400 per month. Then his lender encourages him the refinance (mind you his ability to speak english is minimal at best) into another loan because his payments were going up due to a negative amortizing loan. Three years later I meet him and tells me in tears that his monthly payment is now $3,200 (income was unchanged). He qualified for 3 loans and eventually defaulted. Makes absolutely no sense does it? The loan agent should have been shot.

Well, the Latino should not have taken a loan that he could not afford. He should not have taken a mortgage payment on of $1400 dollars when he only makes $4000 a month. He should not taken on another loan. As Bismark said...did someone put a gun to his head? No he did not.

And now the Latino made bad decisions. The fact he spoke little English does not matter. Countrywide was not driving around looking for people on the street and pulling over to write loans. The Latino approached Countrywide.

I am not saying that Countrywide was a saint either in your senario...but there is fault on both ends here. Countrywide gave him a loan for $1200. Latino should have know he could not afford that and walked. Nothing wrong with renting.

Justa Thought, in your original post you said “ I think this author is wrong for calling Michael a hypocrite.” Donna has quite elagantly defended that statement several times.  You continue to write about the content of the movie which has nothing to do with the label of hypocrite.  I admittedly never graduated college, yet even I can see that.

Well now, how interesting, the MM hate Lemmings are coming out in droves. What I find truly astonishing is that none of you have seen the movie. Is it fear that your opinion of MM may change or that you are tithing to the evil one?

Morons #’s 1 & 3 - You don’t know what you don’t know… Ever hear about preditory lending??? It’s been in the news but you need to switch off Nick at Night to hear about it. 

Moron #4 - Let’s see if you understand it - MM risked millions of dollars & made the film FIRST before he ever saw a nickle. Calls capitalism (as it has become, by the way) evil well before he made any profit. I could give a rats backside if he profits because it’s legal and he has that right just like you and me.

Yale lady, your right, you bested me - I hope you feel better now. The only point I cared about was he made a great, accurate movie & we all need to take note. Take your blinders off and see the movie, it won’t kill you, in fact I’ll pay for the ticket - unless that is considered evil.

It’s just degenerated into blatant trolling now. Everyone ignore it, it just wants the attention.

Justa Thought:

Final warning. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the issue or risk being banned. No one is impressed with your insults and it is against the rules to troll here. You should know better than this.

What I find truly astonishing is that none of you have seen the movie. Is it fear that your opinion of MM may change or that you are tithing to the evil one?

Because it has nothing to do with the movie. As was said many times MM could be 100% right in his movie. Assume everything is correct in the movie. Capitalism is evil. Then why is it ok for MM to use capitalism to make money when he says it is evil?

You don’t know what you don’t know… Ever hear about preditory lending???

I know what it is...and I dont like the practice either. I also know that if people would hire a lawyer to look over a contract before signing, there would not be as many issues. And before you state they cannot afford a laywer to look over a document, then they probably cannot afford a house.

Also, you would be surprized at how many of these homeowners were told what would happen...they just chose to ignore the facts.

Moron #4 - Let’s see if you understand it - MM risked millions of dollars & made the film FIRST before he ever saw a nickle.

Please...how much money did he front? I would say slim to none.

Calls capitalism (as it has become, by the way) evil well before he made any profit.

That makes no sense whatsoever. He made the film to send a message but to also make money. If it was just to get the word out we would be seeing the movie for free on the internet and in theatres. He is making profit off the movie and for his time making it. And this is fine. No problem with making money off something that someone wants.

The problem is MM calls capitalism evil and that capitalism is destroying America and there needs to be change. However it is ok for him to use capitalism to make money. If MM thinks capitalism is so evil, why it is ok for him to make money this way? Should he not be setting an example for everyone else? His message would hold more weight if he did.

I could give a rats backside if he profits because it’s legal and he has that right just like you and me.

I agree. But MM thinks capitalism is evil and needs to be rid of. So, again, you would think he would set an example and use his own money to make the movie and use his own money to distribute for free without the help of movies studios who are capitalist trying to make a buck.

