Liberal Hypocrisy

[Straw Man]

straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong.  you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA.  SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters.   and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake.  Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else.  it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it.  sales less returns and allowances.

your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting.  I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well.  Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks.  but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.

the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn.  and it works.

Like I previously wrote, it's pretty clear that "net revenue" has another meaning in the movie biz since it appears to  come after a bunch of expenses are deducted, including the cost of production.  Either that or the author used the wrong term because he explicitly detailed how Moore's 27% was calculated and it wasn't calculated on the 130 million that was left over after the theater owners took their share but on the 80 million left after "expenses" were deducted 

the bottom line is that Moore absolutely makes income from the profits of the film or the "net income of the venture" as you put it.

If you want to debate semantics that is fine but that is still the bottom line

Again, completely contrary to you guarantee to me that "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture."

again, completely irrelevant to to the false premise that started this thread

[240 is Back]

I'd love to see a graph showing the use of "lib" by republicans and white houses won.

Seems like it was early 2007 they decided to really demonize the word and go "all out" with screaming the word in the faces of everyone they dislike.

Since then, they're 0-2 in presidential races, and 2012 ain't looking like a gimme by any means.   Maybe its the whole "get more flies with honey" thing... Libs only dig deeper if you scream names at them and say you hope they're nuked and you'd attack/shoot them if you could lol, as some have said. 

I guess we could try screaming "LIBS!" in 2016 and see if the repubs win the election. 

[OzmO]

Lmao, YOU are cherry-picking, moving the goal posts and setting ridiculous standards. Have you even seen the movie in auestion?? Capitalism: a love story?? It is CLEARLY a case against the capitalist system...esp towards the end.

But he could prob come out and say 'i hate capitalism' and you would still say that 'didnt count' lmao

Is he talking about abuses in our capitalistic system or is he talking against capitalism in general going as far to say no one should be rich?

Details and distinctions NOT regurgitated conservative talking points.

[Skeletor]

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/01/michael-moore-signs-10-million-deal-for-documentary-on-socialism/

see the deals he signs?  $10 million off the top.  then 10% of GROSS profit.  not net income.  Gross profit.  this is a deal a seasoned film producer receives.  not fucking 27% of the NET INCOME of a film.

no one who made those kinds of deals would be worth $50 million.

The Daily Currant is a satirical news website.

[Straw Man]

The Daily Currant is a satirical news website.

LOL

[Straw Man]

Lol everyone keep in mind that Strawman is the same guy who claimed last year that "the majority of NRA members were for obama's gun control legislation".

This is the mind you guys are trying to argue with.
He will literally defend ANY Leftist talking point no matter how ridiculous

If you are going to attribute a quote to me (note your use of quotation marks) then post my actual quote.
I have no idea what you're referring to but I'm guessing I said something to the effect the NRA member support some forms of modest gun control legislation and I very likely had a link to support my statement

so go find my quote if you want attribute some statement to me

[avxo]

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/01/michael-moore-signs-10-million-deal-for-documentary-on-socialism/

see the deals he signs?  $10 million off the top.  then 10% of GROSS profit.  not net income.  Gross profit.  this is a deal a seasoned film producer receives.  not fucking 27% of the NET INCOME of a film.

no one who made those kinds of deals would be worth $50 million.

Let me get this straight. You are a "certified public accountant" and you link to an obviously ridiculous and satirical article on a website that openly advertises itself as "The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record"?

The only thing you're certified as is "fucking idiot" and if you are an accountant - and it's a big if - then I feel sorry for your clients, because you're liable to get them in deep shit when you shift from using GAAP reporting requirements because you confused a McDonald's breakfast burrito wrapper for new official guidance.

[Dos Equis]

Spot on again. 

[Straw Man]

Spot on again. 

Nope

Just repeating your same false premise does not suddenly make it true

[bears]

Let me get this straight. You are a "certified public accountant" and you link to an obviously ridiculous and satirical article on a website that openly advertises itself as "The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record"?

The only thing you're certified as is "fucking idiot" and if you are an accountant - and it's a big if - then I feel sorry for your clients, because you're liable to get them in deep shit when you shift from using GAAP reporting requirements because you confused a McDonald's breakfast burrito wrapper for new official guidance.

ok i feel stupid.  god damn internet.

[bears]

Like I previously wrote, it's pretty clear that "net revenue" has another meaning in the movie biz since it appears to  come after a bunch of expenses are deducted, including the cost of production.  Either that or the author used the wrong term because he explicitly detailed how Moore's 27% was calculated and it wasn't calculated on the 130 million that was left over after the theater owners took their share but on the 80 million left after "expenses" were deducted  

the bottom line is that Moore absolutely makes income from the profits of the film or the "net income of the venture" as you put it.

If you want to debate semantics that is fine but that is still the bottom line

Again, completely contrary to you guarantee to me that "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture."

again, completely irrelevant to to the false premise that started this thread

the premise that started this thread was that Michael Moore makes a shit ton of money lambasting people who make A SHIT TON OF MONEY.

then you started in saying that he spends his own money and that he LOSES money on his films.  

all i'm saying is that you're wrong.  and you are.  come on the guys is worth over $50 million.  he makes sure that when he signs his contracts with the film companies that me makes damn sure that he makes millions when all is said and done.  

if his film loses money he doesn't lose money.  he still gets paid.  come on.

and i did post a article from a ridiculous rag in my haste to prove you wrong.  oops.  i actually just read the whole thing.  wow.  yeah i'm stupid.  

but even a stupid guy like me knows i'm right about this.  

