Michael Moore can dish it out. But can he take it?

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

...uh yeah? The few films he's made have been immensely successful (Fahrenheit 9/11 alone grossed $200 million at the box office), so do you really think that, after all the ones which have been made scrutinizing him, one more is going to make him any less successful?

Goes to show you that the country has it's share of suckers.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Goes to show you that the country has it's share of suckers.

Not necessarily. Do not assume that everyone who watches Moore's movies believes everything in it. Some people, like me, watch them for their entertainment value.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

Goes to show you that the country has it's share of suckers.

When did anyone mention Fox News Channel's popularity?

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Not necessarily. Do not assume that everyone who watches Moore's movies believes everything in it. Some people, like me, watch them for their entertainment value.

Did you go see them at the theater thus giving Moore your hard earned money?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

...uh yeah? The few films he's made have been immensely successful (Fahrenheit 9/11 alone grossed $200 million at the box office), so do you really think that, after all the ones which have been made scrutinizing him, one more is going to make him any less successful?

Thanks for making my point for me. Gee, I guess he must be the first successful ... anybody ... that is confronted with "taking it". Let's see, either he had no choice - or he'd just commit suicide.

Really, are you insane? Are you really suggesting that Moore as a person is any more equipped to handle criticism than anyone else?

My point is that - umm ... so? Sure, he can take it. So can most other people, should they be thrust into a situation where the feedback is likely.

Hell, I personally find the idiots who buy into his anti-capitalist garbage to be hilarious as they emphatically agree with Moore while he laughs his way to the bank with their money.

Who said anything about making him less successful? Or was that the mindless liberal in you just coming out? Hell, I don't care - let the guy make his money however he wants to ... if he wants to peddle distortions and he has a market of idiots who will make him rich off of them, all the while agreeing that rich people are somehow evil, damn, good job M&M.

To me, he's on the same level as Rush Limbaugh - his business is politics. Let them both have their business and profit from it. But, you have to have blinders on to not notice the clear distinction - both clearly gladly profit from their positions but only one makes the statement that the same thing that's made him rich is someone immoral.

I personally don't like either hardline side and I hate ideological spin, and have a complete disdain for people who seem to mindlessly buy into anything their side does. Michael Moore is no one special as far as having the backbone to take criticism. It's pretty damned easy to take anything in stride when your film makes $200M.

So, like I said, thanks for making my point.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

When did anyone mention Fox News Channel's popularity?

You did just now... why?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Did you go see them at the theater thus giving Moore your hard earned money?

Nah, I use Netflix. But then I use Netflix for everything as I hate going to the movie theater.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Nah, I use Netflix. But then I use Netflix for everything as I hate going to the movie theater.

Well you still contributed to his bank account then albeit not as much as you would have had you gone to the theater.

Personally i'd rather pull my fingernails off with a pair of rusty pliers than give that creep a dime of my money.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Thanks for making my point for me. Gee, I guess he must be the first successful ... anybody ... that is confronted with "taking it". Let's see, either he had no choice - or he'd just commit suicide.

You completely misinterpreted my original point (perhaps intentionally): this new documentary about him isn't going to change anything. He will not "crack" under the "pressure" from it, he'll still make money off future documentaries, he will still be Michael Moore, life will continue as usual.

As for your point, how did I confirm that it "seems like he has no choice"? For the record, I never disagreed that he didn't; only that this would do nothing to skewer and destroy his career, contrary to what the makers of these documentaries seem to think.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Really, are you insane? Are you really suggesting that Moore as a person is any more equipped to handle criticism than anyone else?

I'm starting to wonder if you are the one with the problem. Where did I ever say in any of my posts here that he was "any more equipped to handle criticism than anyone else"? I didn't, precisely because that wasn't even relevant to what I intended (and did) focus on originally.

Originally Posted by Aramike

My point is that - umm ... so? Sure, he can take it. So can most other people, should they be thrust into a situation where the feedback is likely.

Then there was no need to even bother challenging my position to begin with, because I share this exact same viewpoint. I did so from the beginning...

Originally Posted by Aramike

Hell, I personally find the idiots who buy into his anti-capitalist garbage to be hilarious as they emphatically agree with Moore while he laughs his way to the bank with their money.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe they simply enjoy his documentaries for the entertainment value? Or perhaps because they do agree with him on some points, not necessarily the "anti-capitalist garbage" and were fully aware of the "irony" of paying to see it in theatres? Guess not.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Who said anything about making him less successful?

Well that's the obvious purpose to these documentaries about him. The intent is based around hoping that they will damage his reputation and ruin him. And vice versa from Moore's standpoint. Not that it ever does though.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Or was that the mindless liberal in you just coming out?