Don’t worry Donna, I’ve banned myself from this site. You all refuse to watch this movie then judge. Sadly, you don’t know what you don’t know ~

Sadly, you don’t know what you don’t know

And what you think you know, you don’t know.

Aretak, the little lost soul ...

Also, you would be surprized at how many of these homeowners were told what would happen...they just chose to ignore the facts.

Here’s what you don’t know - at least 50% of the defaulted mortgages in California were with Hispanics with limited knowledge of the English language. Loan documents were in English legalese which is hard for the average lay person to understand let alone the Hispanics. There was a crime called “brown on brown” where they blatantly took advantage of their own kind. Happened with Koreans, Chinese and other races - again loan docs were written only English. There have been thousands of lawsuits filed against Countrywide for this very reason. Legislation has been put into place to make the loan documents more user friendly along with tougher lending disclosure laws. It’s pretty easy for you to sit back and pass judgement when you don’t make mistakes.

Please...how much money did he front? I would say slim to none

You prove again your inability to think objectively - I said “MM risked millions of dollars...” NEVER did I say his money. Investors/studios put in money to get a film done but believe me they have performance clauses & penalties as safeguards. That aside, MM spends his money first before making it - Economics 101. Things such as writing, hiring personnel , traveling etc - those are real hard cost dollars spent. Further, he has no, nada, zip, zero guarantee that his movie will profit. You don’t have the slightest clue how extremely difficult it is to get investment dollars for a concept or story.

That makes no sense whatsoever. He made the film to send a message but to also make
money....  If it was just to get the word out we would be seeing the movie for free on the internet and in theatres.

You need to rethink, strike that - think about your position. He made a film and tries to make money, so what? We live in the land of opportunity. And what stupid Pollyanna thinking - make a movie to put on the Internet for free so he can get that message out to the masses - do you honestly think that would have an equal impact? You MM haters on this site would find something wrong with that.

The problem is MM calls capitalism evil and that capitalism is destroying America and there needs to be change. However it is ok for him to use capitalism to make money. If MM thinks capitalism is so evil, why it is ok for him to make money this way? Should he not be setting an example for everyone else? His message would hold more weight if he did.

Watch the movie then comment. He is an artist & sent a message, pure and simple. He is not required to set an example.  And, are you really trying to tell me that you would value his message if he gave away all of his money? Spare me.

But MM thinks capitalism is evil and needs to be rid of.

Watch the movie, it’s about what capitalism has become today with big banks, investment firms, corporate giants & government corruption - that my friend is what is evil.

So, again, you would think he would set an example and use his own money to make the movie and use his own money to distribute for free without the help of movies studios who are capitalist trying to make a buck.

Amazing conclusion.

****************************************
I’ll tell you this - if you are self employed, you are a capitalist. If you work for someone and do not make them at least twice what they pay you, you get fired or let go. Welcome to the backbone of America and the land of capitalism!

Here’s what you don’t know - at least 50% of the defaulted mortgages in California were with Hispanics with limited knowledge of the English language. Loan documents were in English legalese which is hard for the average lay person to understand let alone the Hispanics.

So they have limited understanding of English yet go ahead and sign a document in a language they do not know? If someone gives me a document in Chinese to sign I would at the very least have someone that would explain what the contract states.

No doubt there are people that got taken advantage of and that is wrong. My point is of the 50% you say are Hispanic, how many were really taken advantage of? You seem to think that just because they were Hispanic, Korean, or whatever that they were all swindled. I dont by that for a second.

It’s pretty easy for you to sit back and pass judgement when you don’t make mistakes.

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that not every person who gets forclosed on is a victim. And I make mistakes. Never said I did not. But I learn from them when they are made.

