Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Michael Moore's: capitalism a love story
usajoe1    9/26/2009 8:18:12 PM
I want to know if any one here is going to watch this hypocritical, socilaist, POS! human beings new movie.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Mikko    Back to Mikey   10/1/2009 6:39:50 AM
Haven't seen the movie and won't, unless it comes from TV and I happen to spot it and have free time on my hands with no reruns of Sex and the City or Mythbusters or Ice Road Truckers or other must-see shows on other channels. 
 
Michael Moore and people like him are necessary in modern societies. As much as I dislike his style, he does have an appeal to the masses. Please go forth, try to make ordinary people think outside the given box with subtle logics and respectful demeanor. Not gonna happen.
 
To make an example: G.W. Bush gives the public idiotic gunslinger rhetorics. People buy them since they understand them.  Then comes Moore who just as bluntly goes saying that Bush is full of doodoo and has always been. Doing this he helps to maintain the balance. Both super-over-simplify complex issues and feed their interpretations on with their own distinct style. We have our michael moores in Finland, they never achieve big things but they keep the minds of the grand public open for discussion.

I like it when god-given truths are taken down and smashed to pieces. Institutions are ok but they start to stink if not given a review every now and then.
 
Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if 2M (<-- for Michael Moore. This is cool Finnish military lingo. ) was actually paid to criticize the "system", by the "system". He's so fat, hairy and annoying that at least I would like to have critic like that, in stead of some Antonio Banderas -lookalike with scary burning eyes and an appeal to the ladies.
 
Mikko
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/1/2009 2:04:51 PM
That's not the point, Mikko (though you make some good ones).  Bush used gunslinger rhetoric because 1) he's from Texas 2) that's how he actually feels and 3) all Americans want their Presidents to be John Wayne when push comes to shove.  I guarantee that if Iran launched a direct attack on US troops in Iraq and Obama did nothing, people would be screaming for his head, and 2012 would be a Republican landslide not seen since Reagan spanked Mondale.  Obama can get away with playing nice now, but if the shooting started, he'd better go all in if he wants to stay President. 
 
Moore is a liar, plain and simple.  He regards Americans as being "the dumbest people on the planet" (direct quote, given at the Cannes Film Festival), and feels the only way to push his agenda is to scream the loudest.  It's not unlike the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels, who also regarded their own people as not being very bright.  He'll throw out some of the biggest distortions possible on whatever subject he's currently working on, because he firmly believes Americans are too dumb to do research and call him out on it.  And when he is called out, he tries to duck out or demonize his opponent.  Sadly, in some ways, he's right--a lot of Americans took Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 as gospel, when it's all crap. 
 
For instance, he tried to blame the Columbine shootings on the fact that Morton-Thiokol has a rocket plant near Littleton, and Thiokol supplies fuel for ICBMs.  This may be true, but Thiokol's main purpose is building launch vehicles for NASA.  He also tried to link the fact that, since there's a B-52 on display at USAFA, that somehow the Columbine shooters took that as inspiration to murder their schoolmates.  It's simply ludicrous, and at the end Moore seems to blame the NRA, the US government, Morton-Thiokol, the US Air Force, and everyone but the actual shooters.  It's kind of like blaming the Kennedy assassination on everyone but Lee Harvey Oswald.  (Moore might try doing that, but Oliver Stone already beat him to the punch there.)
 
He's also a complete hypocrite.  He disdains capitalism, but is a millionaire because of it.  He claims to be a poor guy from Flint, Michigan, when he doesn't live there and was firmly upper middle class when he did.  He claims to know what the working man feels, when he's never been a working man in his life.  He promised that some of the proceeds from Bowling for Columbine would go to a memorial for those slain and never delivered.  He blasts Bush for having holdings in the Carlyle Group (which the bin Laden family  does, if not Osama), but neglects to mention that his own investments have links to Carlyle.  He says he's looking out for the regular American joe but calls us idiots and dummies when he's overseas.  He interviews American soldiers to support his anti-Bush rhetoric in Fahrenheit 9/11, then calls them war criminals (when he's not resplicing his footage to make them support his own views, not their own).  He calls out politicians for supporting the Iraq War and claims they wouldn't send their own children over there--neglecting to mention that some of the politicians he rails against have children or relatives who fought and continue to fight in Iraq.  I can keep going, but I'd rather not.
 
