Liberal Hypocrisy

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't have a problem with anything I said I that discussion, including this:


But what that discussion shows is she was the Village Idiot and remains so today.  

And I'm sure you probably know this, but I take your comments with a grain of salt.  You are one creepy mofo.

Can't be more creepy than sitting down with your child and showing him pictures of cocks and pubic hair.      WTF?  You sure this isn't what was making your son cry?  The thought that his daddy was some kind of NAMBLA pervert?

[Straw Man]

and yes when you prepare a balance sheet you do write the name of the bank in the description line of a bank note or a line of credit or you have it documented in the notes to the financial statements, oftentimes both.

"Bank Note Goldman Sachs"     $500,000,000

this entire post by you is ridiculously stupid.  its amazing how you can get so much wrong in just a few lines.

Michael Moore follows every penny the Bush administration spent and he doesn't know who his own movie was funded by?  again how many times have you heard Michael Moore say "follow the money"?

what?  are you fucking serious?  for Michael Moore,  a guy who is so critical of Goldman Sachs and constantly tells his viewers to "FOLLOW THE MONEY" HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE GUYS FUNDING HIS FUCKING MOVIE HAVE A $500 MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY OWED TO GOLDMAN SACHS.  THE BANK HE IS ATTACKING IN SAID DOCUMENTARY!!!!!

you're absolutely ridiculous.  you seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot.

What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.

Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business.  I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership.   That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.

I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.

You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html

I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

Confused? Imagine you're running a lemonade stand with your buddy Steve. Your mom says you have to share half your profits with your sister. But you don't wanna! So you pretend your buddy Steve is actually a corporation -- call him Steve, Inc -- charging you rent for the stand, the spoon, etc. "Dang, mom, I don't have any profits, I had to pay it all to Steve, Inc!" you say when you come home. But the money isn't gone. It's as good as yours -- in your best friend's pocket.

So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project.  They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs".   If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that.   They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation).   They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension

So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot

wow

stop, just stop

 

[Straw Man]

Can't be more creepy than sitting down with your child and showing him pictures of cocks and pubic hair.      WTF?  You sure this isn't what was making your son cry?  The thought that his daddy was some kind of NAMBLA pervert?

I was hoping that this time around that Bum would have had the courtesy to explain how the process of Treating and Preventing Gayness actually works.  I'm not a christian so I don't understand it at all but Bum said "Makes Sense to Me" so I was really hoping he would help clarify it for the rest of us.

For example, do the three steps have a cumulative power or are they each curative on their own.  Do you need to do them in the order listed for them to work.  For example, first a bit of rough housing in the backyard then down to the basement for a few hours of square peg pounding and then off to the shower where, as Dobson wrote  "the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."   Of course the kid cannot help but notice.  His fathers junk is probably at the level of his face.   Again, I just don't understand how that helps to "treat" and/or "prevent" gayness.

If the kid shows no signs of being queer can you just stop with the rough housing and a bit of peg pounding. 
If the kids already shows signs of being queer will he need multiple "treatments" in order to be cured

I have to admit that I just don't understand how it's supposed to work

[bears]

What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.

Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business.  I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership.   That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.

I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.

You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html

I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project.  They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs".   If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that.   They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation).   They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension

So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot

wow

stop, just stop

 

you just spent a lot of time and you're still getting it wrong.  because your knowledge of accounting is based upon what you read in articles quickly on a search engine.

if Michael Moore is having his movie funded by the Weinstein's and his job is "following the money" of the people he's attacking he should also "follow the money" of the people who are funding him.

and yes formation is an issue for tax purposes as well as legal.  so Weinstein could have created a partnership, corporation, etc. in order to minimize taxes and limited liability.  but at the end of the day, if there is a loan from Goldman Sachs that is funding the venture then yes there will be a financial statement clearly stating who funded what.  whether it be in the body of the financial statement or the notes.  again all Michael Moore would have to do is look at the financials for the Weinstein's parent corp FOR 5 MINUTES and he would be able to see that a large portion of their assets are from Goldman Sachs.

for the purpose of brevity I used the example "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  and you got a little boner and jumped all over it after you looked up your little articles because you don't know anything yourself.

