ABC Raves Over Michael Moore’s ‘Deeply Christian’ New Movie; Lauds ‘American Populist’

ABC Raves Over Michael Moore’s ‘Deeply Christian’ New Movie; Lauds ‘American Populist’

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2009 - 11:35 ET

In less than 24 hours, ABC devoted 13 minutes to rhapsodizing over liberal Michael Moore’s new, "deeply Christian" film, Capitalism: A Love Story. Featuring the director first on Tuesday’s Nightline, co-anchor Terry Moran took his socialistic agenda seriously and opened the show by teasing, "Is capitalism evil?" (In 2007, the network contributed 21 minutes to Sicko, totaling 34 minutes of promotion for the two films.)

On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, co-host Chris Cuomo cooed, "Many critics are calling the documentary Moore's best ever." He also raved, "You demonstrate the [capitalism] question very well in the new movie. And you do it lots of different ways. People will get where you’re coming from."

On Nightline, Moran offered a few tough questions to the filmmaker, but made no effort to hide his admiration. He extolled, "He's an American populist in the grand tradition, a provocateur, a comic, a rhetorical bomb thrower." The ABC host marveled that Moore hates capitalism "with a savagely funny...and surprisingly religious passion."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Helping Moore sell his socialistic movie to Middle America, Moran continued, "At the heart of Moore's movie, at the heart of all his movies really, but this time it's overt, is a fierce Catholic faith, committed to justice for the poor and the disenfranchised, scorning a system that produces such inequality."

On his Twitter page, Moran excitedly announced on September 18, "Just saw a screening of Michael Moore's film "Capitalism: A Love Story." Funny, angry, of course. Also deeply Christian."

Cuomo allowed the director to claim that "the last three popes, actually, to some extent, have talked about the sin of capitalism." Conservative Catholics would strongly disagree with the point that Catholicism endorses socialism. Pope John Paul II certainly spoke approvingly of capitalism.

Moran’s mostly frothy interview did have one question that GMA host Cuomo overlooked. Cuomo neglected to ask the obvious query: If Capitalism is "evil," as Moores has repeatedly said it is, why charge money to see this film? Why make a profit from it? Moran pressed:

TERRY MORAN: But Moore has gotten plenty himself over the years. His movies have made him rich, leaving him open to charges that he's a hypocrite and a fraud. They look at the money you make and they say, "Why isn't he more sympathetic to the system? He's benefiting from it. He should be proud of the system that’s made him so much money."

(Moore piously responded by asserting that he’s "embarrassed" by his success and fortune. And that he makes these films to help the poor.)

Cuomo did occasionally challenge Moore. When the director touted unions as the way to fix capitalism, Cuomo retorted that they "can also abuse their privilege" and end up hurting Americans. And while he asked Moore if he does things for "effect," Cuomo mostly contributed bland questions, such as wondering, "Is it the system? Or is it the rules of that system? Capitalism bad? Or how we allow it to perform?" He later sat by and allowed the activist movie maker to actually trash ABC:

MICHAEL MOORE: You know, I’m talking to employees. People backstage here who aren’t-. They don't get to be real employees here, because they don’t get benefits. So, they're freelancers. And I said, guy, "I was here two years ago. You were a freelancer. What are you doing here?" Right backstage here, at ABC. He says, "Well, we call ourselves permalancers now." You know? That’s because- And they don't get to share in just the basic benefits that an employee who used to have who worked here. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with just giving people the basic things for their hard work?

This is the same thing Cuomo did when he interviewed Moore on the June 12 and 13, 2007 Good Morning America. The director came on the program and attacked ABC over its Iraq war coverage: "You might have prevented this war. You, this network, the other networks. Those 3,500 soldiers that are dead today may not have had to die had our news media done its job." On that day’s Nightline, Moore appeared again for a total of 21 and a half minutes.

On the September 22, 2009 Nightline, Moran threw in a few harsh descriptions. As the segment neared its end, he pontificated, "So he shambles on. Like some angry overweight prophet of our times, either crazy or brilliant...Traitorous or patriotic, depending on your point of view, but always laughing." However, the anchor closed the piece with this glowing salute: "Well, love him or loathe him, you got to give it to Michael Moore. He gets involved. He's a real citizen."