Finally, Moore is simply an attention whore.  That's why he screams as loud as he can and says some of the dumbest crap to ever come out of a documentarian.  He knows conservatives will attack him and liberals will at least express some sympathy for his position.  He eats that stuff up with a spoon.  Ever notice something about the DVD boxes and movie posters of his stuff?  It all features Michael Moore, not the people who he supposedly represents.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/1/2009 2:09:38 PM




Rockefeller also lowered the price of kerosene to eight cents a gallon, and made Standard Oil's purpose to be to provide gas at the lowest price to the consumer.  He also gave away half of his fortune to charity.



 



I won't make any excuses for Rockefeller's heirs, but the idea that the captains of industry in the late 19th Century were all turds is flat wrong. 



 



If Michael Moore thinks capitalism is so wrong, he can give his fortune to me.  I'll make sure it's well spent. 






He also forced a young Ford Motor Company to switch from burning ethanol/methanol to burning gasoline to benefit Standard Oil.  The money given to charity was blood money that has cost this country so dearly.

And how efficient was ethanol to burn, Nan?  Isn't gasoline better for an internal combustion engine?  Of course he did something that would benefit Standard Oil.  Companies are in the habit of doing things for profit, you know.  It's called "Capitalism."
Carnegie, Rockefeller, and especially JP Morgan were not saints.  But to say they cost the country dearly when they were partially responsible for turning the US into an industrial powerhouse is a distortion of history.  Maybe the idea of the country being nothing but Jeffersonian farmers appeals to you, Nan, but it wouldn't have lasted.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       10/1/2009 2:23:01 PM
The worst nonsense we hear out of people who slag on the 'robber barons' like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt, is how horrible their working conditions were. We hear horror stories about 6 day weeks and 12 hour days slaving away in a mill.
 
Ok, yes, compared to our pampered existence today, it was pretty rough. However people might want to look at the damned alternatives which existed at the time. They could have been farmers which meant they worked 14 hours days, 7 days a week, and if things went wrong, they were broke and starved. At least at the mill if they worked their job, they were guaranteed a pay check which could support them and their family, and it didn't depend on the vagaries of the weather and insects.
 
Those 'slavish' mill jobs are what increased productivity enough in this country (and the rest of the industrialized world) so that we can have the posh existence of today. In many(if not most) respects the poor today live appreciably better than the rich of that era.
 
People often love to criticize people from history without having the first bit of knowledge of the all important context. Did Carnegie (et al) pay their workers a wage that would be laughed at today? Of course, the economy was much smaller then. Did they pay them enough to live well compared to the alternatives? HELL YES. 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/1/2009 11:59:47 PM
In Nan's defense, I will point out that there was a huge disparity in wages between rich and poor during the "Gilded Age," with most laborers making enough to break even and that was it.  Factories were dangerous as hell to work in, and children were actively employed; 12 hour days were common.  Certainly quite a few of the millionaires of the time lived far beyond their means and very extravagantly.
 
However, it is also worth mentioning that Carnegie was known to pay his steelworkers very well and was constantly improving his factories, Rockefeller reduced the price of kerosene to where even people on low salaries could afford it, and Morgan singlehandedly saved the US government from bankruptcy after the Panic of 1893.  Both Carnegie and Rockefeller came up poor and were self-made men.  So while perhaps they weren't heroes, they weren't villians either.
 
Not to say that there weren't...Jay Gould comes to mind.
 
