The Real Reason I Won’t See Michael Moore’s Newest Movie

Cypress said:
Exactly.

Everyone on the planet calls our system capitalism.

The fact that the last 18 months has embarrassed ideological free marketeers, demonstrated the neccessity of regulation, and conclusively proved that self-policing and rational self interest doesn't work, is not a reason to pretend that the system of economics we've had since Reagan is simply a fluke because we didn't do deregulation "the right way".


I agree with RS on the term corporatism. But, this is just semantics. Hardly anybody excect ideological leftys ever use that term. Micheal Moore is simply using the everday-lexicon that our entire society uses.
Click to expand...

Your picture album is sweet brother.

If I've ever said anything mean to you .. I take it all back. :rolleyes:

I don't think I have .. but, just in case ...

:0)
 
Cypress said:
Please name one single, major developed democratic country on the planet that employs this mythical version of "capitalism" that free marketeers and libertarians are always musing about.

If it doesn't exist, then it's nothing more than a theoretical exercise in the minds of ideological free marketeers....something that has never existed in the modern world, and remains a fanciful and mythical nirvana for which there is no real evidence actually works in the real world....much like creation science.


More is obviously talking about capitalism as it actually exists and operates in the real world. The version of capitalism that everyone in every single developed country has exposure to every single day of the year.


Who's going to make a movie about a mythical economic system that exists only in the minds of ideological libertarians, and for which there is no evidence exists, or would even work, in the real world?
Click to expand...


He is talking about mixed economy statism as it actually is. And not about the economics of that viewpoint, but the problems of government and government policy. It is the same thing we are talking about when we criticize cap and trade or health care reform. No matter your perspective, capitalist, mixed economy welfare statist or socialist those problems exist.

Instead of recognizing that reality Moore, yourself and many on the left lay it all at the feet of capitalism, which you acknowledge in other places we don't have.
 
blackascoal said:
Neither Moore nor anyone else has to pretend anything.

If you don't like his films, don't go see them. You won't be missed .. but neither you nor anyone else on the right has the authority to determine what is real life or factual .. especially given its monumental failures and insane behavior.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO....

you are such an idiot.
 
Cypress said:
Exactly.

Everyone on the planet calls our system capitalism.

The fact that the last 18 months has embarrassed ideological free marketeers, demonstrated the neccessity of regulation, and conclusively proved that self-policing and rational self interest doesn't work, is not a reason to pretend that the system of economics we've had since Reagan is simply a fluke because we didn't do deregulation "the right way".


I agree with RS on the term corporatism. But, this is just semantics. Hardly anybody excect ideological leftys ever use that term. Micheal Moore is simply using the everday-lexicon that our entire society uses.
Click to expand...

The system of economics since Reagan? Do elaborate... what did Reagan change that changed our economic system?

FYI... the bribing of politicians exists regardless of whether the economic model is based on capitalism or socialism... or anything in between. THAT is the problem.

Side note... the deregulation that destroyed us occurred under CLINTON. Not Reagan. The deregulation train started under CARTER, not Reagan. The airlines, trucking, oil and railroads all began deregulation under CARTER. CLINTON eliminated Glass Steagall.

Second side note... you need to also acknowledge that the unions, trial lawyers etc... are every bit as guilty as the corporations of bribing public officials for their own personal gains. Again, that is not capitalism. It exists everywhere politicians who wish to line their pockets exist.... regardless of economic models used.
 
Superfreak said:
The system of economics since Reagan? Do elaborate... what did Reagan change that changed our economic system?

FYI... the bribing of politicians exists regardless of whether the economic model is based on capitalism or socialism... or anything in between. THAT is the problem.

Side note... the deregulation that destroyed us occurred under CLINTON. Not Reagan. The deregulation train started under CARTER, not Reagan. The airlines, trucking, oil and railroads all began deregulation under CARTER. CLINTON eliminated Glass Steagall.