I am well aware of how these investment vehicles work.  

my point at the end of the day was that if Michael Moore did ANY research on who was funding his production, it would EXTREMELY EASY to see that the Weinstein's were backed to the tune of $500 million dollars by Goldman Sachs.

you're trying too hard and making yourself look like an idiot.  

please just stop it.

and did you realize that the person who directed Return of the Jedi got paid and is a fucking millionaire?  are you aware that the movie didn't make a profit but that the directors, producers, actors all got paid millions because none of them are stupid enough to agree to be paid only if it makes money?

you're contradicting your own fucking argument here because you're confused.  

please stop.  it's embarrassing.

[bears]

What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.

Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business.  I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership.   That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.

I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.

You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html

I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project.  They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs".   If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that.   They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation).   They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension

So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot

wow

stop, just stop

 

I also find it funny that Michael Moore makes his living off of tearing apart the books of his corporate enemies but you don't give him enough credit that he wouldn't be able to do the same thing for the company that is funding him.

[bears]

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.

and just because you tell yourself that you made someone "your bitch" doesn't mean you actually did.  I am finding that out by your posts back and forth with me.  you're a tad delusional.

[avxo]

I was hoping that this time around that Bum would have had the courtesy to explain how the process of Treating and Preventing Gayness actually works.  I'm not a christian so I don't understand it at all but Bum said "Makes Sense to Me" so I was really hoping he would help clarify it for the rest of us.

For example, do the three steps have a cumulative power or are they each curative on their own.  Do you need to do them in the order listed for them to work.  For example, first a bit of rough housing in the backyard then down to the basement for a few hours of square peg pounding and then off to the shower where, as Dobson wrote  "the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."   Of course the kid cannot help but notice.  His fathers junk is probably at the level of his face.   Again, I just don't understand how that helps to "treat" and/or "prevent" gayness.

If the kid shows no signs of being queer can you just stop with the rough housing and a bit of peg pounding. 
If the kids already shows signs of being queer will he need multiple "treatments" in order to be cured

I have to admit that I just don't understand how it's supposed to work

I don't think taking your kids in the bathroom and exposing them to your junk serves any purpose, nor do I think some forms of play or activities are reserved solely for one gender. I also don't ascribe to the notion that homosexuality is something learned and find Dobson's advice on this topic (and many others) to be idiotic.

With that said, based on the copy-pastes in this thread he does make one important point if only tangentially and in passing. That Fathers need to be involved in their kids lives and they are the archetype from which their kids (both male and female) will learn and internalize a lot about what being a man means. That much is certainly true.

So be there for your kids, spend time with them, laugh together, form a genuine connection and show them unconditional love. Behave honorably and teach them what you want to teach them not only by saying but by living it yourself. Your kids will pick up on all the important bits. Oh, and don't worry about the pegs and the holes.

[Straw Man]

you just spent a lot of time and you're still getting it wrong.  because your knowledge of accounting is based upon what you read in articles quickly on a search engine.

if Michael Moore is having his movie funded by the Weinstein's and his job is "following the money" of the people he's attacking he should also "follow the money" of the people who are funding him.

and yes formation is an issue for tax purposes as well as legal.  so Weinstein could have created a partnership, corporation, etc. in order to minimize taxes and limited liability.  but at the end of the day, if there is a loan from Goldman Sachs that is funding the venture then yes there will be a financial statement clearly stating who funded what.  whether it be in the body of the financial statement or the notes.

for the purpose of brevity I used the example "Bank Note Goldman Sachs".  and you got a little boner and jumped all over it after you looked up your little articles because you don't know anything yourself.

I am well aware of how these investment vehicles work.  

my point at the end of the day was that if Michael Moore did ANY research on who was funding his production, it would EXTREMELY EASY to see that the Weinstein's were backed to the tune of $500 million dollars by Goldman Sachs.

you're trying to hard and making yourself look like an idiot.  

please just stop it.

and did you realize that the person who directed Return of the Jedi got paid and is a fucking millionaire?  are you aware that the movie didn't make a profit but that the directors, producers, actors all got paid millions because none of them are stupid enough to agree to be paid only if it makes money?

you're contradicting your own fucking argument here because you're confused.  

please stop.  it's embarrassing.

I'm going to amend my statement

I'm guessing now that you are an assistant to a part time book keeper at a local pet shop

First and foremost, Moore would have no right whatsoever to inspect the books of the Weinstein Company and even if he did there is no way GS money is going to be a single line item (again reminding you that this money was likely allocated itself under various partnership, tranches, etc... and not just a lump sum distribution with a simple interest payment).  