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

But if not capitalism, then what?

September 23, 2009 - 11:53 ET by lotr

"Well, love him or loathe him, you got to give it to Michael Moore. He gets involved. He's a real citizen."

Wow. Propaganda, plain and simple. So, am I to take it that someone like, say, Ann Coulter, hasn't received such a review from the capitalist venture known as the American Broadcast Company?

So, if Moore, the "ardent Catholic" (WTF?), is anti-capitalism, then just what exactly is he proposing in its stead? Do they use the "S-word" at all? Does he come out and tell them straight up that he is a socialist, and that he voted for Obama because he would further that cause??

Newsbusters: Exposing left-wing media bias

-- Q.E.D., Scott Whitlock

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

LOTR

September 23, 2009 - 12:04 ET by Scott Whitlock

There was a lot to get into, in terms of writing about the two pieces. But, Moran did also hit Moore from the left on Obama:

MORAN: The election of Barack Obama seemed to promise sweeping change. It’s one of the bright spots in Moore's film. But so far, the Obama administration has continued to bail out Wall Street and failed to deliver on health care reform and other issues dear to the left and to Michael Moore. A lot of people on the left are very disappointed in Obama, given all the hope that you captured in the movie, you disappointed or discouraged?

MOORE: No, I'm not discouraged or disappointed. This is the time you want the smart guy in the White House, not a dumb guy. So we have got a smart guy. But what I do point out in the film his number one campaign contributor, private contributor, were the employees, the people at Goldman Sachs. I really put that in there for an audience of one. I wanted him to see that. I want him to know, as much as we love him as much as we support him, we also know who his backers are. And we'll be watching.

Is it your contention that

September 23, 2009 - 12:20 ET by Barry Bonds

Is it your contention that ABC should ignore Michael Moores film?

Barry Bonds

September 23, 2009 - 13:16 ET by Scott Whitlock

Of course they shouldn’t ignore his films. But, they give a disproportionate amount of time to promoting them. You think they’ve given 34 minutes over to conservative film makers and their movies?

What is your threshold

September 23, 2009 - 16:11 ET by Barry Bonds

What is your threshold between a normal amount and a"disproportionate" amount?

Has there ever been a conservative movie with the gravitas of any of Michael Moores films?

I'm sure it is more an issue of overall appeal rather than some Left Wing conspiracy. But you have a right to your opinion.

The issue is bias. Given

September 23, 2009 - 16:30 ET by lotr

The issue is bias. Given the polarizing figure that Michael Moore is, the coverage, at least that which I read above, is left-biased. Period.

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

Does that mean he doesn't

September 23, 2009 - 19:43 ET by Barry Bonds

Does that mean he doesn't want to be interviewed by the one conservative outlet or are they not interested in him having a platform on their network?

Usually when Bill O wants to talk to someone he lets everyone know and I haven't heard him complain.

Further, do you think it would be wise to go on a network like Fox if you were Michael Moore?

Go on Fox?

September 23, 2009 - 19:53 ET by Rukus

"...do you think it would be wise to go on a network like Fox if you were Michael Moore? "

Of course not, he would get his fat a$$ handed to him! Fox doesn't like socialist crap like him. He couldn't answer the tough questions, just like Barry (and BOR doesn't count.)

Gary

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. -- Tom Paine

Michael Moore vs Bill

September 23, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Barry Bonds

Michael Moore vs Bill O.

Hmm, someone who has actually studied their subject vs someone who has glossed over Right side talking points and has practiced the art of yelling on t.v. for over 13 years.

I'd give it to Moore on substance and truth and give it to Bill O for being loud and obnoxious.

In other words...

September 23, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Rukus

Cuba has better health care than us? Us means Americans vs. Cubans. Prove it steroid boy!!! I dare ya!! No talking points, left or right, just prove Cuba has such a great health care system. Tick tock, tick tock...