You prove again your inability to think objectively - I said “MM risked millions of dollars...” NEVER did I say his money
Investors/studios put in money to get a film done but believe me they have performance clauses & penalties as safeguards. That aside, MM spends his money first before making it - Economics 101. Things such as writing, hiring personnel , traveling etc - those are real hard cost dollars spent. Further, he has no, nada, zip, zero guarantee that his movie will profit. You don’t have the slightest clue how extremely difficult it is to get investment dollars for a concept or story.

I know it is easier for MM to do so because he has proven his movies can make money on a slim budget. Also, if he thinks that capitalism is so evil, why even ask for the money and not completely finance it himself? And I think he is in a powerful position that he is not going to lose money. I think MM is smarter than that.

You need to rethink, strike that - think about your position. He made a film and tries to make money, so what? We live in the land of opportunity. And what stupid Pollyanna thinking - make a movie to put on the Internet for free so he can get that message out to the masses - do you honestly think that would have an equal impact?

Again, for the uptenth time, I have no problem with him making money off his movie. What bugs me is that he rails capitalism, but uses captialism to make a buck. I am sorry but that taints the message in the movie. He is being hypocritical.

Watch the movie then comment. He is an artist & sent a message, pure and simple. He is not required to set an example.  And, are you really trying to tell me that you would value his message if he gave away all of his money?

Does he have to set the example...no. But if he is going around the country giving interviews about how we need to get rid of capitalism and goto something else, I would still disagree with his message, but would respect him more if he lead the way.

Watch the movie, it’s about what capitalism has become today with big banks, investment firms, corporate giants & government corruption - that my friend is what is evil.

Sorry it is not capitalism that is evil...it is greed that drives some of these people. There are plenty of companies and banks that are repectable and do not try to screw everyone.

if you are self employed, you are a capitalist. If you work for someone and do not make them at least twice what they pay you, you get fired or let go. Welcome to the backbone of America and the land of capitalism!

Talk about amazing conclusions.

Aretak,

I am stumped. The definition of hypocrite [ˈhɪpəkrɪt] n
“a person who pretends to be what he is not”.

Please show me factual proof where MM demonstrates that.

Yes, I’ve heard of predatory loaning, but even though I’m blithely educated, I’m still certain that close to 100% of those predatory loans did not involve weaponry.

Like Aretak said, I wouldn’t want to sign a MASSIVE foreign-language contract without doing my due diligence in getting it completely deciphered for me.

Wow. He was soooooo done with this site that he had to register a whole ‘nother account after getting himself banned for trolling just to continue posting.

Easy to see why this one idolizes Mikey.

Please show me factual proof where MM demonstrates that.

In this video (http://tiny.cc/Pi4gh), Moore states that it goes against the values of all the great religions and that everything should be evenly divided and that capitalism is anti-american.

Yet, he makes movies to make money for himself. Sure he does it to get his message out as well, but he also wants to make money. That is being a hypocrite. He stands on his soapbox and states Capitalsim is bad, yet practices it himself.

And I do not have a problem with him doing that. More power to him. However, when you are making money based on a capitalistic system and then decry captialism as evil? That person is being a hypocrite and it is harder for me to buy into the message he is sending.

I’m hoping JAT re-registers.  His pomposity almost rivaled Moore’s.

Wow. He was soooooo done with this site that he had to register a whole ‘nother account after getting himself banned for trolling just to continue posting.

The funny thing is that his first user name hadn’t been banned when he made the new one. ‘Course it’s banned *now*, but that was after his ridiculous tirade in the other thread.

I’m hoping JAT re-registers.  His pomposity almost rivaled Moore’s.

Oh, please god no. This one was especially annoying and he can’t seem to understand that personal attacks just aren’t allowed. *sigh*

Oh, you mean the hate-filled one where he denounced haters?  ;)

Oh, you mean the hate-filled one where he denounced haters?  ;)

Yup! That’d be the one! *snort* ;)

Moore-ons. GOTTA love ‘em. ;p

’cough’I most certainly didn’t mention Mall Ninja ‘Cough’

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/