There is no way you had time to read or listen to any of the information I provided you so I'll make YET AGAIN this simple request

Find proof that Moore had knowledge of the money from GS

I'll ignore the fact that Moore was not a direct client and I'll ignore the fact that GS has many different business ventures which are perfectly legal and the mere fact of having money from them is not an issue.  

Just go find me proof of Moore knowledge

[Straw Man]

I don't think taking your kids in the bathroom and exposing them to your junk serves any purpose, nor do I think some forms of play or activities are reserved solely for one gender. I also don't ascribe to the notion that homosexuality is something learned and find Dobson's advice on this topic (and many others) to be idiotic.

With that said, based on the copy-pastes in this thread he does make one important point if only tangentially and in passing. That Fathers need to be involved in their kids lives and they are the archetype from which their kids (both male and female) will learn and internalize a lot about what being a man means. That much is certainly true.

So be there for your kids, spend time with them, laugh together, form a genuine connection and show them unconditional love. Behave honorably and teach them what you want to teach them not only by saying but by living it yourself. Your kids will pick up on all the important bits. Oh, and don't worry about the pegs and the holes.

No doubt that is true

Keep in mind that the title of the article was "Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?" and the advice therein was given as a prescription for the cure and treatment.

The premise of the article itself is insane and some of the recommendations contained in the article are borderline perverted.

[bears]

I'm going to amend my statement

I'm guessing now that you are an assistant to a part time book keeper at a local pet shop

First and foremost, Moore would have no right whatsoever to inspect the books of the Weinstein Company and even if he did there is no way GS money is going to be a single line item (again reminding you that this money was likely allocated itself under various partnership, tranches, etc... and not just a lump sum distribution with a simple interest payment).  

There is no way you had time to read or listen to any of the information I provided you so I'll make YET AGAIN this simple request

Find proof that Moore had knowledge of the money from GS

I'll ignore the fact that Moore was not a direct client and I'll ignore the fact that GS has many different business ventures which are perfectly legal and the mere fact of having money from them is not an issue.  

Just go find me proof of Moore knowledge

technically correct.  but Moore was making a movie demonizing Goldman Sachs.  the question should have been asked.  

"Hey you're funding my movie that is demonizing GS.  Are you in any way funded by them?"

Maybe he didn't know.  But he didn't question where HE gets HIS money.  He just questions where everyone else gets theirs.

STRAW.  THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GODDAMN THREAD.  MOORE IS HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE HE DEMANDS THAT PEOPLE HOLD THEMSELVS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY.  BUT HE DOESN'T HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW HE MAKES HIS OWN.

in your quest to be right you ended up contradicting yourself.  

and then you post an article on why movies don't make money.  yes.  that's because they have to pay everybody first.  and the big names get the lions share of their money upfront.  that's what the article says.  and that's what you were saying doesn't happen.  

seriously man?  

do you not remember what your arguments were 2 pages ago?

[Straw Man]

technically correct.  but Moore was making a movie demonizing Goldman Sachs.  the question should have been asked.  

"Hey you're funding my movie that is demonizing GS.  Are you in any way funded by them?"

Maybe he didn't know.  But he didn't question where HE gets HIS money.  He just questions where everyone else gets theirs.

STRAW.  THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GODDAMN THREAD.  MOORE IS HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE HE DEMANDS THAT PEOPLE HOLD THEMSELVS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY.  BUT HE DOESN;T HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW HE MAKES HIS OWN.

in your quest to be right you ended up contradicting yourself.  

and then you post an article on why movies don't make money.  yes.  that's because they have to pay everybody first.  and the big names get the lions share of their money upfront.  that's what the article says.  and that's what you were saying doesn't happen.  

seriously man?  

do you not remember what your arguments were 2 pages ago?

yes, 2 pages ago I made a few simple and obvious points and I asked you to show me some proof he had knowledge and you haven't been able to do so

You have convinced me that you're not an accountant (certainly not a CPA) so congratulations on that "win"

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]

and just because you tell yourself that you made someone "your bitch" doesn't mean you actually did.  I am finding that out by your posts back and forth with me.  you're a tad delusional.