Second side note... you need to also acknowledge that the unions, trial lawyers etc... are every bit as guilty as the corporations of bribing public officials for their own personal gains. Again, that is not capitalism. It exists everywhere politicians who wish to line their pockets exist.... regardless of economic models used.
Click to expand...

As an add on: All deregulation is not bad. Bad or out moded regulation does exist. The problem with much of the deregulating of the banking system was that there was also a quid pro quo attached that forced banks to lend to people who under the old regs would NOT be considered viable borrowers.

Good regulation is clear and explained in concise language that does not require a team of legislators to decipher. It has the sole purpose of protecting the rights of consumers and giving them a vehicle for redress via our governement and the courts. Forcing companies to take risks under the guise of "social justice" is NOT protecting consumers; and as can be seen by the banking fiasco, it harms them.
 
Last edited:
I will not watch his latest movie for the same reason I have never watched any of his other ones. I do not like the guy or his style.
 
RStringfield said:
http://www.burg.com/2009/10/the-real-reason-i-won’t-see-michael-moore’s-newest-movie/

No, I won’t see Michael Moore’s newest movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story” but not for the reason one would think…that is, assuming one cared enough to think about the movies I see, which I doubt one does. Heck, I almost don’t, and I’m me. But, since this is a blog, and I’m the publisher, this beginning seems appropriate. :-)

One might think the obvious: “Because, Burg; you are an unabashed Capitalist who would be truly offended watching someone like Moore bash the economic system you so love.”

Well, I probably would be offended, but that’s not the reason I won’t go. Actually, since I enjoy learning from everyone, including those with opposing viewpoints, I would have gone just to see exactly how he would have made his case against Capitalism; the one economic system in the history of the world that has improved the standard of living for everyone (yes, everyone, including the poor) under its umbrella.

But, that’s not what he’s doing. I have seen him interviewed about the movie, and I saw a movie clip. Both times there was something very obvious:

He was not talking about Capitalism!!

That’s right. He was displaying disgust at the obvious collusion between our 535 legislators and the corporations and special interests (represented by lobbyists) to which they’ve sold their law-making influence.

And, I’m just as disgusted by that as Moore is. However, that is not Capitalism…it is Corporatism (i.e., “corporate welfare” or special laws, rules and regulations intended to benefit those footing the bill).

Yes, it’s bad. It’s very bad. But, again, it’s not Capitalism.

Yet, the movie claims to display the evils of Capitalism. And Michael Moore has millions of followers who – when he says something is…something – they accept it.

Here’s my very quick open letter to Michael Moore. And, while he’ll probably never see it, I’ll feel a lot better for having written it:

Dear Mr. Moore, please understand that government colluding with and rewarding special interests who contribute to their re-election campaigns is NOT Capitalism. With all respect, your entire premise is false. Unfortunately, most of America is going to accept your conclusion without even questioning the very false premise upon which it was based. You have a right to your opinion. But, when you have as much influence as you have, you also have a responsibility to understand what is and what isn’t, and to get your premises straight. Remember, by the very nature of having a false premise you can not reach a correct conclusion. Please check your premises.

MainBob O’Connor wrote: “Perhaps the movie should be called ‘Corporatism: A Love Story.’ There is a corruption of power going on with companies lobbying for ‘company welfare’ and handouts from the government to Banks and big companies.”

I agree with MaineBob. Any chance, Mr. Moore, that you’ll change the title or at least admit your mistake? Or is there more money to be made by using a sexy – albeit false – title?

Of course, Mr. Moore, maybe you’d call that Capitalism.

I don’t call it that. I call it fibbing.
Click to expand...

Well Capitalism is often said to be that, RS. It would make more sense to call yourself a market advocate.
 
Onceler said:
Couldn't an argument be made that unrestrained (or almost unrestrained) capitalism inevitably LEADS to corporatism? That this is the end result of a small few having most of the wealth and being able to draw on it to influence more legislation & politics than anyone could hope to with something as quaint as a vote?
Click to expand...

very true! The more unregulated a market is, the more corporations will use any every means necessary to make a buck. Even if its at the detriment of the rest of us.
 
blackascoal said:
The film's in limited release, going to a sh-t-ton more screens next weekend, but in it's limited release (it opened Wednesday) it's managed to pull in over $306,000. This doesn't sound all that impressive until you know that "limited release" actually means "four screens". So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009 (and, I suspect, the highest per screen average in many years).
http://www.examiner.com/x-15166-Dal...apitalism-A-Love-Story-sets-box-office-record

Don't go .. you won't be missed.
Click to expand...

I am sure BAC will be along shortly to show what the per screen average was once it was released throughout the country rather than in just the cherry picked theaters where he knew it would do well. (ie... in areas with high concentrations of brain dead idiots)

But why wait... it made 4.85 million on 962 screens. Just over $5k per screen. ZOMBIELAND was at about $8200 per screen.

apparently a lot of people didn't go.... and were missed.

But don't worry, I am sure Moore is going to split all profits (as small as they might be) from the movie equally among himself and the crew. We know he wouldn't want to benefit from 'da evilz of capitalism'.
 
Superfreak said:
I am sure BAC will be along shortly to show what the per screen average was once it was released throughout the country rather than in just the cherry picked theaters where he knew it would do well. (ie... in areas with high concentrations of brain dead idiots)

But why wait... it made 4.85 million on 962 screens. Just over $5k per screen. ZOMBIELAND was at about $8200 per screen.

apparently a lot of people didn't go.... and were missed.

But don't worry, I am sure Moore is going to split all profits (as small as they might be) from the movie equally among himself and the crew. We know he wouldn't want to benefit from 'da evilz of capitalism'.
Click to expand...

Are you even aware of how really ignorant you portray yourself?

Are you aware of how ignorant comparing the box office of a documetary with a feature film really is?

Serious question .. wouldn't a moron know the difference?

I don't have to come back to explain anything. Everything I've stated is real clear .. to non-morons.

So that you don't waste time with more of this moronic thought ...

Highest Grossing Documentaries

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 - $222,446,882 - Winner, Palme d'or, Cannes top prize.
2. March of the Penguins - $127,392,693
3. Bowling for Columbine - $58,008,423 - Oscar, Best Documentary Film
4. An Inconvenient Truth - $49,756,507 - Oscar, Best Documentary Film
5. Sicko - $35,767,758 - Oscar Nominated
6. Winged Migration - $32,257,753
7. Madonna: Truth or Dare - $29,012,935
8. Super Size Me - $20,641,054
9. Religulous - $13,366,398
10. Mad Hot Ballroom - $9,079,042

Capitalism: A Love Story is already number 17 .. and it just opened.

What was your point again?

... amazing
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Are you even aware of how really ignorant you portray yourself?

Are you aware of how ignorant comparing the box office of a documetary with a feature film really is?

Serious question .. wouldn't a moron know the difference?

I don't have to come back to explain anything. Everything I've stated is real clear .. to non-morons.

So that you don't waste time with more of this moronic thought ...

Highest Grossing Documentaries

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 - $222,446,882 - Winner, Palme d'or, Cannes top prize.
2. March of the Penguins - $127,392,693
3. Bowling for Columbine - $58,008,423 - Oscar, Best Documentary Film
4. An Inconvenient Truth - $49,756,507 - Oscar, Best Documentary Film
5. Sicko - $35,767,758 - Oscar Nominated
6. Winged Migration - $32,257,753
7. Madonna: Truth or Dare - $29,012,935
8. Super Size Me - $20,641,054
9. Religulous - $13,366,398
10. Mad Hot Ballroom - $9,079,042

Capitalism: A Love Story is already number 17 .. and it just opened.

What was your point again?

... amazing
Click to expand...

" Originally Posted by blackascoal View Post
The film's in limited release, going to a sh-t-ton more screens next weekend, but in it's limited release (it opened Wednesday) it's managed to pull in over $306,000. This doesn't sound all that impressive until you know that "limited release" actually means "four screens". So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009 (and, I suspect, the highest per screen average in many years).
http://www.examiner.com/x-15166-Dall...-office-record

Don't go .. you won't be missed."

Again you display your own ignorance... YOU were the one that stated "So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009"

I was replying to that. The point is that once it went wide release, the average per screen dropped to $5k... a significant drop from your highly touted $60k per screen in the cherry picked locations.

So tell us BAC... were you only talking about documentaries in your previous post? Or are you just full of shit once again?
 
Superfreak said:
" Originally Posted by blackascoal View Post
The film's in limited release, going to a sh-t-ton more screens next weekend, but in it's limited release (it opened Wednesday) it's managed to pull in over $306,000. This doesn't sound all that impressive until you know that "limited release" actually means "four screens". So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009 (and, I suspect, the highest per screen average in many years).
http://www.examiner.com/x-15166-Dall...-office-record

Don't go .. you won't be missed."

Again you display your own ignorance... YOU were the one that stated "So, roughly, the film was earning $60,000 per screen. That's a record-setting number for the year, the highest per-screen average of 2009"

I was replying to that. The point is that once it went wide release, the average per screen dropped to $5k... a significant drop from your highly touted $60k per screen in the cherry picked locations.

So tell us BAC... were you only talking about documentaries in your previous post? Or are you just full of shit once again?
Click to expand...

I posted an article about the success of the film .. if you have problems with the big words and the figures, you should talk to the author.

Frankly, only a moron wouldn't know the difference between a docum entary and a feature film.
 
blackascoal said:
I posted an article about the success of the film .. if you have problems with the big words and the figures, you should talk to the author.

Frankly, only a moron wouldn't know the difference between a docum entary and a feature film.
Click to expand...

So it was option b... you are full of shit.

Face it... you posted an article on the per screen average and told people not to go... they 'wouldn't be missed'.... all based on the cherry picked 4 screens it opened on. Then you went on to proclaim it was 'probably the highest per screen average in years'.

Then when it opened wide and that per screen average went from 60 to 5... now all of the sudden you were just comparing it to documentaries?

Like I stated... once again you prove you are full of shit.
 
RStringfield said:
He is talking about mixed economy statism as it actually is. And not about the economics of that viewpoint, but the problems of government and government policy. It is the same thing we are talking about when we criticize cap and trade or health care reform. No matter your perspective, capitalist, mixed economy welfare statist or socialist those problems exist.

Instead of recognizing that reality Moore, yourself and many on the left lay it all at the feet of capitalism, which you acknowledge in other places we don't have.
Click to expand...


When the Supreme Court declared corporations were citizens entitled to the same rights as individuals, and that money equals free speech, the slide began and will continue until they change the findings or the country fails.
 
Superfreak said:
So it was option b... you are full of shit.

Face it... you posted an article on the per screen average and told people not to go... they 'wouldn't be missed'.... all based on the cherry picked 4 screens it opened on. Then you went on to proclaim it was 'probably the highest per screen average in years'.

Then when it opened wide and that per screen average went from 60 to 5... now all of the sudden you were just comparing it to documentaries?

Like I stated... once again you prove you are full of shit.
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that Moore will miss you if you and those who hate him don't show up to see his film? That was the point in posting the article. I don't do box office totals you moron. I posted an article from people who do.

AND you ignorant fool .. the article CLEARLY states the limited release to FOUR theatres .. AND $60,000 per screen IS record-setting for this year .. you fucking moron
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2009&wknd=39&p=.htm

So what's in the article is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

What is your argument? .. That his film won't be successful unless you go?

That his films/documentaries/movies/whatever the fuck you call them, aren't successful?

Your argument is that you're ignorant and you look for unimprtant bullshit to agrue about.

Go away fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top