BTW... I said not BOR, he's just looking for ratings. Real proof please, I'm being nice... for now.

Gary

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. -- Tom Paine

no, you have missed the point

September 23, 2009 - 20:01 ET by lotr

This thread is not about one news network versus others.

Michael Moore is a polarizing figure, much like, say, Ann Coulter. The disparity in how they are treated, however, on most pop-media channels is striking, to say the least; this is demostrated in this latest promotion by the American Broadcast Company. Not to mention the utter hypocrisy and irony of two capitalistic ventures (Moore and, in this case, ABC) in bed with one another, scratching each others' back, yucking it up over the evil of capitalism.

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

The media is probably left

September 23, 2009 - 20:07 ET by Barry Bonds

The media is probably left leaning because most of the country is left leaning.

→ Who knows, Barry?

September 23, 2009 - 20:10 ET by Cool Arrow

I always thought I was left leaning because I grew up right handed.

And then he promptly headed

September 23, 2009 - 11:56 ET by Pha Pha

And then he promptly headed for the free buffet table and swallowed the whole thing, because he is embarrased by his fame and fortune.

Capitalism is misunderstood

September 23, 2009 - 12:08 ET by KC Mulville

Game theory has a great little routine called the Prisoner's Dilemma (it's worth a google). The whole point of the Prisoner's Dilemma is to reveal the surprising difference between how individuals reason vrs. how groups work. Situations that seem reasonable to individuals inevitably produce dysfunctional groups. The "invisible hand" is a staple of game theory. Groups "think" differently than individuals, even if groups are nothing but individuals interacting together.

If you don't appreciate the dynamics of individuals and groups, you can't understand capitalism.
The great paradox of capitalism is that the best way to maximize the welfare of all is for each individual to seek his own self-interest. That seems contradictory, but it isn't. One analogy is that economics is like crossing a river: if you want to get directly across the river, you can't swim straight at the target, because the river's current will push you away. So, to get there, you have to respect the current, and the best angle is to swim away from the target. Capitalism is similar: it seems strange that the best way to help your neighbor is to seek your own self-interest, but it's true.
Critics of capitalism mock the idea of pursuing self-interest as the first step in contributing to the maximum welfare of others, but that's their own short-sightedness. Capitalism is the theory about how that's exactly what happens.

I have no reason to believe that Michael Moore, based on his previous documentaries, has any grasp of those dynamics.

I disagree. I think he has

September 23, 2009 - 13:07 ET by G. May

I disagree. I think he has an intimate grasp of those dynamics. He's a businessman first and foremost, don't be fooled. He knows his market; it is well-defined and large enough for him to profit handsomely.

Using his own conclusions here, it's easy to see that Michael Moore obviously considers himself evil.

Another thing people fail

September 23, 2009 - 16:16 ET by mattm

Another thing people fail to understand is that economics is one thing, it works the same way regardless of the system imposed upon it. It operates according to immutable laws and constants.

Capitalism - in the context of a representative constitutional democracy/republic - is simply the economic system that seeks to operate with the laws, whereas socialism works against them.

In your river analogy capitalism would be illustrated by a person swimming at an upstream angle determined by the rate of flow and the distance across.

Socialism would be illustrated by trying to force people to go straight across and then complaining about the fact that people aren't hitting the target, and then forcing the capitalists who have crossed already to swim back and carry one or two others on their back as they re-cross the river.

insightful commentary KC

September 24, 2009 - 09:21 ET by lotr

Very interesting indeed. I'll have to check out that prisoner's dilemma at some point...

I just wish to clarify something you said by way of analogy:

"it seems strange that the best way to help your neighbor is to seek your own self-interest, but it's true."

Most folks out there have flown commercial at some point or another. When I was a newbie I found it curious that they would advocate that you put your own oxygen mask on first before helping others (and then show children on the film). Most of us are conditioned to think that we ought to take care of our children first. But a moment's consideration leads one to realize that the best way to take care of your children is to take care of yourself first! The same goes for capitalism, and KC's statment above, with the caveat that there is a Judeo-Christian ethos pervading the system. It is the loss of this last consideration that is the source of capitalism's woes.