I was actually pretty nice to Bum in those threads and in this one too

I don't understand Dobson's advice about "treating and preventing" gayness

Bum said it made sense to him

I asked him to explain how it works (i.e. how pounding square pegs in square holes or exposing yourself to your child cures or prevents gayness)

that's all I've ever asked him to do

just help me understand how it works

[bears]

yes, 2 pages ago I made a few simple and obvious points and I asked you to show me some proof he had knowledge and you haven't been able to do so

You have convinced me that you're not an accountant (certainly not a CPA) so congratulations on that "win"

because I can't provide proof that Michael Moore knew that the Weinstein's were funded by GS I can't be a CPA?

do you what a CPA does Straw?

and I don't have any clients the size of MGM or Universal.  I do bookkeeping, review and compilation, and tax work for small to mid size businesses.  and I know enough to know that if Michael Moore really wanted to know who he was funded by and who they were funded by.  a small amount of research would lead him to the truth.  you obviously don't know this.  because you're not an accountant.

and for the record I never even said that I KNEW this was true.  if you look back at my posts you will see that I say that.  all i'm saying is that if it IS true, then yes it is extremely hypocritical.  and then you go bezerk telling me to PROVE IT.  

I can't.  can you prove that he wasn't funded by GS?

[bears]

I was actually pretty nice to Bum in those threads and in this one too

I don't understand Dobson's advice about "treating and preventing" gayness

Bum said it made sense to him

I asked him to explain how it works (i.e. how pounding square pegs in square holes or exposing yourself to your child cures or prevents gayness)

that's all I've ever asked him to do

just help me understand how it works

you just have to scream real loud

"DON'T BE GAY!"  and then give them chocolate.  everyone knows that.  fucking idiot. 

[Straw Man]

because I can't provide proof that Michael Moore knew that the Weinstein's were funded by GS I can't be a CPA?

do you what a CPA does Straw?

and I don't have any clients the size of MGM or Universal.  I do bookkeeping, review and compilation, and tax work for small to mid size businesses.  and I know enough to know that if Michael Moore really wanted to know who he was funded by and who they were funded by.  a small amount of research would lead him to the truth.  you obviously don't know this.  because you're not an accountant.

and for the record I never even said that I KNEW this was true.  if you look back at my posts you will see that I say that.  all i'm saying is that if it IS true, then yes it is extremely hypocritical.  and then you go bezerk telling me to PROVE IT.  

I can't.  can you prove that he wasn't funded by GS?

you can't be a CPA because you don't seem to be aware of the various ways that this 500 million "investment vehicle" would have been sliced and diced and obfuscated.

There were likely many many people involved who all were creating multiple corporations,partnerships, etc.. to allocate these funds yet you seem to believe it could show up as a single line items on the Weinstein Company Balance Sheet as something as simplistic as "Bank Note Goldman Sachs" and you've claimed it would be "extremely easy" for Moore to be aware of this.

Fine

Then it should be extremely easy for you to prove this

again still ignoring the fact that Moore was not a direct client of GS and that GS engages in many legal business ventures

[Straw Man]

you just have to scream real loud

"DON'T BE GAY!"  and then give them chocolate.  everyone knows that.  fucking idiot. 

what about the part about flashing your junk at them and the hours spent pounding square pegs into square holes

seriously, if Bum had just said, yeah some of that stuff seems weird to me too I would never have mentioned it to him again.

When someone tells me bizarre shit like that "makes sense" to them I get curious and ask more questions

[bears]

you can't be a CPA because you don't seem to be aware of the various ways that this 500 million "investment vehicle" would have been sliced and diced and obfuscated.
There were likely many many people involved who all were creating multiple corporations,partnerships, etc.. to allocate these funds yet you seem to believe it could show up as a single line items on the Weinstein Company Balance Sheet as something as simplistic as "Bank Note Goldman Sachs" and you've claimed it would be "extremely easy" for Moore to be aware of this.

Fine

Then is should be extremely easy for you to prove this

again still ignoring the fact that Moore was not a direct client of GS and that GS engages in many legal business ventures

T

wrong.  WHATEVER vehicle they used the notes to their financials of the parent corp for the Weinstein's would need to state the source, the terms, and the amounts.  and i'm sorry but if I'm making a movie about GS, and being funded by a large corporation like the Weinstein's.  I'm asking that question.  and so would you.

like I said before.  if Michael Moore did ANY research into where HE was getting HIS money.  he would find the truth.  but he doesn't care where he gets his money.  he just cares where other people get theirs.  and he asks until he finds the answer.  that's what's hypocritical about him.

IF what the article I posted said was true, he's a hypocrite.  

