Marvel at the beauty of Michael Moore's 10,000 sq ft summer mansion!

kokonut said:
And, again, many of these people began like many of us. Look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Paul Wozniak, etc...who worked and invested their way up.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't have a problem with any of the 99% who went to the 1.00%. That includes people like Gates, who is doing astounding amounts of service for our nation. Bill and Melinda foundation? Pretty generous stuff. Jobs? He wasn't bad either. I only have that gripe against him where he cheated Woz out of money back in the day, that was really shady and shameful. Fortunately Woz forgave him so that's not my business.

The point I'm trying to make? 99%'ers who make it to 1% are cool in my book.
1.00%ers who go to 1.00%ers (or 0.01% even) are a different story. Those are the ones to watch for hypocrites to me.
Moore isn't one of the 1.00 > 1.00, he's from the 99 to 1.00.
 
I can't believe that a post taking a light hearted jab at 1%er Michael Moore got 10 pages of defense from smart liberals here.

The 1% is an economic status. That's all. Michael Moore is no different than a typical CEO who makes obscene amounts of money "off the backs of others."

For those on the board who have worked on films or are even a casual film fan, you know what goes into making one- a lot of hard work by a lot of people. What do you figure is the pay disparity between Moore's salary and the folks who worked on his movies?

Key grips, editors, assistant editors, researchers, lighting department, sound mixers, location scouts, photography, AD's, etc.....

How about comparing the millions of dollars Moore gets paid to make his movies vs the people who actually work behind the scenes!

Again, I don't begrudge Moore for his wealth or success. Good for him! But I certainly get a chuckle out of the way he markets his brand of packaged rebellion.
 
If you don't begrudge him his wealth, what is the topic all about? Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

Defensiveness? I think not. Correction of the whirling dervish spinning of the conservatives to whom facts are just an annoyance that gets in the way of their desire not to think.
 
Still amusing to see some people who continue to deny he's not the 1 percenter of which, obviously so, he is.
 
jillio said:
If you don't begrudge him his wealth, what is the topic all about? Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

Defensiveness? I think not. Correction of the whirling dervish spinning of the conservatives to whom facts are just an annoyance that gets in the way of their desire not to think.
Click to expand...

Jillio, read through this thread, I have said it right here! I don't begrudge Moore for his success.

Taking a jab at his wealth and social status was meant as a lighthearted jab at a limousine liberal. I just didn't know that people felt so strongly about the man?!
 
Still amusing to see how tightly some hold onto their delusions.
 
DaveM said:
I can't believe that a post taking a light hearted jab at 1%er Michael Moore got 10 pages of defense from smart liberals here.

The 1% is an economic status. That's all. Michael Moore is no different than a typical CEO who makes obscene amounts of money "off the backs of others."
Click to expand...
no.... 1% is a statement.

DaveM said:
For those on the board who have worked on films or are even a casual film fan, you know what goes into making one- a lot of hard work by a lot of people. What do you figure is the pay disparity between Moore's salary and the folks who worked on his movies?

Key grips, editors, assistant editors, researchers, lighting department, sound mixers, location scouts, photography, AD's, etc.....

How about comparing the millions of dollars Moore gets paid to make his movies vs the people who actually work behind the scenes!

Again, I don't begrudge Moore for his wealth or success. Good for him! But I certainly get a chuckle out of the way he markets his brand of packaged rebellion.
Click to expand...

why are you obsessing with how much he makes? you jealous or something?
 
Jiro said:
why are you obsessing with how much he makes? you jealous or something?
Click to expand...

Would certainly appear that way. I have noticed a trend with many of the conservatives here. They have almost a hero worship for the Repubs, but a professed disdain for the wealthy. Odd combination that idicates that they no doubt support the Repubs because of a sick need to vicariously believe that they are in a category that they know they will never achieve...thus leading to the contradictory disdain they exhibit.

Kind of like those who come across on the surface as homophobic but display decidedly latent homosexual tendecies.:cool2:
 
Jiro said:
no.... 1% is a statement.



why are you obsessing with how much he makes? you jealous or something?
Click to expand...

I thought 1% was the economic status, but can you blame me for being confused with the mish mash of silly ideas coming out of the silly #OWS collectivists?
 
DaveM said:
I thought 1% was the economic status, but can you blame me for being confused with the mish mash of silly ideas coming out of the silly #OWS collectivists?
Click to expand...