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

To be clear

September 24, 2009 - 10:31 ET by KC Mulville

There's a difference between religious charity and how society deals with the poor. Religious charity is simply giving with no intention of return. But when a secular society tries to deal with the poor, that can't be sustained. Instead, the best way for a civil society to address its poor is to treat it as an investment. We need to expect a return.

That's where the pursuit of self-interest complements helping the poor. It has to be an investment. The investors win, and the local community wins.

Oddly enough, the simplest version I've ever heard of this philosophy came from Bobby Kennedy. I think he was campaigning in some poor area of Indiana, and he was outlining his plans for helping the poor. Someone in the crowd shouted, "Who's going to pay for all this?" RFK answered (bewildered by the obviousness of the answer): "You are."

Nobody wants to invest in poor areas, especially in the cities, because the environment is so toxic. Crime is rampant. Education is horrible. Corruption is endemic. The citizens trapped in that environment place no trust in society, for good reason. Sound familiar? That was Iraq. Therefore, I think the surge is a good model for recovery. You have to do all things simultaneously, because they all depend on each other. You have to aggressively attack crime, but also, you need a local government that lives up to the standards of what government is supposed to do.

The frustrating part is that the existing political power structure in poor areas shows no signs of changing. Local politicians get their power from the unwitting compliance of the poor -- that's a motive to keep them poor. We have to do something about that.

Jabba the hut

September 23, 2009 - 12:09 ET by jdlybrand

I thought he did an excellent job portraying himself in the "Star Wars" trilogy.

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

A contradiction

September 23, 2009 - 12:16 ET by Forbin001

Michael Moore is....a massive contradiction. He makes a movie that bashes health care in this country, yet he himself pays for it.

Then he makes a movie bashing capitalism, but capitalism is how he himself makes a living!! And to top it all off you have a BRAIN DEAD media that dosent call him to task on either of these things.

Lessons from Liberals

September 23, 2009 - 12:16 ET by realpatriot

It's perfectly OK for any liberal to invoke christianity, mention Jesus etc, as long as they do not mean what they are saying and are doing so to push their agendas, otherwise it is completely off base and against the law if a republican politician is doing so!!

And don't forget

September 23, 2009 - 13:43 ET by Snarkestra

that if anyone other than a liberal invokes Christianity, it's hate speech. You know, like Nativity scenes or saying "Merry Christmas" and any of those other hate-filled sentiments that liberals demand to be removed as they screech about tolerance for all peoples and all faiths.

Documentaries

September 23, 2009 - 12:17 ET by KC Mulville

Allow me to repeat my objections and warnings about documentaries:

Documentaries portray themselves as the final verdicts on any issue, but they aren't; they're merely one side's argument.
Documentaries are one perspective on an issue. There's nothing wrong with a point of view, so long as viewers know that there are others.
Documentaries often include the criticisms of others; however, the director controls how the criticisms are offered, and the director rebuts criticisms without allowing opponents to answer the rebuttal.

As always, but especially with documentaries ... caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

KC

September 23, 2009 - 13:48 ET by jdlybrand

I concur as did Mark Twain.

"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable"

and

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

Gee KC, people jumped all

September 23, 2009 - 15:47 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

Gee KC, people jumped all over me when I made this exact argument on Michael Moore no more than a few months ago (remember BT???) Funny how it's all but ignored when a conservative makes the statement, but when a liberal makes the same argument he's attacked for...well, I guess for being a liberal.

xoxo - Ted

→ Drupal

September 23, 2009 - 15:51 ET by Cool Arrow

I must've missed it.

KC says things a lot better'n you.

That's affirmative, Tex.

September 23, 2009 - 15:58 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

That's affirmative, Tex. You did not post on that page.

xoxo - Ted

If it makes you feel any better ...

September 23, 2009 - 19:07 ET by KC Mulville

We all get that now and then. We all make points that we think will rock the website, but then no seems to give a damn. And then later on, someone else makes the same basic point, and others rave about the other guy's wisdom.