I think it's also worth mentioning that the American people demanded the government do something about the trusts, which led to the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Problem was, all the SAA did was cause CEOs to create holding companies for their trusts, which was just changing the names on the checks.  The real trustbusting didn't come until Taft.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       10/2/2009 12:10:32 AM
I never said the workers in the factories had it easy. I'm not ignorant. However you have to look at in with the context. The alternatives were far less than ideal. In fact they were generally much worse.
 
As for disparities in income, that's a shibboleth of the left that I find extremely tiresome. The only way income disparity every goes away is if everyone is poor. Those capitalists increased productivity so that everyone ended up better off.  Without them, those workers toiled away harder on farms, or simply had no work at all. It was their efforts which made it so that people could have the cushy economy we have today. They could be as rich as Croesus and I would not deny them it.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/2/2009 1:15:14 AM

Haven't seen the movie and won't, unless it comes from TV and I happen to spot it and have free time on my hands with no reruns of Sex and the City or Mythbusters or Ice Road Truckers or other must-see shows on other channels. 

To make an example: G.W. Bush gives the public idiotic gunslinger rhetorics.

Mikko


1. Why do you want to watch that slut show designed to fulfill dirtiest dreams of over-30 women?
 
2. Oh boy you don't know Americans. You have internalized too much global leftist propaganda without even knowing it. If you think GWB is gunslinger attitude, you need to learn Chinese and see what is really militaristic, jingoistic attitude.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/2/2009 1:20:56 AM

Moore is a liar, plain and simple.  He regards Americans as being "the dumbest people on the planet" (direct quote, given at the Cannes Film Festival), and feels the only way to push his agenda is to scream the loudest. 
 
I went to Barns & Noble the other day to find some political books for entertainment. I was very disappointed. I found two books on how stupid Americans are. Both were written after 2004 election, and both are liberal.
 
From that moment I realize that liberals actually think others who don't agree with them are stupid, ignorant and selfish.
 
You can really smell the political inclination of white Americans by sniffing their attitude. Just follow the snubby attitude and you'll find liberals, which mostly coincides with marketing efforts of elite mentality.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    @sentinel   10/2/2009 4:09:08 AM

That's not the point, Mikko (though you make some good ones).  Bush used gunslinger rhetoric because 1) he's from Texas 2) that's how he actually feels and 3) all Americans want their Presidents to be John Wayne when push comes to shove.  I guarantee that if Iran launched a direct attack on US troops in Iraq and Obama did nothing, people would be screaming for his head, and 2012 would be a Republican landslide not seen since Reagan spanked Mondale.  Obama can get away with playing nice now, but if the shooting started, he'd better go all in if he wants to stay President. 
 
I'll comment Bush's rhetorics further on in this thread.

Moore is a liar, plain and simple.  He regards Americans as being "the dumbest people on the planet" (direct quote, given at the Cannes Film Festival), and feels the only way to push his agenda is to scream the loudest.  It's not unlike the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels, who also regarded their own people as not being very bright.  He'll throw out some of the biggest distortions possible on whatever subject he's currently working on, because he firmly believes Americans are too dumb to do research and call him out on it.  And when he is called out, he tries to duck out or demonize his opponent.  Sadly, in some ways, he's right--a lot of Americans took Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 as gospel, when it's all crap. 

I completely understand your views on the guy. I didn't know he had said those things about his own people, calling you dumbest on earth. I would be very offended if my countryman said the same of us. To me, that kind of behavior would make the guy a traitor, plain and simple. One can always criticize one's countrymen, but never trying to please the audience by going against one's own.
 
For instance, he tried to blame the Columbine shootings on the fact that Morton-Thiokol has a rocket plant near Littleton, and Thiokol supplies fuel for ICBMs.  This may be true, but Thiokol's main purpose is building launch vehicles for NASA.  He also tried to link the fact that, since there's a B-52 on display at USAFA, that somehow the Columbine shooters took that as inspiration to murder their schoolmates.  It's simply ludicrous, and at the end Moore seems to blame the NRA, the US government, Morton-Thiokol, the US Air Force, and everyone but the actual shooters.  It's kind of like blaming the Kennedy assassination on everyone but Lee Harvey Oswald.  (Moore might try doing that, but Oliver Stone already beat him to the punch there.)

