The Fallen Angel
3rd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,587
- Points
- 0
moore makes good points and often says things that people need to hear, but he is extremely pompus while doing it
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
should Michael Moore shut up or does he have a good point?
- Thread starter moose
- Start date
badreligion
2nd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 8,485
- Points
- 0
The problem with him is he distorts facts to favor his agenda .
BellaRisa
Verified
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 5,974
- Points
- 38
I agree with this; I kinda like his agenda though, so he doesn't irk me the way he does so many folks...
I liked Roger and Me, and Bowling for Columbine was ok. Fahrenheit 9/11 was stupid and I didn't bother seeing Sicko.
I can't stand Moore, but I believe in this movie he is questioning AIG and the banks that fucked up royally. I don't really have a problem with that. If he can keep politics out of it, or attack both sides, I think he can make some good points, like in Roger and Me. There is an ugly side of capitalism. I love capitalism, but there are times when CEOs and the guys at the top really abuse their power and screw the working man, just like with big government. If this becomes another one of his political commentaries though, he can shut the fuck up.
I can't stand Moore, but I believe in this movie he is questioning AIG and the banks that fucked up royally. I don't really have a problem with that. If he can keep politics out of it, or attack both sides, I think he can make some good points, like in Roger and Me. There is an ugly side of capitalism. I love capitalism, but there are times when CEOs and the guys at the top really abuse their power and screw the working man, just like with big government. If this becomes another one of his political commentaries though, he can shut the fuck up.
Radiohead 7140
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,151
- Points
- 38
I'll pull an in appropriate and declare his new movie dead wrong, without having seen it!
DEEPSHOTONE
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 345
- Points
- 0
Well judging from some of the coments made, I relize that many of you on this forum are young. I saw the movie last night and loved it!! I realize that a lot of people hate Michael Moore, but anyone who tries to expose the truth is usually hated. I would highly recomend everyone to see the movie, Republicains, Democrates, Independants and everyone else in between. I really love the part in the movie when he finally exposes the "Dead Peasants" insurance policy. I heard about this 7 yrs ago and finally someone talking about it. I wont spoil it for you, but you will be shocked when you see it.. For me the move came full circle. In 1988 I saw his "Roger and Me". I was 20yrs old at the time. Micheal Moore was not a journalist or Hollywood pitch man. All he wanted to know in his first film was why Roger Smith (CEO of GM) closed a plant in Flint Mi when "it" was turning a profit. That closing put aprox 6 thousand people out of work and made hell hole of city even worse. What if your company was making money and your boss suddenly closed your place of business and put you out of work? (just because). If you all dont understand the movie "Capitalism" , you need to go to you local video store and rent "Roger and Me". Trust me, It will make more sense then....
I am 55..Roger and me was the last film I watched that Moore did just because of his general public attitude....
So no...I wont be seing this movie...saw him on the talk shows looked at the clips and listened to him dance around serious questions as to what he was doing with this film...
Telling banks he was there to collect money back from the bailout...cute, but stupid...I certainly didnt ask him to be a spokesman for me nor do I think he has the right to assume he speaks for most Americans....
So again...I am certainly not gonna give him more money by seeing this film...not at the theater , on video, or even a year or so from now when it hits regular TV....
So no...I wont be seing this movie...saw him on the talk shows looked at the clips and listened to him dance around serious questions as to what he was doing with this film...
Telling banks he was there to collect money back from the bailout...cute, but stupid...I certainly didnt ask him to be a spokesman for me nor do I think he has the right to assume he speaks for most Americans....
So again...I am certainly not gonna give him more money by seeing this film...not at the theater , on video, or even a year or so from now when it hits regular TV....
Filthyweasel
Verified
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,680
- Points
- 0
Well, yeah. And his agenda in all of his movies has always been the same: loudly call out the people in high places who get away with ruining the lives of average working/middle class Americans through paperwork and legal loopholes just to make an extra buck.
And as the majority of the left wing (and I am left wing) in the USA are really just a bunch of marshmallows who are too damn apathetic to fight for the underdog as viciously as the right fight for the rich, they need his voice to help drown out the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Palins of the world, who are so much more distorting towards *their* own agendas. Those agendas I'm sure came from a filing cabinet somewhere in hell.
Radiohead 7140
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,151
- Points
- 38
I love people exposing the truth. Ever see the Penn & Teller show, "Bullshit!"? For the most part, quality. objective, intelligent, and insightful.
Michael Moore exposes some truths and presents some concealed misinformation and absurd tactics along the way. As for "Dead Peasant" policies, why don't you want to ruin it for anyone? Michael Moore is not the first person to "out" this. He's the first person to make a big deal about about it to a huge mass. But, to those who want to wait for the movie to hear about, i guess i'll say spoiler alert:
In a nutshell, this is when the company you work for takes out a life insurance policy....on YOUR LIFE! and you might not even know about it! A quick google provides a nice quick summary:
Corporate-owned life insurance actually comes in two flavors:
Executive or key person policies that insure the lives of top executives. This coverage has been around for decades and has a clear business purpose, since losing the expertise, knowledge and contacts of top managers can be financially devastating for companies.
Broad-based or janitors policies that insure rank-and-file workers. Here the purpose is basically profit. The life insurance proceeds are tax-free. The policies have an investment component that allows companies to earn tax-deferred returns while the employee is still alive. And, of course, companies can take out tax-free loans on the policies. All these gains and income are used to fund operations, pay for executive compensation or boost other benefits.
Insurance is a concept where the person buying protection does not want to get paid. That is how insurance companies make a profit (and by extension, why they exist). There is abuse. Arson proceeds comes to my mind as the best example. As for life insurance, the idea is that you buy protection in the event someone dies, while hoping they don't. Not just anyone could buy a policy on my life. There are laws in place designed to ensure policies will not be purchased by people who want me to die. (Such a practice might lend itself to say, murder.) It is legal for some companies to take out these policies. As shown above, it is net-beneficial to the corporation buying the policy. But what is the problem, unless your company wants you to die? If Moore believes this is the case, fine. I think he's a fucking jackass but all I can do is agree to disagree. I believe one thing he did was show spouses of people who died and whose corporations had polices on them. Well, that is a pretty sad story, but a dead peasant policy in no way precludes a spouse from buying insurance protection. sad for the spouse, but stupid spouse as well?
If you believe it is wrong to take out life insurance on your employees, take it up with the regulators who determine who can and can't take out policies on certain people.
tickmankyle1
1st Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,208
- Points
- 0
He does not change the way i put on my pants. So i don't even watch any of his stuff.
tickmankyle1
1st Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,208
- Points
- 0
Perfect summary....
yep that's the way it goes for a lot of those types of people.
DEEPSHOTONE
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 345
- Points
- 0
You make excelent points. I dont have a problem with the Dead Peasants policy. But keep this in mind, most of there policies are on people who are either general laborers or low skliled workers who make minium or barley above minium. Not high ranking Managers and VP's with with great knowledge. My problem whth the Dead Peasants policy is that the company is not will to even willing to help with the burrial let alone give the family a small pertage of the money. Last I checked , only 30 percent of American families have life insurance policies. Yes, getting one is very easy, keeping it or maintaining it is a whole nother story. Most families can barley keep their phone "on". Radio, in my opinoin you seem to be extremly blessed in your life. Its clear that none of these things, ie; job loss, home loss, spouse loss , sick kids or paretns has happend to you. Dont you get it, Michael Moore overall message is the lack of compasion in this country. Corporate America has steped on a lot of people . I hope and pray they dont step on you.
I think we need thought and action provoked, and sometimes the best way to provoke it is through controversy.
I've never really seen what makes people so very angry at Michael Moore, but I suppose I'm glad some of them are.
I only wish my fellow citizens were more widely capable of taking televanjournalists, opinion mongers, and gotchumentarians for what they are: Provocateurs. While they're more than happy to have an army of dittoheads at their disposal to go teabagging, or whatever the outrage du jour is, the truly greatest utility they have is in motivating people to question their assumptions and do their own research to get to the truth.
Unfortunately, people are so harried by the trials of everyday life, who has time for research? In times of trouble, the American credo has long been to "tighten one's belt", "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", and "keep one's nose to the grindstone". I've always thought the last one was the best way to lose one's nose, and Hammurabist that I am, I'm looking for whoever coined that phrase, beltsander in hand, to obtain my due recompense. But I digress...
So, instead of giving "the enemy" a listen that might challenge one's thinking, having no time, people recede into their zone of comfort: A place where their own views are confirmed, repeatedly, and at volume. After a while of this, people become hardened through effects similar to those seen in cults, and one's ideology becomes impenetrable to facts, no matter how obvious, because the echo chamber has said it is thus, and so thus it must be.
And that's where we are.
And we get into imbroglios between media and administrations and parties, when the real problem is the growing corporate control over our system of governance. Surely, 35 lobbyists per legislator is more than enough? Surely, we could have streamlined bills without near so many corporate loopholes and giveaways if only our legislators wrote the bills and didn't farm the work out to lobbyists?
And yes, that's a deep flaw with America.
And yes, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge that America has flaws. It might not have the best healthcare system in the world. It may not be the economic superpower it once was. We may have serious issues with energy consumption, food consumption, and gun violence. Partisans only call such recognition "trashing" America when they think it's to their benefit, and can rile the masses at the notion of someone being "un-American".
It's not un-patriotic to recognize our shortcomings -- and there are many. And saying that isn't un-patriotic, either. It's only through recognizing flaws and shortcomings that one can seek to improve oneself or a nation.
When did we stop trying to form "a more perfect union"?
I haven't seen his movie yet, but I hope it's good. And I look forward to it. And I believe thinkers of any stripe should.
Watch. Be provoked. Learn the truth. Then act.
Or be angry, fearful, and live in a cave. *shrug*
I've never really seen what makes people so very angry at Michael Moore, but I suppose I'm glad some of them are.
I only wish my fellow citizens were more widely capable of taking televanjournalists, opinion mongers, and gotchumentarians for what they are: Provocateurs. While they're more than happy to have an army of dittoheads at their disposal to go teabagging, or whatever the outrage du jour is, the truly greatest utility they have is in motivating people to question their assumptions and do their own research to get to the truth.
Unfortunately, people are so harried by the trials of everyday life, who has time for research? In times of trouble, the American credo has long been to "tighten one's belt", "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", and "keep one's nose to the grindstone". I've always thought the last one was the best way to lose one's nose, and Hammurabist that I am, I'm looking for whoever coined that phrase, beltsander in hand, to obtain my due recompense. But I digress...
So, instead of giving "the enemy" a listen that might challenge one's thinking, having no time, people recede into their zone of comfort: A place where their own views are confirmed, repeatedly, and at volume. After a while of this, people become hardened through effects similar to those seen in cults, and one's ideology becomes impenetrable to facts, no matter how obvious, because the echo chamber has said it is thus, and so thus it must be.
And that's where we are.
And we get into imbroglios between media and administrations and parties, when the real problem is the growing corporate control over our system of governance. Surely, 35 lobbyists per legislator is more than enough? Surely, we could have streamlined bills without near so many corporate loopholes and giveaways if only our legislators wrote the bills and didn't farm the work out to lobbyists?
And yes, that's a deep flaw with America.
And yes, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge that America has flaws. It might not have the best healthcare system in the world. It may not be the economic superpower it once was. We may have serious issues with energy consumption, food consumption, and gun violence. Partisans only call such recognition "trashing" America when they think it's to their benefit, and can rile the masses at the notion of someone being "un-American".
It's not un-patriotic to recognize our shortcomings -- and there are many. And saying that isn't un-patriotic, either. It's only through recognizing flaws and shortcomings that one can seek to improve oneself or a nation.