But I can't complain. Let's face it, my criticism of documentaries is a complete theft ... I remember hearing that in college in a class on rhetoric. I'm now presenting it here, leaving people with the false impression that it was my idea. I'm kind of shameless that way. But why not? If something is true, it's public domain. You can't copyright truth, so use it freely!

I love when I read a story

September 23, 2009 - 12:18 ET by Barry Bonds

I love when I read a story and the writer doesn't interject his own feelings like when reading a Newsblunders story. You know you're making a weak point when you have to lead the reader into the direction you're trying to take them instead of the story doing that on its own merits.

I don't know why Michael Moore hates America. Doesn't he know it is Capitalism that has saved this country and nothing else. Doesn't he know it is our Right to watch people die so that other people might profit?

Mr. Moore, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Capitalism. You sir are the problem you and your love for poor people.

ABC noting the comments of critics regarding Mr. Moores film is irresponsible. They should have just lied and said that the people of America just don't like what he produces.

→ Swing and a whiff

September 23, 2009 - 12:24 ET by Cool Arrow

Maybe you should tell us "why Michael Moore hates America".

Stop being such a beggar.

What have you done for the

September 23, 2009 - 13:01 ET by G. May

What have you done for the poor?

"What have you done for

September 23, 2009 - 14:12 ET by ckc1227

"What have you done for the poor?"

For one, his low IQ makes them smarter by default whenever he's around them, so there's that. But who cares about that, I want to know the location of this collectivist utopia where people apparently live forever.

If Moore is so opposed to Capitalism

September 23, 2009 - 13:26 ET by realpatriot

Why didn't he just release this free in the theaters? OR give it away on DVD? Why is he trying to make a profit off a movie about the evils of profit making? Isn't he himself guilty of watching people die in his greedy intentions in turning a nickel. Why didn't he use the profits to build a hospital or help the poor. How many capitalistic malls is this playing in, evil money hungry movie theaters that charge ridiculous prices, or at malls that in their construction have destroyed perfectly green wooded areas, displaced people and animals, booted out small local businesses. When it's released on DVD, I am sure he won't allow it to be sold in capitalist businesses such and Wal-Mart, or K-mart or even Target. I am sure he will not allow his movie ads to run in newspapers and magazine sold to make a profit. I am sure every single one of his employees was paid equally regardless of the work they did, and his salary was no higher than the lowest key grip or assistant to the assistant editor. The very reason he made this movie was it's his job, to make money and make a profit, which to him is evil!!!

Allow me to demonstrate.

September 23, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Mike Sargent

I love trolls. They taste like...chicken excrement.

I think that metaphor needs a bit of work, but here's what I really came to say. It is painful, even on the confines of the internet, to read such sub-par psuedo-sarcasm as this. I have come to expect a much higher quality of trolling from liberals, as they've had eight years to practice, and I've had only eight months.

You see, Barry, I expect much more inventive invective, more volumnous vitriol from someone who takes the time to read, consider, sign up for NewsBusters' posting privileges, wait for approval, and then compose a reply which was meant, by a very low standard, to be witty.

You know that a troll is a useless, small person when they put that much time and effort into composing such worthless comments as yours. And how worthless is your post, you ask? If a your comment were a sitcom, it would be preemptively canceled. If it were a newscast, it would be co-hosted by Mike Barnicle and the third guy from the Three Tenors (nobody ever remembers who he is...). If it were a movie, its script would be written by the same guy who wrote Troll II, it would be directed by Michael Bay, edited by Napoleon Dynamite (a character so inept, he could not actually exist in reality), and released into theaters on the same weekend as The Dark Knight.

This post, personified, would create a being so gloriously stupid as to make Tom Freidman look like Stephen Hawking by comparison. Twitter has a perfect avatar for you, known as the "Fail Whale," for use when the Twitter network dies. You are not simply not funny, you are a tear in the humor space-time continuum, swallowing up all humor around you -- the absolute, undeniable opposite of all things which cause normal human beings to crack a grin.

If you're gonna troll, do it right :D

Poetry.

September 23, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Barry Bonds

Poetry. Complete and utter poetry.