What was the point with that? If you have weapons industry nearby, you are more likely to catch a homicidal virus from the evil machines?
 
He's also a complete hypocrite.  He disdains capitalism, but is a millionaire because of it.  He claims to be a poor guy from Flint, Michigan, when he doesn't live there and was firmly upper middle class when he did.  He claims to know what the working man feels, when he's never been a working man in his life.  He promised that some of the proceeds from Bowling for Columbine would go to a memorial for those slain and never delivered.  He blasts Bush for having holdings in the Carlyle Group (which the bin Laden family  does, if not Osama), but neglects to mention that his own investments have links to Carlyle.  He says he's looking out for the regular American joe but calls us idiots and dummies when he's overseas.  He interviews American soldiers to support his anti-Bush rhetoric in Fahrenheit 9/11, then calls them war criminals (when he's not resplicing his footage to make them support his own views, not their own).  He calls out politicians for supporting the Iraq War and claims they wouldn't send their own children over there--neglecting to mention that some of the politicians he rails against have children or relatives who fought and continue to fight in Iraq.  I can keep going, but I'd rather not.

Speaking of credible backgrounds, that's not just Moore's problem. That's an universal phenomenon, working class heroes becoming anything but working class. Guys of Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, guys of Iron Maiden, you name it. Of that I can't blame him. As for the rest, sounds like a traitor to me and that's the only word needed. I clearly just wasn't well enough informed on the guy, seeing him just as a harmless and entertaining watchdog.

Finally, Moore is simply an attention whore. 
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       10/2/2009 5:00:41 AM




Haven't seen the movie and won't, unless it comes from TV and I happen to spot it and have free time on my hands with no reruns of Sex and the City or Mythbusters or Ice Road Truckers or other must-see shows on other channels. 


To make an example: G.W. Bush gives the public idiotic gunslinger rhetorics.

Mikko

1. Why do you want to watch that slut show designed to fulfill dirtiest dreams of over-30 women?
 
2. Oh boy you don't know Americans. You have internalized too much global leftist propaganda without even knowing it. If you think GWB is gunslinger attitude, you need to learn Chinese and see what is really militaristic, jingoistic attitude.

1. Well, that was intended as a friendly flame on a subject not too important for one. I do however find the show very entertaining, thought-provoking and fun. I have lots of theories on how the show has influenced the sexual attitudes of its target group women, but I guess it goes too far off topic both in this thread and also the forum in general:)
 
2. Of that I'm not so sure. I didn't speak for the Americans but from my own perspective. I have naturally seen a lot speeches made by Bush, therefore am able to judge his rhetorics without being influenced by interpretations. I just think he oversimplified things far too much. He spoke of good and evil, victories, revenge etc. He made people expect black&white and disappointed everyone when all they got was million shades of grey.
 
To make a well known example, why name some countries evil if you're not minutes away from taking them out? Why close the window of any respectful diplomacy when you are a lightyear away from actually extending your diplomacy with military force? If a president is arrogant enough to undermine possibilities to peaceful solutions, he essentially toys around with the blood of his soldiers. A leader should be the most humble person on earth when considering spilling the blood of his own men. You just don't flex muscles that don't belong to you.
 
To have a permission to speak that way, a leader must have a helmet in his head and a rifle in his hand. G. W. Bush spoke as a front-line commander, but wore a suit. That was idiotic. Gunslingers should sling guns.
 
I don't give a flying intercourse on what rhetorics the Chinese are using. I don't side with them but I side with Americans and always wish that you guys are well represented around the world. If some Americans don't care how their country is represented then fine by me. I however do, and offer only my non-American perspective to support that.
 
Mikko
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics