Sunday, January 15, 2012

Michael Moore, Insane or Thinking with his Wallet

Alfred Einstein's infamous definition of Insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result". One-percenter Michael Moore has saw fit to do an interview in which he proceeds to tell President Obama to basically "Do what we ( disgruntled liberals)tell you, or we'll vote third party to prove a point".

If this sounds familiar coming from Moore, it's because he pretty much did the exact same thing in 2000 when it came to Ralph Nader.

The same Ralph Nader he would then literally beg on his knees on national television to NOT RUN in 2004.

So now we have Moore pushing for third-party in 2000, begging for no third-party in 2004, and now full circle to pushing for third-party in 2012. This make me think one of two things:

1) Michael Moore didn't learn a damn thing from the 2000 debable that gave America one of the worst presidency in American history (if not the worse as the jury is still out on this one). In other words, he's "Insane"...


2) Michael Moore has an agenda that stands to gain significantly if a republican wins back the White House.

What do I mean by #2, you ask? Well it's no secret the larger "Progressive" blog sites made very good revenue during the Bush years. Outrage generates cash (via ad revenue and fund-raising), and there was more than enough outrage to talk about in the era of the most morally corrupt and incompetent presidential administration in recent history.

Then a Democrat, Obama, won the White House and things changed. Every single major "Progressive" blog site has reported losing viewership, and thus ad revenue. Outrage didn't come naturally, thus in many cases it had to be manufactured just to generate "hits" to their site. Long story short, we now have some of these "Progressive" blog sites with a vested monetary interest in seeing a Republican return to power.

"But wait, LT", you may ask, "Moore is not a blogger, he's a film maker". True. So the question we have to ask is did Michael Moore suffer from having a Democrat in white house when it came to his films? Well check this out:

Let's look at 'Fahrenheit 9/11". Yes, Moore did make films prior to this one, but none of those movies had nearly the production budget nor did they have the notoriety that "F9/11" had. As we know, "F9/11" (released Summer 2004) can be best argued as a case against the Bush administration, and it was no secret that it was designed to sway voters to not re-elect Bush.

Needless to say that the film failed in that regard as George W. Bush went on to win a second term. But what it did succeed in doing was making Michael Moore a very wealthy man. With a production and marketing budget of around $12 million, "Fahrenheit 9/11" went to gross over $220 million in domestic and foreign gross revenue. As director, writer, and basically star of the movie, we can confidently say that at least $60 million of that $220 million went into Moore's personal bank account. Not only that, "F9/11" made Moore a power player in Hollywood.

Which is why, his next film "Sicko" had a significantly larger production and marketing budget (around $15 - $16 million). "Sicko" was released Summer 2007 and went on to generate a total domestic and foreign gross revenue of over $36 million . While not the blockbuster of the previous "Fahrenheit 9/11", "Sicko" still was a success critically and financially with about $5 million going into Moore's personal bank account.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko" dealt with different subject matter, the films have two unique things in common. Both were financial successes and both were released during the Bush presidency.

Now we are 3 years into the Obama presidency. So far, Moore has only released one film during this time, which is "Capitalism: A Love Story". With a Fall 2009 release and a production budget of $20 million, "Capitalism" is Moore's biggest film endeavor to date. The natural question to ask, of course, is how successful was this film?

Short answer? Not very.

To this date, "C:ALS" has a domestic and foreign box office gross of around $17 million. While there's definitely a possibility money was made up in Home DVD sales, for the most part "Capitalism" was a box office bomb and the first of Moore's 20 year long film making career.

Now one can fairly argue coincidence, but between his recent the above interview and his antics over the past couple of years, to argue coincidence would mean having to acknowledge that Michael Moore is, in fact, insane. And by that I mean totally divorced himself from reality.

But we now know that Moore is hawking a new book, and he's gambling to coming out against Obama will result in better book sales. As I see it, Moore needs to heed his own advice about "the road best taken", because I see a serious fall in the making.

Monday, November 28, 2011

In response 11-28-2011

Get your facts straight about Roosevelt:

"....The first thing to consider is that FDR was nothing if not a pragmatist. He spent much of his early career going after the abuses of Tammany Democrats, who were almost as corrupt as Republicans today. But when it came time to run for Governor of New York, and then President, he embraced Tammany in order to win election. In other words, FDR knew that the only way to get things done was to get elected to the office, and the only way to get elected is to appeal to as many people as possible. Sometimes, a candidate has to embrace points of view you don’t always agree with. That doesn’t mean you’re adopting their views; it means that you’re flexible, and willing to try to build a consensus...."

"....During his run against Hoover for president, FDR took what some progressives might find to be surprising positions. One of his main complaints against Hoover in the 1932 campaign was the Republican's “huge budget deficits.” Given that most latter-day progressives, myself included, would like to see more stimulus to get us out of our current economic mess, which is not nearly as dire as FDR faced when he was running, doesn’t it seem strange that a presidential candidate who is seen as a “liberal icon” of sorts by today’s progressives, complained about budget deficits when more than a quarter of the population was unemployed? That sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat, doesn't it?....."