Does it add to the discussion in any way? No. But it is poetry none the less.

Does it refute anything I have written? Of course not. But it's still poetry.

Keep carrying that water your poetic zombie!

troll spawn

September 23, 2009 - 19:46 ET by lotr

"Does it refute anything I have written? Of course not."

Um, pardon me for asking, but just what exactly did you write that requires refuting? That you have a man-crush on the capitalist extraordinaire Michael Moore? That is plainly evident and is not open to refutation. Congratulations.

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

On refuting

September 24, 2009 - 05:00 ET by Vivaldi5

True observation, lotr, about the "man-crush." But I believe it's only content with actual substance that is capable of being refuted. Barry Bondage doesn't do substance too well, unless it's bogus statements like "Rush is your leader" and "Which quantitative measure would you like me to use in order to 'prove' that Rush is the leader of your party?" which he never gets around to backing up despite repeatedly being asked.

Much of the time, Bondage prudently stays away from anything representing a rational contribution to this forum. Mike Sargent had it right when he observed of Barry that "You know that a troll is a useless, small person when they put that much time and effort into composing such worthless comments as yours."

All Bondage could say in response was that Mike's post was "poetry." I'd also call it spot-on, perceptive analysis expressed with wit and flair. For that matter, one could also say that of your comment. But wit and flair are two qualities no one has ever detected in any of Bondage's output.

thanks Vivaldi

September 24, 2009 - 09:24 ET by lotr

And thanks for that background info. I was not familiar with this particular individual and thought he was new to the scene.

"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews

Hate-Hate Relationship

September 23, 2009 - 12:38 ET by DoktorFranken

"Well, love him or loathe him, you got to give it to Michael Moore. He gets involved. He's a real citizen."

I, for one, loathe MM just as he loathes the economic system in which he is able to make his living. And I am wishing he were a citizen of a Socialist country because the likelihood of him creating the garbage that he has would be next to nil.

MM is involved to the extent that he found his niche - complaining for the big bucks.

love him or hate him

September 23, 2009 - 14:57 ET by realpatriot

"Well, love him or loathe him, you got to give it to Michael Moore. He gets involved. He's a real citizen." -

which is all fine and dandy as long as it is on topics we here at the MSM agree with god forbid you call the president a liar or speak out against the government when you disagree with the direction it is going or their policies or eh... erm.. when its a democratic president that is...then it's just plain rude.

Boy, talk about throwing

September 23, 2009 - 12:41 ET by Bettendor

Boy, talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Describing a movie that is basically an attack on capitalism as "Christian" is just missing the boat completely. The Bible does not say that capitalism itself and free markets were evil, but the love of money was evil (see 1 Timothy 6:10).

The Bible actually speaks fondly of people working to support themselves. Paul worked as a tentmaker as he travelled to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. Jesus Himself was a carpenter. Neither, from what I read, were ever supported by the state. In fact, Paul teaches that anyone who does not work should not eat or be associated with by the church in order that "he may feel ashamed" (see 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15).

Oh, and Barry Bonds, the point of this "Newsblunders" article is to point the immense promotion that ABC was doing of this movie and how it has not done the same for movies promoting a more free market approach. It's about fairness, my friend.

"You just don't get it." - Pa Grape, "Veggietales"

Check out my blog.

The problem that this

September 23, 2009 - 13:02 ET by fitzfong

The problem that this lard-assed piece of crap avoids addressing is the fact that businesses are not in business to create jobs and provide "health care" for the employees they can simply hire and pay "living wages" to (the proceeds of which come out of thin air, apparently). Businesses are in business to deliver on consumer demand...and to the extent that they do deliver, they can create jobs to handle the increasing demand and give the employees the means to live and provide their own health care. It's when the government, the unions, the "environmentalists, the trial lawyers and the rest of the parasite class attach themselves to the businesses forcing costs up before the revenues to cover those costs are realized that jobs and health benefits are lost. The reason that "permalancers" exist at ABC is that ABC is not deriving the revenue necessary to cover the excessive labor costs that hiring these people full-time would cause.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best

maybe someone can tell me

September 23, 2009 - 13:15 ET by theduck6

but is there another "film maker" that has a cottage industry built around his piles of poo showing the inaccuracies, misstatements, misrepresentations and outright lies he propagates?

