Author Topic: Liberal Hypocrisy  (Read 95388 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #125 on: July 29, 2014, 03:16:41 PM »
I've not ignored his comments.  I.have used them in many of my posts explaining that there were reasons for why he said them.   Perhaps that's another thing you are ignoring....how I have put them in my reponses

Have you taken into consideration any of Moore's other comments?   See Straws post.

I've made Bum my bitch so many times that he knows he's better off ignoring me than getting his ass handed to him again.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #126 on: July 29, 2014, 03:24:27 PM »
Lol.  He posted a quote from Moore. 

I am looking at why he called capitalism evil.  If he owns  company that is doing those things he points out or or he himself is doing them, then IMO he's a hypocrite.

You seem to be talking his comment and applying a broad brush to it ignoring the reason and context for it.

I'm actually applying his comments in the broad context in which they were made.  He condemned the entire system, not just individuals within the system.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #127 on: July 30, 2014, 09:19:54 AM »
I'm actually applying his comments in the broad context in which they were made.  He condemned the entire system, not just individuals within the system.


So you know exactly what he meant when he said it?

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #128 on: July 30, 2014, 09:27:13 AM »

So you know exactly what he meant when he said it?


if I said "Gay people are evil.  And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?

would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #129 on: July 30, 2014, 09:39:02 AM »
do you see any context or anything following that statement (such as the quote I posted)

do you see him say anything against private ownership of real property or businesses?

after all, it's the fact that he owns real estate that the Faux News people are trying to claim is hypocrisy

what would truly be hypocrisy is if Moore had his millions invested with Goldman Sachs instead of in real estate


http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/11/03/hollywood-producer-questions-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-chops-raises-goldman-sachs-tie/

what if his movies were funded by Goldman Sachs?  would that be hypocritical?  I thought I remember hearing this a while ago.  i'm not sure if its true.  i'm sure you don't think its true.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #130 on: July 30, 2014, 09:41:25 AM »
if I said "Gay people are evil.  And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?

would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?

Yeah.  You have seen me attack and defend both sides repeatedly on this board.  

First thing i would ask is:  Why do you think they are evil? (especially is thats the one and only comment i have to go on.)  It could be because they are sinning against god, having sex with the same sex is revolting, and or because you think they are all sex offenders.  Or it could be other reasons.  I don't know.  

I do think that Homosexuality is a little bit less complex than capitalism.  But i do get your the point you are trying to make.

Note:  I think Moore is a piece of shit.  but i don't see his comments (all fo them in context), his film and the fact that he owns property and is wealthy as a hypocrisy.  Ironic, note worthy, indirectly conflicting, but not a hypocrisy.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #131 on: July 30, 2014, 09:45:41 AM »
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/11/03/hollywood-producer-questions-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-chops-raises-goldman-sachs-tie/

what if his movies were funded by Goldman Sachs?  would that be hypocritical?  I thought I remember hearing this a while ago.  i'm not sure if its true.  i'm sure you don't think its true.

It would be hypocritical if he benefited from the things that Goldman Sachs did regarding the mortgage/credit crisis and other specific actions that he criticized. 

I don't see how GS creating an investment vehicle for a third party that was used in part to finance Sicko qualifies but if you'd like to connect the dots then feel free.

This hypocrisy thing is actually not hard to understand as long as you're not trying conflate things that are not related (same goes for your trying to compare homosexuality to a an economic and political system)

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #132 on: July 30, 2014, 09:55:03 AM »
It would be hypocritical if he benefited from the things that Goldman Sachs did regarding the mortgage/credit crisis and other specific actions that he criticized. 

I don't see how GS creating an investment vehicle for a third party that was used in part to finance Sicko qualifies but if you'd like to connect the dots then feel free.

This hypocrisy thing is actually not hard to understand as long as you're not trying conflate things that are not related (same goes for your trying to compare homosexuality to a an economic and political system)

well he did.  they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.

Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11.  I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it.  wow.

again.  i'm not sure if its true what I posted.  if it is.  YES.  that's hypocritical.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #133 on: July 30, 2014, 10:04:46 AM »
well he did.  they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.

Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11.  I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it.  wow.

again.  i'm not sure if its true what I posted.  if it is.  YES.  that's hypocritical.

I'd like to see that if you can post something.

BTW fahrenheit 9/11 is the reason i think moore is a jack ass.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #134 on: July 30, 2014, 10:05:26 AM »
well he did.  they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.

Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11.  I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it.  wow.

again.  i'm not sure if its true what I posted.  if it is.  YES.  that's hypocritical.

I asked you to connect the dots so please explain how Moore directly benefited from the actions of GS which he specifically criticized.

keep in mind the GS paid fines for specific actions that they took.  They did not pay fines for merely existing or for other activities which are totally legal and not abusive to the society

Also keep in mind that Moore was not even a direct client of GS

Again, this hypocrisy thing is not hard to understand and you should not have to create a tortured pretzel logic in order to make your point.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #135 on: July 30, 2014, 10:07:19 AM »
if I said "Gay people are evil.  And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?

would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?

There is no way to compare/conflate homosexuality with a economic/political system but let's just take Moore's follow up statement (which I'm not sure if you've ever commented on) and change the topic from Capitalism to Homosexuality(the same singular change that you made to his prior quote).

Quote
"What I'm asking for is a new economic order sexuality," he says. "I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist sexologist. All I ask is that it have two organising principles. Number one, that the economy sexuality 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 sexual decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #136 on: July 30, 2014, 11:31:40 AM »

So you know exactly what he meant when he said it?