[Straw Man]

wrong.  WHATEVER vehicle they used the notes to their financials of the parent corp for the Weinstein's would need to state the source, the terms, and the amounts.  and i'm sorry but if I'm making a movie about GS, and being funded by a large corporation like the Weinstein's.  I'm asking that question.  and so would you.

like I said before.  if Michael Moore did ANY research into where HE was getting HIS money.  he would find the truth.  but he doesn't care where he gets his money.  he just cares where other people get theirs.  and he asks until he finds the answer.  that's what's hypocritical about him.

IF what the article I posted said was true, he's a hypocrite.  

again, you have no clue how the "investment vehicle" was constructed just like you have no clue whether Moore had an knowledge of GS money.  You're assuming it was a single lump sum distribution and a simple note when that vehicle could have actually been (almost certainly was) hundreds of corporations and partnerships with hundreds of various partners and owners.

Just stop this nonsense and go show me proof that Moore had knowledge of GS investment (again we'll ignore the obvious fact that GS does have legitimate business ventures for which they have not paid fines, penalties,etc..)

[bears]

again, you have no clue how the "investment vehicle" was constructed just like you have no clue whether Moore had an knowledge of GS money.  You're assuming it was a single lump sum distribution and a simple note when that vehicle could have actually been (almost certainly was) hundreds of corporations and partnerships with hundreds of various partners and owners.

Just stop this nonsense and go show me proof that Moore had knowledge of GS investment (again we'll ignore the obvious fact that GS does have legitimate business ventures for which they have not paid fines, penalties,etc..)

can you agree that if he did know he's a hypocrite? 

[Straw Man]

can you agree that if he did know he's a hypocrite? 

I've answered variations of that question multiple times

here are a couple

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)

Like I said previously, GS was fined for specific activities and not merely for existing.

If you have any proof that Moore was aware of the association then simply post it and like I've said if he had knowledge of this association then I will absolutely agree with you.

Don't expect me to just believe it because it makes you feel better.

[bears]

I've answered variations of that question multiple times

here are a couple

so basically he can use money from Goldman Sachs, a bank who is robbing the poor and middle class of America of their savings and ruining the fabric of the economy of the United States through underhanded and dishonest business dealings, as long as the money he gets from them is not from those dishonest business dealings.

Ok.  I've heard enough.

[Straw Man]

so basically he can use money from Goldman Sachs, a bank who is robbing the poor and middle class of America of their savings and ruining the fabric of the economy of the United States through underhanded and dishonest business dealings, as long as the money he gets from them is not from those dishonest business dealings.

Ok.  I've heard enough.

that's not at all what I wrote but if you need to pretend that it is so that you find some closure then that's fine with me.

Given that I wrote those two statement a few pages ago I'm not sure why you needed to go on from there

[RRKore]

...

Ok.  I've heard enough.

Thank you.  This thread is dumb. 

Holy shit, Michael Moore isn't a saint?  Stop the presses!  I mean, for fuck's sake just because he doesn't live like a monk on a mountain top doesn't mean that he doesn't make good points about some of capitalism's pitfalls.  Wasn't there recently a book about the life of Jesus Christ written by some scholarly academic who happened to be Muslim?  (Hmmm, this comparison isn't so great when I think about it, but screw it.)

Other than when you accidentally posted that satirical news item, this thread is boring, too.

BTW, Bears, I think you're a standup guy for the way you admitted your mistake there.  You did not beat around the bush or make retarded excuses.  Rare for this place. 

Kudos, honestly.

[OzmO]

Thank you.  This thread is dumb. 

Holy shit, Michael Moore isn't a saint?  Stop the presses!  I mean, for fuck's sake just because he doesn't live like a monk on a mountain top doesn't mean that he doesn't make good points about some of capitalism's pitfalls.  Wasn't there recently a book about the life of Jesus Christ written by some scholarly academic who happened to be Muslim?  (Hmmm, this comparison isn't so great when I think about it, but screw it.)

Other than when you accidentally posted that satirical news item, this thread is boring, too.

BTW, Bears, I think you're a standup guy for the way you admitted your mistake there.  You did not beat around the bush or make retarded excuses.  Rare for this place. 

Kudos, honestly.

Another thing to consider....   Does the Mike being a hypocrite or not take anything away from his charges against abuses and unethical practices in the capitalism system?

It's common tactic to attack the messenger to invalidate the message.

[Soul Crusher]

Another thing to consider....   Does the Mike being a hypocrite or not take anything away from his charges against abuses and unethical practices in the capitalism system?

It's common tactic to attack the messenger to invalidate the message.

I am 100% capilitalist and believe in it 100000% - what abuses do I engage in that the govt needs to get involved in?