[bears]

Looks to me that's he criticizing capitalism, NOT denouncing it.
Here's some other quotes of his from the same site:

Does Michael Moore say:  No one should be wealthy, all wealth belongs to the people blah blah?   NO.

he does say verbatim "capitalism is evil.  and you cannot regulate evil"

[bears]

Is he talking about abuses in our capitalistic system or is he talking against capitalism in general going as far to say no one should be rich?

Details and distinctions NOT regurgitated conservative talking points.

he says "capitalism is evil"

[Straw Man]

the premise that started this thread was that Michael Moore makes a shit ton of money lambasting people who make A SHIT TON OF MONEY.

then you started in saying that he spends his own money and that he LOSES money on his films.  

all i'm saying is that you're wrong.  and you are.  come on the guys is worth over $50 million.  he makes sure that when he signs his contracts with the film companies that me makes damn sure that he makes millions when all is said and done.  

if his film loses money he doesn't lose money.  he still gets paid.  come on.

and i did post a article from a ridiculous rag in my haste to prove you wrong.  oops.  i actually just read the whole thing.  wow.  yeah i'm stupid.  

but even a stupid guy like me knows i'm right about this.  

Wrong again, as usual

Let's review:

The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"

I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment

Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film.  Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent

Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films

or as you put it

I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture.  

then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.

All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread

[bears]

Wrong again, as usual

Let's review:

The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment

Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film.  Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent

Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films

or as you put it

then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.

All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread

he literally said in his documentary verbatim, "capitalism is evil.  and you cannot regulate evil"  how else can you possibly interpret that?

[OzmO]

he does say verbatim "capitalism is evil.  and you cannot regulate evil"

And what are his reasons for saying its evil?

Is he saying its evil because people can accumulate wealth while others fail at it?  Or is he saying its evil because of the some of the abuses that occur in it?

[bears]

Spot on again. 

45 seconds in.  come on man.

[OzmO]

And what are his reasons for saying its evil?

Is he saying its evil because people can accumulate wealth while others fail at it?  Or is he saying its evil because of the some of the abuses that occur in it?

Is his conclusion incorrect? YES. Is his conclusion "capitalism is evil" over dramatic for effect in a documentary?  YES

[bears]

And what are his reasons for saying its evil?

Is he saying its evil because people can accumulate wealth while others fail at it?  Or is he saying its evil because of the some of the abuses that occur in it?

the point is that you cannot argue after watching his documentary that he's not anti capitalist.

[bears]

Wrong again, as usual

Let's review:

The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"

I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment

Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film.  Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent

Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films

or as you put it

then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.

All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread

and sorry but I still GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's income was not based solely upon the net income of the venture.  you're pointing to the fact that PART of his compensation was.  and yes I agree that part of his compensation was.  but again, i'll say it.  I GUARANTEE YOU that his income was not solely based on the net income of the venture. 

[OzmO]

the point is that you cannot argue after watching his documentary that he's not anti capitalist.

I think if he was an anti capitalist he'd move to a communist country or at the very least be a member the communist party, active or otherwise.  Then, him owning 9 houses would make him a hypocrite. 

However, making a video calling Capitalism evil and or criticizing its abuses while owning homes and making a profit doesn't make him a hypocrite.

[Straw Man]

and sorry but I still GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's income was not based solely upon the net income of the venture.  you're pointing to the fact that PART of his compensation was.  and yes I agree that part of his compensation was.  but again, i'll say it.  I GUARANTEE YOU that his income was not solely based on the net income of the venture. 

I don't disagree at all with that claim

I assume you understand that this is not what you said before and in fact is almost completely contrary to what you said before (i.e. that his compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture)

Why didn't you just make that clarification before instead of trying to defend your original statement?

[Straw Man]

he literally said in his documentary verbatim, "capitalism is evil.  and you cannot regulate evil"  how else can you possibly interpret that?

I don't have access to the movie online and I don't necessarily agree with Moore's blanket statement but it's also a snip of a quote and I don't have the full context.  If you have a longer clip then please post it.

I found this quote which I think (don't know for sure) is also from the film and may even follow the "evil" statement

"What I'm asking for is a new economic order," he says. "I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist. All I ask is that it have two organising principles. Number one, that the economy is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, no business decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"

It doesn't sound to me like he has any problem with PRIVATE OWNERSHIP or real property or businesses and we know he has no problem with some forms of capitalism such as making movies and selling tickets to those movies.

Given that, I see no hypocrisy at all in owning a bunch of real estate.

[OzmO]

No Straw, lets ignore Michael Moore's other statements, and instead cherry pick ones that we can use to support a charge of hypocrisy even if those cherry picked statements do little to show a hypocrisy.

Let's then also ignore his actual criticism of capitalism and just ignorantly assume that any criticism he makes against capitalism means he totally against capitalism. 

Just me criticizing the San Francisco 49'ers but also wearing a 49'er baseball cap.

Sound logic for the easily manipulated unthinking masses. 

[Dos Equis]

No Straw, lets ignore Michael Moore's other statements, and instead cherry pick ones that we can use to support a charge of hypocrisy even if those cherry picked statements do little to show a hypocrisy.

Let's then also ignore his actual criticism of capitalism and just ignorantly assume that any criticism he makes against capitalism means he totally against capitalism. 

Just me criticizing the San Francisco 49'ers but also wearing a 49'er baseball cap.

Sound logic for the easily manipulated unthinking masses. 

No.  You saying the 49ers are evil and profit off of poor people, then selling 49er caps and using that income to make money off of poor people would make you a hypocrite.  That's a much closer analogy.