Of course not.  Nobody knows what is in the man's heart.  I'm just giving my opinion based his words, context, conduct, and common sense.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #137 on: July 30, 2014, 11:57:44 AM »
There is no way to compare/conflate homosexuality with a economic/political system but let's just take Moore's follow up statement (which I'm not sure if you've ever commented on) and change the topic from Capitalism to Homosexuality(the same singular change that you made to his prior quote).


wow. 

you're really stretching it here dude.

no you're right Straw.  you can't compare homosexuality to a political system.

but you can safely assume that when someone calls something "evil", they're most probably against that thing.

wow. 

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #138 on: July 30, 2014, 11:59:44 AM »
I asked you to connect the dots so please explain how Moore directly benefited from the actions of GS which he specifically criticized.

keep in mind the GS paid fines for specific actions that they took.  They did not pay fines for merely existing or for other activities which are totally legal and not abusive to the society

Also keep in mind that Moore was not even a direct client of GS

Again, this hypocrisy thing is not hard to understand and you should not have to create a tortured pretzel logic in order to make your point.



LOL!

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #139 on: July 30, 2014, 12:09:17 PM »
wow. 

you're really stretching it here dude.

no you're right Straw.  you can't compare homosexuality to a political system.

but you can safely assume that when someone calls something "evil", they're most probably against that thing.

wow. 

very safe to assume, especially when you ignore any other comments which serve to clarify the statement or ignore the context in which is was made

wow....just wow   ::)

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #140 on: July 30, 2014, 12:15:49 PM »
very safe to assume, especially when you ignore any other comments which serve to clarify the statement or ignore the context in which is was made

wow....just wow   ::)

don't roll your eyes at me mother fucker!

   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #141 on: July 30, 2014, 12:17:38 PM »
LOL!

so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.

That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.

great point

what a hypocrite

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #142 on: July 30, 2014, 12:18:22 PM »
don't roll your eyes at me mother fucker!

   

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)

wow

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #143 on: July 30, 2014, 12:18:57 PM »
I'd like to see that if you can post something.

BTW fahrenheit 9/11 is the reason i think moore is a jack ass.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/11/03/hollywood-producer-questions-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-chops-raises-goldman-sachs-tie/

I did.  I posted this.  I haven't seen anything written where it said that the Weinstein's were NOT funded by Goldman Sachs.


bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #144 on: July 30, 2014, 12:23:38 PM »
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.

That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.

great point

what a hypocrite

if you demonize a corporation publicly,  mock them outside of their corporate office while filming a documentary, make god damn sure your documentary is not being funded by them. 

he signed with a movie producer who was directly funded by the bank that Moore lambasted in his documentary.  (again, not sure if this is 100% accurate, but if it is, yes its extremely hypocritical)

come on stop it.  you know that's bullshit.



bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #145 on: July 30, 2014, 12:28:49 PM »
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.

That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.

great point

what a hypocrite

and this isn't like goldman sachs gave Weinstein a little bit of money.  this was a $500 million investment vehicle that Weinstein had directly from Goldman Sachs.  this was probably their largest liability on their balance sheet at the time.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #146 on: July 30, 2014, 12:29:05 PM »
if you demonize a corporation publicly,  mock them outside of their corporate office while filming a documentary, make god damn sure your documentary is not being funded by them. 

he signed with a movie producer who was directly funded by the bank that Moore lambasted in his documentary.  (again, not sure if this is 100% accurate, but if it is, yes its extremely hypocritical)

come on stop it.  you know that's bullshit.

you don't even know if it's 100% accurate but I'm supposed to just assume that it is

you don't even know if Moore had any knowledge of this relationship but I'm supposed to assume he did

you don't even know if any the funds in the Weinstein investment vehicle had any involvement in the abusive practices for which GS paid fines but I'm just supposed to assume it did

I have to assume all that just to make you feel better?

No Thanks

Feel free to come back when you have proof of any of those things and I'll reconsider

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #147 on: July 30, 2014, 12:32:26 PM »
and this isn't like goldman sachs gave Weinstein a little bit of money.  this was a $500 million investment vehicle that Weinstein had directly from Goldman Sachs.  this was probably their largest liability on their balance sheet at the time.

feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized

feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)

who's balance sheet are you speculating about?  Why are you even speculating at all?

Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #148 on: July 30, 2014, 12:47:24 PM »
feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized

feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)

who's balance sheet are you speculating about?  Why are you even speculating at all?

Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you

what are you saying?  that Goldman Sachs can steal from people but as long as they give you other money that was not stolen its perfectly acceptable to do business with them?  seriously?  i'm seriously starting to think you're just fucking with me now.

Weinstein's balance sheet is the one i'm referring to.  the article says that their company was funded with $500 million from Goldman Sachs and yes Michael Moore had to know that Goldman Sachs gave the Weinstein's $500 million dollars.  like I said, it was probably the biggest liability on Weinstein's balance sheet.

he sure does a lot of investigating of everyone in his documentaries.  are you saying he over looked the fact that the company who funded his documentary received $500 million from Goldman Sachs? 

and yes I don't know if this is true.  maybe its not.  all i'm saying is that if it is true ............  fuck yes that's EXTREMELY hypocritical. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #149 on: July 30, 2014, 12:49:11 PM »
Of course not.  Nobody knows what is in the man's heart.  I'm just giving my opinion based his words, context, conduct, and common sense.

What context was he saying that in, and what other comments supports that context?