[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Moore (despite being right most of the time) is not a leftist. [/quote]
This one sentence contains more fail than there are words in it.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
He blames the fail on capitalism, but he is the real culprit. Moore has got the be the biggest foaming-at-the-mouth fucking retard in the history of entertainment. Someobody needs to make a film dediated to putting this creep out of his misery. I draft the SouthPark guys.[/quote]
when has he ever succeeded?
Just for kicks, here is the beached whale-Michael Moore showing the world he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Just for kicks, here is the beached whale-Michael Moore showing the world he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
- YouTube [/quote]
It’s scary because people listen to him and think he knows what he is talking about.
Kinda like Rush, et al.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
He blames the fail on capitalism, but he is the real culprit. . . .[quote]
no it is the fault of capitalism. this is a sign that capitalism truly does work towards the benefit of all people. the market has weeded out this dribble causing it to fail as it should because it is an inferior POS product.
I saw a few interviews on Moore for this movie, and this guy fails haaaaaaard.
“The opposite of Capitalism is Democracy.” - Moore
I haven’t cringed so hard and for so long for a very long time.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
I saw a few interviews on Moore for this movie, and this guy fails haaaaaaard.
“The opposite of Capitalism is Democracy.” - Moore
I haven’t cringed so hard and for so long for a very long time.[/quote]
In a way, I agree.
But then I think democracies stink.
[quote]orion wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
I saw a few interviews on Moore for this movie, and this guy fails haaaaaaard.
“The opposite of Capitalism is Democracy.” - Moore
I haven’t cringed so hard and for so long for a very long time.
In a way, I agree.
But then I think democracies stink.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
I saw a few interviews on Moore for this movie, and this guy fails haaaaaaard.
“The opposite of Capitalism is Democracy.” - Moore
I haven’t cringed so hard and for so long for a very long time.
In a way, I agree.
But then I think democracies stink.
Why?[/quote]
I cannot answer for Orion but I will just say it is because majorities are usually full of assholes and idiots.
Democracy, in the modern American sense is always about voting who gets to steal from whom.
Not just that but democracy does ultimately lead to socialism or fascism. That is the only way it can go if we understand who exactly makes up the majority – when everyone is afforded one equal vote.
Capitalism can only truly exist under absolute freedom. Any democratic government whatsoever will lead to slavery in some way for the minority – socialism or fascism.
Democracy also make the assumption that unowned goods are owned by “the people”. This ultimately means nothing is taken care of. It also means that capital goods will be consumed and not replaced thereby making everyone else worse off.
So yay! you get to check a box but at what ultimate cost?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
I saw a few interviews on Moore for this movie, and this guy fails haaaaaaard.
“The opposite of Capitalism is Democracy.” - Moore
I haven’t cringed so hard and for so long for a very long time.
In a way, I agree.
But then I think democracies stink.
Why?[/quote]
Because they evolved away from the idea that there is very little the state can and must do towards a state that thinks it can tell you what to eat, drink or smoke, snoop into your bank accounts and even medical files, locate your phone and car and tax the shit out of you all in the name of a democratic majority.
The idea of democratic legitimacy is a myth, they might as well question birds entrails. There is no ethical justification just because the evildoers (sic!) are in the majority. All these fuckers who believe in democratic legitimacy might as well believe that gang rapes are a-ok.
And then I also now of course how they really work. Just three words: public choice theory.
I do not want one vote among millions when it comes to my affairs, I want the freedom to decide on my own.
I´d rather have a weak monarchy like Liechtenstein or Monaco instead of a strong democracy.
I saw the movie this past weekend. I had to hold back my disgust at points, because he is calling Capitalism the reason for the bailout/mortgage meltdown/basic financial mess we are in. But this is false, because it is not Capitalism itself, but those that are so greedy that they used dishonest practices to make money.
There is nothing wrong with good honest business being done, and usually these are the businesses that last the test of time. But when you have sharks in the water, someone is going to be eaten eventually. He uses examples that are, quite honestly, sad but stupid.
SPOILER
In one segment, he interviews someone who had their house in their family for 40 yrs, and lost it by taking out an equity loan on the house. They could not afford the payments and lost the home. Well, my personal opinion is, that you should know better. You should know what you can and cannot afford, and you should be able to spot a shark as well. But Moore goes into the refi scam, which was based on “how can you get someone who owns their home out of their home.” And that was with tempting them to refi their home. Terms like, “own the home of your dreams” or " get that kitchen remodel you’ve always wanted" were painted by Moore as the greed behind the scam.
Look, the bottom line is this…You need to be your own watchdog, because we have serious grade A assholes in the world who have no problem taking everything from you causing you to rot with nothing. Not all people are like this, but they do exist, and you have to be aware of them the same way you need to be your own doctor to a certain extent.
