Monday, March 21, 2011

Michael Moore's $7 million summer "cottage"


Being a faux radical is a pretty good gig.
Posted by at

21 comments:

PL said...

You don't need to point out how big his house is to critique Michael Moore- you can just stick to the factual distortions of his movies.

Though he does make the occasional good point- something true of all extremists. For instance, I like Ann Coulter's commentary on the internal dynamics of the Republican Party because she's refreshingly honest... even though I think pretty much every other word that falls out of her mouth is pure toxic waste.

March 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM
PBM said...

Isn't the conservative view of wealth that people should be able to make it and use it however they want on the free market?

I don't like Michael Moore, but his documentaries (and maybe books) succeed in the market, which is why he has money to buy expensive houses.

March 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM
TJE said...

"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing."
Edmund Burke

March 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Megan said...

Classic example of "Do as I say not as I do"

March 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM
PBM said...

How is this a classic example of that? Michael Moore's documentaries have attacked how people have made money (ruining the entire US economy, taking health care away from people, etc.). They don't paint the picture that it's a sin to have money in itself. I would see this as hypocrisy if he owned slaves, or had illegal immigrant cleaners, or didn't let the workers on his movies unionize, or did something to crash the entire economy, but he hasn't done any of those things. Since when did Michael Moore say he thought anyone who owned a $ 7 million dollar house is evil?


I still don't get it. You guys only have problems with people who are both rich and liberal? If they are liberal, they can't spend money the way everyone else can on the free market? That is a view so full of contradictions and hypocrisy that it shouldn't even be able to be part of any legitimate debate.

I don't even like Michael Moore but I think this argument is ridiculous. No matter what you think about him, he is somewhat of a personification of the American dream. He came from nothing to be a very successful filmmaker, and now you say he can't spend money the way he wants to. I think it is actually more respectable for someone like Michael Moore to come out and say that rich people should pay more taxes. Goes against his own economic interests, and towards those of the common good of the country.

March 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM
Megan said...

“They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own — they’re putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with our life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this, we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it,” - Michael Moore on rich people.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

March 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM
PBM said...

Who is he referring to there? It would help to have some/ any context at all.

March 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM
PBM said...

Where did you get yours from also?


I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do.
Michael Moore

March 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM
Megan said...

As far as I can tell, he was talking about wealthy people in general. I think the fact that he calls money a "natural resource" is enough to make him a huge hypocrite.

March 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Megan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM
PBM said...

It just seems like you might have gotten your quote from a biased source that may have taken something he said out of context.

March 21, 2011 at 3:58 PM
PBM said...

I don't think even Michael Moore is stupid enough to call money a natural resource so, again, you might want to check on the source and context of that quote.

March 21, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Megan said...

"Capitalists love their money and they not only love their money, they love our money," Moore said.

Funny for someone who made his money in a capitalist society.

"The upper one per cent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 per cent. Seriously, when anthropologists dig us up what do you think they're going to call that?"

Seems as though if he really saw this as such a problem he would start distributing his wealth ASAP.

March 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM
PBM said...

Ok, quote 1, I will give you hypocritical. Quote 2 is a fact so I'm not sure what kind of argument your trying to make.

March 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM
PBM said...

Just because you acknowledge facts about the distribution of wealth in America and are rich doesn't mean you should give away all of your money.

March 21, 2011 at 4:17 PM
PBM said...

I could really care less about Michael Moore and his money, I just think it's funny that conservatives are so quick to point out that he is a hypocrite, when your major political party is basically run by hypocrisy. I already wrote a lot of these down in the Friedman post but here's some more: We care about the debt, but think we should keep enacting massive, unpaid for tax cuts; we need to cut government spending, but only 12% of it and only programs we don't like; we came up with the individual mandate, but when you propose it, it's unconstitutional; everyone needs to share the pain, only teachers and police should get their pays cut while we give more money to corporations and the richest in tax cuts; the administration is colluding with interest groups, except that we do the same thing with groups that the general public dislikes more.

March 21, 2011 at 4:52 PM
PBM said...

I know all politicians can be hypocritical, but it just seems like the modern Republican platform is based on such a plethora of contradictions that they shouldn't have any legitimacy on any issue. But, alas, the economy sucks and people blame Obama even though he inherited both a poopy economy and a horrendous debt from George W. Bush (my vote for best President ever!).

March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Megan said...

So it's silly to point out Liberal hypocrisy because in your eyes Conservative hypocrisy is much worse. Because I can't resist:

We support humanitarian relief, gay rights, and women's rights except in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rhetoric is dangerous unless it concerns Scott Walker receiving death threats. Stereotyping is bad unless we are stereotyping the tea party as ignorant, gun-slinging hicks. Conservatives are not focused on the real problem when they are cutting discretionary spending, but we have yet to put out any ideas to reform entitlements besides tax increases. Let's make everything equal by unequally affecting incentives and outcomes. We want to get off foreign oil and create jobs, but are against drilling in the U.S. We support alternative sources of energy, just not the ones that can compete economically.

March 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM
PBM said...