When did we stop trying to form "a more perfect union"?
I haven't seen his movie yet, but I hope it's good. And I look forward to it. And I believe thinkers of any stripe should.
Watch. Be provoked. Learn the truth. Then act.
Or be angry, fearful, and live in a cave. *shrug*
LOL Most dont need Moore to "provoke" them into thinking.....
Those that do....well....good luck to them...they will get no truth from his type...
Extremists are dangerous on all sides as too many take their word as gospel and dont do any further research...
They see a movie of watch a "news" broadcast or listen to a nationally syndicated radio show and blindly accept what they see and hear a fact when in reallity most of it is far from the truth...
Sorry if I must disagree
Those that do....well....good luck to them...they will get no truth from his type...
Extremists are dangerous on all sides as too many take their word as gospel and dont do any further research...
They see a movie of watch a "news" broadcast or listen to a nationally syndicated radio show and blindly accept what they see and hear a fact when in reallity most of it is far from the truth...
Sorry if I must disagree
It's fine -- indeed, I might say it's American to disagree, despite some "news" outlets claiming only a few years ago that dissenting views from the President were "un-American" and harmed our resolve to fight terror. Thank goodness we're all on the same page, now. 🙂
But I think people do need to be provoked. I think of things like this: There's active knowledge and passive knowledge. Passive knowledge is the stuff you more or less know, but you don't really think about or do anything with. When it comes to our governance, the bulk of us have only passive knowledge.
"Government is corrupt" is a great example of a piece of passive knowledge. Most people would agree that there's corruption in government, but they don't really know where, or who, or how to stop it, or that there's even anything that could be done to improve matters. That's usually passive knowledge, exercised weakly once every election cycle when the other party says they're going to "clean up government". Then people wake up, and say, "Yeah, that'd be good!" and then vote for that guy. Then, that knowledge is put to sleep til the next election cycle. There's little continuity in the American mind.
I believe that any opportunity to keep people aware of what's going on is a good one, and those opportunities should be enabled. We could say that people are too stupid or lazy or busy to do research, or to keep that knowledge active, but we can't blame the people out there with a megaphone trying to get the message out -- whatever that message is.
I don't especially like most of Glenn Beck's views, except one or two. I think he's a paranoiac capable of tapping into ill-defined fears and frustrations and inciting people to action -- perhaps dangerous action eventually. Should he be held accountable for his actions, and possibly for promoting certain other's actions? Yes. But to stop him would be wrong. Until the line is crossed, extremist or not, he's exercising free speech, and I still think there's something to be learned from him by those who know how to listen.
I'll watch Michael Moore's movie, and while well before I might know a good deal of the facts he'll present, he'll introduce a few new ones, and a new angle in which to view them. That's worth something to me. Seeing things in a different light always is.
But while you're here, what makes him a dangerous extremist in your view?
Radiohead 7140
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,151
- Points
- 38
May I ask what it is that led you to the conclusion that I am extremely blessed? It might be true in many respects, but I don't think it clouds my commitment to objective logic.
I don't think a corporation has an overt responsibility to the families of their employees. it isn't a family. the workers are there for the pay-check, and if they can find a better opportunity most are more than happy to leave. It would be an enormous act of corporate conscience for the corporations to help out these families if they cannot afford insurance, and I fully support it. But we can't be the police of corporate conscience, only outright violations of general ethics or the law.
Once again I caveat by saying I haven't seen this movie yet, but my understanding is that Moore frames these peasant policies as "making bets where your LIFE is the collateral", just as he (incorrectly) classifies derivatives as "making bets that you won't pay your mortgage."