He points out how nearly all of our government people working in the treasury or finance are former Goldman Sachs people. This is nothing new, as Geithner was the uber idiot who made every wrong decision and was chosen by Obama for a reason. And that is because while he makes the wrong decision, he is making the decisions that bankers want.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
In one segment, he interviews someone who had their house in their family for 40 yrs, and lost it by taking out an equity loan on the house. They could not afford the payments and lost the home. Well, my personal opinion is, that you should know better. You should know what you can and cannot afford, and you should be able to spot a shark as well. But Moore goes into the refi scam, which was based on “how can you get someone who owns their home out of their home.” And that was with tempting them to refi their home. Terms like, “own the home of your dreams” or " get that kitchen remodel you’ve always wanted" were painted by Moore as the greed behind the scam.[/quote]
Great points.
Moore does not even question the greed of these dumb homeowners when they thought they were going to get “free” money to build their dream kitchens, for example.
It is only greed when the banksters want something they do not have to work particularly hard to get – not when the uneducated ignoramuses want it.
Of course there is also the obvious question: if greed is the problem then why aren’t there always bad recessions? How is greed to blame in some instances but not all instances – i.e., when the good times are rollin’?
@ Lifty and Orion:
Those are about all the reasons I thought and you may be shocked to learn that I have some sympathy for them, some more than others. However, varying forms of these same drawbacks will exist regardless of what kind of government there is or if there’s none at all while private morality and ethics are what they are.
I’m interested to hear some of Moore’s critics in regards to Bowling for Columbine. I think it’s a pretty good film that begins to tackle a lot of the issues that affect our countries astounding murder rate.
Aside from the fact that most people here disagree with his political philosophy, are there any other criticisms? I’m asking honestly.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
However, varying forms of these same drawbacks will exist regardless of what kind of government there is or if there’s none at all…[/quote]
Yes, but to that extent I do not have to stand by and lick my overlords’ boots. I can choose to stop someone who would steal from me.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I’m interested to hear some of Moore’s critics in regards to Bowling for Columbine. I think it’s a pretty good film that begins to tackle a lot of the issues that affect our countries astounding murder rate.
Aside from the fact that most people here disagree with his political philosophy, are there any other criticisms? I’m asking honestly.[/quote]
Guns don’t kill people, People kill people. It’s pretty much THAT simple.
V
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I’m interested to hear some of Moore’s critics in regards to Bowling for Columbine. I think it’s a pretty good film that begins to tackle a lot of the issues that affect our countries astounding murder rate.
Aside from the fact that most people here disagree with his political philosophy, are there any other criticisms? I’m asking honestly.[/quote]
Well, it is hard to get any meaningful answers when a question is asked in such a collective way.
For example, does “America” really have a problem with violence or is it just Colorado or even only Columbine? Or was it just the actions of two extremely misguided individuals.
If a problem with violence exists in “America” does that not mean then the problem exists everywhere? How can we be sure?
It really comes down to definitions. What is America and what is violence? When is it a problem? How can we only constrain these problems to just America?
Moore is just good at stirring up emotions. There is nothing hard about that. It is much harder to be meaningful. In this he mostly fails miserably.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
I’m interested to hear some of Moore’s critics in regards to Bowling for Columbine. I think it’s a pretty good film that begins to tackle a lot of the issues that affect our countries astounding murder rate.
Aside from the fact that most people here disagree with his political philosophy, are there any other criticisms? I’m asking honestly.
Guns don’t kill people, People kill people. It’s pretty much THAT simple.
V[/quote]
Well, he actually shows that to kind of be true. Canada for instance has a very high number of guns per citizen, however I think they have 60 PEOPLE MURDERED in a given year. The u.s. which has similar numbers of weapons has around 11,000 murders in a given year. There is clearly something beyond that idea that is causing so many deaths in the u.s. and I believe Moore did a good job of researching that cause.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
I’m interested to hear some of Moore’s critics in regards to Bowling for Columbine. I think it’s a pretty good film that begins to tackle a lot of the issues that affect our countries astounding murder rate.
Aside from the fact that most people here disagree with his political philosophy, are there any other criticisms? I’m asking honestly.
Well, it is hard to get any meaningful answers when a question is asked in such a collective way.
For example, does “America” really have a problem with violence or is it just Colorado or even only Columbine? Or was it just the actions of two extremely misguided individuals.
If a problem with violence exists in “America” does that not mean then the problem exists everywhere? How can we be sure?
It really comes down to definitions. What is America and what is violence? When is it a problem? How can we only constrain these problems to just America?
Moore is just good at stirring up emotions. There is nothing hard about that. It is much harder to be meaningful. In this he mostly fails miserably.[/quote]
Well, I wish I had time to dig up some census info, but obviously most violence in the u.s. occurs in urban areas. Violence can certainly be minimally defined by the number of murders per capita. I’m sorry to say that ours are around a 1,000 times higher than other similar countries. We are in fact higher than any other nation in that statistic by far.
Also, the questions you are asking about violence in America and the incident at columbine are the same ones that Moore asks in that documentary. He answers them in a particular way, but certainly leaves room for interpretation. It’s actually not very politically motivated in my opinion.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Well, I wish I had time to dig up some census info, but obviously most violence in the u.s. occurs in urban areas. Violence can certainly be minimally defined by the number of murders per capita. I’m sorry to say that ours are around a 1,000 times higher than other similar countries. We are in fact higher than any other nation in that statistic by far.
[/quote]
So then we should all be defined by collective statistics? How are these statistics relevant to the individual?