But on the ones that deal with policy there, I can rationally reply to all of those either with contradictory proof or a reasonable explanation. I don't think you can do the same with some of mine from earlier. The Republican party is just outrageously contradictory these days. There are such blatant contradictions like take that the same Republicans that came up with the individual mandate, now call it unconstitutional. How does that make any sense? All the points I brought up are similar. Keep government out of the market, unless they are stopping people from getting abortions or drugs. We think Obama is trampling on the Constitution, but what Bush did with the Patriot Act (far more invasive than anything Obama has done) was fine. We vote all together against the stimulus and health care bills, then take money from both secretly. I'm just talking basically politicians and people who work on Fox. I don't mean to attack anyone whose conservative, just those who are public officials and Republicans, and/or Fox News commentators. Yours seem to be broad swipes at liberals in general, not specific elected officials.

I don't know where some of your stuff is coming from (womens' + gay rights in Iraq and Afghanistan??? whatever that means, I'm all for it). Rhetoric, yeah you have a point. It's a pretty huge generalization to say every single liberal is against stereotyping. I think everyone stereotypes, and it's just a fact of life, so not sure where your going with that one. I think there is a difference between political correctness and American liberalism. But I do think the tea party is ignorant, but so is almost the entire American public. I've had people calling for two weeks saying "I don't know why I'm calling. My union told me something about a union bill." Now, last time Dems took on entitlement reform, they were attacked relentlessly during the 2010 elections for cutting Medicare. I wouldn't make that mistake with today's GOP in office, and there are a lot of Dems working on deficit reduction, so again, kind of a generalization. On oil, it wouldn't reduce prices or imports meaningfully so I think it's reasonable to oppose. Not sure where your going on the renewable energy thing (a renewable has to be nuclear, wind, solar, something else made from renewable sources, none are economical yet really). You've got me on the Steven Hayward thing on next post, but as an environmentalist, I think those people are incredibly stupid. Not all environmentalists are like "I support wind energy, but don't put it any where." Anyone can file a lawsuit and there are a lot of purist environmental groups that could be against that.

March 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Megan said...

Because it's a slow day at work.

We care about the debt, but think we should keep enacting massive, unpaid for tax cuts
- these tax cuts represent 8.1% or the budget (much less if we only look at the tax cuts on the wealthy, which most Democrats are) so Democrats focusing on them as the cause of all of our problems is just as bad as Republicans focusing on discretionary spending

we need to cut government spending, but only 12% of it and only programs we don't like
-Republicans have taken a far more aggressive stance on entitlement reform than Democrats so this is incorrect, and of course they are only going to cut the programs they see as ineffective.

we came up with the individual mandate, but when you propose it, it's unconstitutional
-Don't really have a rebuttal on this one although I was under the impression that the individual mandate has been around for years in foreign countries not that it was a Republican invention. Maybe this is a case of hypocrisy, but if we want to play he said she said let's talk about the Democrats who supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act but seem to have forgotten.

everyone needs to share the pain, only teachers and police should get their pays cut while we give more money to corporations and the richest in tax cuts- The public sector has not had to share as much of the pain of the recession as the private sector because state governments can run deficits instead of decreasing wages and benefits. And who do you think bears a big portion of the corporate tax burden- the workers! in the form of lower wages. I'm always amazed when Democrats hate millionaires and corporations, but want more jobs. Do they think all the jobs come from the private sector?

the administration is colluding with interest groups, except that we do the same thing with groups that the general public dislikes more.
-I would say that Republicans point this out to show the hypocrisy of the Administration, not to attack the Administration. Republicans have been attacked for colluding with interest groups for years, and Obama campaigned on a very anti-lobbyist platform.

March 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM
PBM said...

OK

Tax cuts have become and will become a larger and larger part of our debt, and Republicans want to extend them FOREVER.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/four_possible_deals_on_the_bus.html


On your Republicans have taken a better stance on entitlements. Maybe Paul Ryan has, but there are very few other Republicans who are willing to get behind his roadmap, for good reason, and they still haven't even offered a long term plan in the form of a budget for the rest of this year and next year.


Mandate was thought up by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) and others as part of an alternative to Hillarycare.


Public sector has been hit by the recession, and the pain is just starting to be felt. They didn't feel as much pain for 2 years after the stimulus because it gave states money to pay for them. Many of them actually can't run deficits because of their constitutions. Now that the federal money is pretty much done, public sector lost 30,000 jobs last month while private gained 220,000.

What Democrats are you talking about hating millionaires and corporations? That is a very fringe view in the party, and many more moderate Democrats, including Obama, are pretty beholden to these interests.

I'll give you the last one on Obama, but I still think conservatives are pretty hypocritical going from saying "he's so anti-business, he's stifling the economy" to saying "he's too cozy with businesses, look at him with that GE guy." Nothing will make them happy.


Their motives for everything are so nakedly political it is an absolute joke. I don't like a lot of Dems too, but at least they don't all say the same thing all the time. They are a more diverse party that doesn't have any discipline when it comes to talking points. The GOP, on the other hand, sticks to them so zealously that they frequently contradict past statements. You don't have to defend them, it is an impossible task. I'm just asking you to concede that they are sometimes hypocritical and manipulative.

I know you are anti-government, and pro-free market, but that doesn't mean you have to defend the GOP when they are so obviously hypocritical. I disagree with Democrats on things and criticize Obama frequently. That doesn't mean I'm not liberal.

March 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)