I mean, since holding a peasant policy is totally irrelevant to a family that goes broke after the bread-winner dies, how does that even tie into the fact that corporations don't help out these families. Totally seperate issue. If someone argued that a corporation has an ethical debt to the family of people who worked so hard for them, although I don't necessarily agree in all cases, I accept that. My point is that the peasant policy has absolutely no bearing on that issue, and I therefore still haven't heard a compelling argument about what makes them so evil.
moose
1st Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,186
- Points
- 48
You bring up a good point. I mean why should I pay doctors when police and fireman are free? is it because meds are expensive? I find that hard to believe!
texastickler
Level of Blackberry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,714
- Points
- 0
I think he has made good points in all his films. He is the first to admit that some of what he says is opinion. I will say this, if you go to his website, he has all the links to back the facts he presents.
Radiohead 7140
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,151
- Points
- 38
Not sure if that was sarcasm, but, doctors and firemen are not free. We pay their salaries in taxes. To pay doctors fees in taxes isnt realistic, it would just be exorbinantly high. Now we could just say doctors shouldn't charge (and therefore earn) as much, but that would be an enormous deterrant to bright people actually becoming doctors. Medical school is incredibly grueling, and many if not most go into substantial debt to pay for it.
I know people become doctors because they want to help people, but I don't think they would do what they do on a police officer's salary.
DEEPSHOTONE
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 345
- Points
- 0
In my opinion what make this evil is the idea that someone would capitalize (no pun intended) off of someone else's misfortune.. Case in point: There was a case in Illinois about 8-10 years ago envolving a Walmart manager. It was reported that the manager worked 37 hr over 2.5 days. 16- 18 hour days were normal for all walmart managers. He help a customer haul a big screen TV out to her car. The manager walked back into the store and collasped of a heart attack right in front of the "Greeter". The manager was not obese by the way. Walmart said "his long hours had nothing to do with his death". The wife had to borrow money for the burrial while walmart collected a little over $300,000. If this guy had died at home or on vaction I would understand why the company wouldnt care, but the guy died on the job and basicly walmart showed no remorse. They didnt even send a condolence card to the family. Talking about kicking someone when there down. I clearly understand logic. Im the one preaching to others that everyone needs to work for what the get and that no one owe's them "Jack". But there is a little thing called compasion. And as far as you being blessed, Im sticking to my story. I think that you're tring to come off as heartless but Ive been around awhile and I can see through it. You're a very smart man I know that you know right from wrong. Dont let your inteligence over-shadow conscience....
God Bless
Goodieluver
3rd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,716
- Points
- 36
Documentaries are not supposed to have a slant or an opinion or anything
Since it was invented by Vertov, its simply supposed to be the world through the eye of the camera as it is
Moore stages events and reports like regular tabloid news how he wants or does interpret it.
As for F-9\11, there was erroneous facts that actually got him sued for libel for, one i recall is a paper in southern illinois was misquoted. He listed it as it was the headline of the paper when all it was, was a small editorial comment but regardless, he took something and changed it for how his agenda works
If anything, Moore's work is satire/comedy and NOT documentary
Peter Holding said:
Even the guy who was the amputee from the War in Iraq sued Moore saying it lied about what was going on
Goodieluver
3rd Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,716
- Points
- 36
He bashes capitalism despite having his movie cost some people 10-12 dollars to see it
The only reason i'll entertain the notion of seeing this is cuz I want to see how he takes the auto loan situation
Well, I haven't read through this entire thread... and I'm not as well versed in politics as most of you guys, so I won't bother to enter the debate, lol.
However, I will say, like with his other films, if he didn't have a point... it wouldn't have made it to the big screen... nor would it have cause so much talk and controversy as it seemingly has. If anything, he's good at getting people talking about stuff 😉
However, I will say, like with his other films, if he didn't have a point... it wouldn't have made it to the big screen... nor would it have cause so much talk and controversy as it seemingly has. If anything, he's good at getting people talking about stuff 😉
Wrong. It makes it to the big screen because of the $$$$ backing him
much of it his own....(earned in a capitalistic country no less) a gamble that more money will be made...
He gets people talking because he lies and twists facts...
He doesnt do this for the sake of bringing things to light or he would do so truthfully....
If you think all movies that make it to the big screen "have a point" then you are sadly mistaken .....many dont even have plots....lol