".....Even if you don’t think his railing about deficits during a depression disqualifies him from “good progressive” status on its own, you should know that Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform in 1932, which, among other things called for "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," (huge spending cuts), the abolishment of "useless commissions and offices” and the "[consolidation] of departments and bureaus (small government) and “eliminating extravagances" (again, huge spending cuts). He also campaigned on a balanced budget, although he fell short of calling for an amendment to the Constitution....."


In other words, the socialists and liberals of that day hated on FDR more so than you're hating on Obama.

So "Occupy", let me get this straight,....

John Lewis, Black Civil Rights icon, Wallenburg Medal recipient, and champion of civil and human rights all over the not allowed to speak AT your events...


Glenn Greenwald, Libertarian who lives part time in Brazil, and who infamously defended White Supremacist Matthew allowed to speak FOR the movement?

...and you wonder why you have trouble attracting African Americans?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

In response 11-27-2011

"....Plants, of all things that really bother me about the Obama loyalist, the thing that bothers me the most is their tendency to smear people they disagree with, and their affinity for demagoguery in their writings and commentary. When I went and viewed some of the extremely bias commentary/ragings of this Obama loyalist who refers to herself as "Angry Black Lady" , I told myself that I couldn't imagine any reasonably intelligent person using her as a source for anything....."

Imani Gandy (aka Angry Black Lady) is an accomplished lawyer from Los Angeles. If ever there was a debate between her and Yvette Carnell, she'd run circles around Yvette. And since you haven't been paying attention, the "source" Naomi linked to was debunked two weeks ago. So was Naomi willfully spreading debunked information?

"...Even a prestigious, usually reasonable-minded professor like Melissa Perry-Harris degenerated into her own brand of mudslinging when she tried to pre-accuse White Liberals of racism with her "Obama is as competent as a Clinton" piece in "The Nation"; she, a political scientist by nature, glossed over so many significant facts in order to smear, bully and guilt White Liberals in a very slimy way. It was embarrassing...."

Not nearly as embarrassing as so-called black liberals playing house niggers for the white liberal elite. You'd think people like you, Yvette, Commie Ford, and a whole slew of blacks from the "so-called left" would welcome a debate on this subject even if you don't agree with the premise.

".....I find it interesting that Obama loyalist so cavalierly use underhanded tactics against people they strongly disagree with about the President, yet, they are the very first to rant, scream and moan when places like Fox News, right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio use these tactics against the President. it seems with them (the Obama loyalist), very little is about decency or respect or how things are done, and everything is about shilling for the President in every way imaginable--even if it includes dirty tactics....."

Project much, kid? Remember this all started with the tweet from one percenter Michael Moore.

Friday, November 25, 2011

In response 11-25-2011

In response to Lavarrock:

".....These are demands that are currently being voting on democratically by the people as opposed to in backroom deals with corporations....."

CORRECTION: These are "demands" being voted on FOR the masses by a select privileged few in the lobby of the Deutshce Bank Building (60 Wall Street). But at least you're admitting that after damn near 3 months, there's still no cohesive demand structure that average people can rally behind.

"....Occupy actions are taking place in over 100 US cities. Which is quite impressive for a young, growing movement...."

Significantly big drop from the 2000 number you threw out there, isn't it? Now how many are those cities are in Red States? Find that out for me.

"....Even if the movement wasn’t popular it wouldn’t make any difference. The Civil Rights movement was extremely unpopular in America when it arose...."

The only similarity between the Civil Rights movement and "Occupy" is that they stated getting press coverage when brutality started to happen and sympathy was gained. All the "support" Occupy enjoyed was majorly based on sympathy to their "cause"

The biggest differences (and the key factors) between the Civil Rights Movement is that people knew exactly what they were fighting for.

They had leaders (or at least credible representatives).

And MOST IMPORTANTLY........they worked with the politicians in Washington at the time.

"....The mere fact that Obama and the democrats are trying to co-opt the movement as much as the Republicans did the Tea Party shows just how worried they are....."

And now Tea Partiers have pull and influence in Washington today. You have a problem with Occupiers having that same sort of pull and influence.....why exactly?

"....Switching to a credit union and fraudulent bank charges were some of the things OWS has been preaching since day one....."

Then you need to have a talk with Congressman Brad Miller, who seems to deserve a little more credit than OWS on this:

"....After BofA announced the fees, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) introduced legislation urging consumers to move their deposits from BofA to smaller, more consumer-friendly institutions. Miller's move, not surprisingly, prompted outrage from big banks. "Great, now we have a member of Congress encouraging a run on a major U.S. bank," one bank lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said at the time....." LINK

And by your own logic, the president deserves, at least, as much credit as OWS on the debit card issue.

(YES, I'm using HuffPost since you like it so much) ;)

"...Also, considering that JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD and then a couple hours later the NYPD arrested 400 protesters proves that they are obviously influencing someone...."

Assuming that's true, how does that prove that OWS had any significant influence on BofA changing their minds on the $5 debit card fee?

"...Read the actual article. Not just the title...."

I did read it, and from what I gather Van Jones' only crime is that he's a democrat, he supports the president, and he wants people to vote. In other words, he's like tens of million of people in this country. Tens of million of people who evidently can't join the little social club that is the Occupy movement. If that's the case, they don't represent 99% of anybody

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Bring in G. Fordy and you'll have a trio

To Tavis and Cornel

make it happen guys