Judging by the anger you seem to be showing in this post alone, I'm guessing you're having one of those days when the raging conservative inside your cranial shell bursts out like the devil's incarnate.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Hell, I don't care - let the guy make his money however he wants to ... if he wants to peddle distortions and he has a market of idiots who will make him rich off of them, all the while agreeing that rich people are somehow evil, damn, good job M&M.

Well it's obvious you do care to some extent. You're taking a lot of time to ramble on about it, and you also are oozing with intensity for him and the people who associate themselves with him, his work, and some of his ideals. The only thing I'm interested in at this point now is why do you care?

Originally Posted by Aramike

To me, he's on the same level as Rush Limbaugh - his business is politics.

Agreed as far as their tactics are concerned.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Let them both have their business and profit from it. But, you have to have blinders on to not notice the clear distinction - both clearly gladly profit from their positions but only one makes the statement that the same thing that's made him rich is someone immoral.

So Moore is a hypocrite and Rush is not? There's a man who said that all drug users ought to be put to death, when he himself has been caught and brought up on charges of possession and use of cocaine.

Originally Posted by Aramike

I personally don't like either hardline side and I hate ideological spin, and have a complete disdain for people who seem to mindlessly buy into anything their side does.

Well I also hate sheep, so at least we've found three things today that we can agree on.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Michael Moore is no one special as far as having the backbone to take criticism. It's pretty damned easy to take anything in stride when your film makes $200M.

Make that four.

[Aramike]

You completely misinterpreted my original point (perhaps intentionally): this new documentary about him isn't going to change anything. He will not "crack" under the "pressure" from it, he'll still make money off future documentaries, he will still be Michael Moore, life will continue as usual.

My apologies if I misinterpretted the point.

As for your point, how did I confirm that it "seems like he has no choice"? For the record, I never disagreed that he didn't; only that this would do nothing to skewer and destroy his career, contrary to what the makers of these documentaries seem to think.

It was pretty obvious.

Frankly I doubt that anyone realistically thinks that any documentary opposing him is going to bring him down. His empire is supported by the wackjobs who actually buy into his garbage, AND the people who care enough to spend time opposing it.

Hell, if there's money to be made in issuing Michael Moore rebuttals, why would you want to reduce the guy's stature?

I'm starting to wonder if you are the one with the problem. Where did I ever say in any of my posts here that he was "any more equipped to handle criticism than anyone else"? I didn't, precisely because that wasn't even relevant to what I intended (and did) focus on originally.

Yeah, right buddy: "yeah I'd say he can take it." seemed to be a glowing review of Moore's ability to "take it".

In any case, Moore's great at "taking it", if by taking it you mean avoiding and/or dodging any serious question pertaining to the veracity of his information.

Then there was no need to even bother challenging my position to begin with, because I share this exact same viewpoint. I did so from the beginning...

Which you pointed out immediately so I'm curious as to the point of breaking the rest of my post down, item by item.

A simple "you misinterpretted my point" would have been met with a "my bad".

Did you ever stop and think that maybe they simply enjoy his documentaries for the entertainment value? Or perhaps because they do agree with him on some points, not necessarily the "anti-capitalist garbage" and were fully aware of the "irony" of paying to see it in theatres? Guess not.

You shouldn't guess.

I have thought about that, and after consideration I HIGHLY DOUBT that those people are the majority of his audience.

Well that's the obvious purpose to these documentaries about him. The intent is based around hoping that they will damage his reputation and ruin him. And vice versa from Moore's standpoint. Not that it ever does though.

Yeah, wrong.

The obvious purpose to these documentaries about Moore is to capitalize on presenting an opposing view.

Judging by the anger you seem to be showing in this post alone, I'm guessing you're having one of those days when the raging conservative inside your cranial shell bursts out like the devil's incarnate.

Don't misjudge sarcastic bombast as anger.

Well it's obvious you do care to some extent. You're taking a lot of time to ramble on about it, and you also are oozing with intensity for him and the people who associate themselves with him, his work, and some of his ideals. The only thing I'm interested in at this point now is why do you care?

Don't confuse a passing interest as care.

So Moore is a hypocrite and Rush is not? There's a man who said that all drug users ought to be put to death, when he himself has been caught and brought up on charges of possession and use of cocaine.

I never said that Rush isn't a hypocrite.

The distinction I was making is obvious.

Well I also hate sheep, so at least we've found three things today that we can agree on.

Make that four.

Well, we gotta start somewhere.

[SteamWake]

When did Rush say "All drug users should be put to death"?

Theres been quite a few things about him and some others in the 'popular' media that was 'made up' yet the press ran with it anyhow.

So... Im just wondering if this is true or not.