Here's the better way to see the issue of that term.
Who says what the 1% is? Who defines the definition?

Also, if it's a status, it would likely generate from a legally inferred definition. It would also be controversial because it segregates general american society, imagine all these suit cases popping up from "the people vs the 1% name here"
 
jillio said:
Would certainly appear that way. I have noticed a trend with many of the conservatives here. They have almost a hero worship for the Repubs, but a professed disdain for the wealthy. Odd combination that idicates that they no doubt support the Repubs because of a sick need to vicariously believe that they are in a category that they know they will never achieve...thus leading to the contradictory disdain they exhibit.

Kind of like those who come across on the surface as homophobic but display decidedly latent homosexual tendecies.:cool2:
Click to expand...

We've debated on here a lot, and I've told you I have many problems with Republicans.

I guess anyone who doesn't share your worldview is just labeled so the world will be simpler for you?
 
naisho said:
Here's the better way to see the issue of that term.
Who says what the 1% is? Who defines the definition?

Also, if it's a status, it would likely generate from a legally inferred definition. It would also be controversial because it segregates general american society, imagine all these suit cases popping up from "the people vs the 1% name here"
Click to expand...

I think I see where you're coming from, naisho.

For me I watched congress create the mess that lead to the housing bubble, the market crash, Fanny and Freddy, the bailouts, etc...

To blame wealthy individuals instead of Washington is very misguided to me.
 
DaveM said:
We've debated on here a lot, and I've told you I have many problems with Republicans.

I guess anyone who doesn't share your worldview is just labeled so the world will be simpler for you?
Click to expand...

Where is the label? I offered a descriptions, not labels.

However, you appear to be quite fond of labels. Let's see, "1%ers", "OWS collectives", "limousine liberal"....and that just required scanning the last few posts attributed to you.

Don't be a hypocrit.
 
DaveM said:
I think I see where you're coming from, naisho.

For me I watched congress create the mess that lead to the housing bubble, the market crash, Fanny and Freddy, the bailouts, etc...

To blame wealthy individuals instead of Washington is very misguided to me.
Click to expand...

Freddy...the same one that old Newt received over a million from?
 
DaveM said:
I thought 1% was the economic status, but can you blame me for being confused with the mish mash of silly ideas coming out of the silly #OWS collectivists?
Click to expand...

actually - OWS was very explicit and crystal-clear with who they're targeting at. the reason why you were confused about what 1% is because of Republican and the conservative pundits (typically RINO) were quibbling around to obfuscated OWS' simple message in order to discredit them because they want to keep people's focus on Tea Party.

OWS is targeting at 1% aka the "rich and powerful" people who have deep influence in our government and they're typically the one who wrecked our economy and received bailout at our expense.

That's why I kept asking you - did Michael Moore act like those typical corporate fat cats?
 
DaveM said:
I think I see where you're coming from, naisho.

For me I watched congress create the mess that lead to the housing bubble, the market crash, Fanny and Freddy, the bailouts, etc...

To blame wealthy individuals instead of Washington is very misguided to me.
Click to expand...

and do you have any idea who controlled Congress? the wealthy individuals and corporations aka "1%"

Why is it that Lehman Brothers was not able to receive federal bailout while other corporations like Goldman Sachs did? I'll give you a hint - US Secretary of Treasury oversees who gets to receive a bailout and such. Guess who? a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
 
Good Lord, who gives a fying fluck if Michael Moore is in the 1%?
 
Jiro said:
actually - OWS was very explicit and crystal-clear with who they're targeting at. the reason why you were confused about what 1% is because of Republican and the conservative pundits (typically RINO) were quibbling around to obfuscated OWS' simple message in order to discredit them because they want to keep people's focus on Tea Party.

OWS is targeting at 1% aka the "rich and powerful" people who have deep influence in our government and they're typically the one who wrecked our economy and received bailout at our expense.

That's why I kept asking you - did Michael Moore act like those typical corporate fat cats?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, they are not crystal clear. I've been down to Occupy Philly and between the Che Guevara flags, the signs for legalizing weed, the signs for the end of capitalism, the anarchists, the socialists, the labor unions, the drum circles, the signs for debt forgiveness, etc...

There is no common goal, which they admit. That's why they have general assembly every day to vote by "direct democracy" what they want.

If the occupy movement is against bailouts for the rich, then yes Michael Moore took tax payer money as subsidies to get money back on his last film.

That's called a bailout.
 
Back
Top