Morgan Spurlock comes to

September 23, 2009 - 13:43 ET by fitzfong

Morgan Spurlock comes to mind. Another complete douche.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best

SICKO...

September 23, 2009 - 13:14 ET by kengie

The move is being played out now, it is very insightful and a must see to really understand why we need reform. Many people I've talked to don't like M Moore personally, but say his movie Sicko makes sense.

SO what ever happened

September 23, 2009 - 13:25 ET by theduck6

to those vets he claims wanted to be treated in Cuba because their medical treatment was so bad here? WHy does HE chose to live here be treated here and prosper from capitalism here, all the while complaining about it?

You have to watch a Moore film with an educated ear and skeptical eye. He cuts in answers to questions that were never asked of the people in the clips. In short, he's a lying sack of slippery, slimy, Siberian sheep sh*&.

he's a lying sack of ...

September 23, 2009 - 14:56 ET by RayRay

that's what I figured when even Christopher Hitchins referred to Moore as "a scumbag" in an inteview on C-SPAN some time ago

→ kengie

September 23, 2009 - 13:34 ET by Cool Arrow

As you rave in your nakedness among the tombs of Gadera, have you considered those voices you hear might be inside your head?

My nakedness???

September 23, 2009 - 14:28 ET by kengie

Actually...they are "shoutouts and a **WINK**"... you bettcha!

" I can see Russia from my porch" ~ Sarah Palin

→ kengie

September 23, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Cool Arrow

Please provide a link to your quote from Sarah Palin.

You're not lying again, are you? I know incorrect attribution is commonplace among liberals, so I shouldn't be surprised.

But give it a shot, kengie. Is your quote correct?

The quote was not made by Sarah. Kengie you are a first class

September 23, 2009 - 14:49 ET by pahuber

tool : )

Thanks for being our funny villiage idiot w/ your slapstick assininity.

You make us feel so much better knowing that most of those with your ideology are about as accurate as you are.

Going for ignorant quote of the week?

ignorant quote of the week?

September 23, 2009 - 14:55 ET by katainkent

competition is thick. Kengie will have to work harder, perhaps even get banned, before he can achieve troll greatness again.

____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes

There's an easy explanation

September 23, 2009 - 13:49 ET by fitzfong

There's an easy explanation for that. When you bring economic illiterates to a Michael Moore movie, Moore plays on their ignorance to "make sense". It's not particularly difficult to capitalize on economic illiteracy through overly simplified deceit...no matter what the stated ideology of the economic illiterate is. This tactic has worked for Moore and it's worked for the incompetent Marxist currently squatting in the White House.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best

If Moore hates capitalism so

September 23, 2009 - 13:22 ET by goldbough

If Moore hates capitalism so much, I hope he is sending all his money to the federal or state government. He apparently thinks they can do a better job managing that money.

Moore - ...and surprisingly religious passion."

September 23, 2009 - 13:31 ET by vrwc13

...and surprisingly religious passion." ...does not equal Christianity.

...committed to justice for the poor and the disenfranchised, scorning a system that produces such inequality." ...Jesus said the poor will always be with us, and systems don't produce inequality, people do.

...Like some angry overweight prophet of our times, ...more like a Pharasee.

Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for…”

This documentary is not

September 23, 2009 - 13:38 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

This documentary is not "deeply Christian" it's deeply worldly Marxism.

not "deeply Christian" it's deeply worldly Marxism

September 23, 2009 - 13:43 ET by vrwc13

...just ploy to get the "Passion" crowd to spend their money on his cr#p.

Money better spent on The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry.

Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for…”

Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy

September 23, 2009 - 13:35 ET by c5then

Moore, as well as many people, confuse individual charity with forced group charity. Of course forced "charity" isn't really charity at all. Moore wants the government to force people to do what he wants them to do, which of course is tyranny not liberty. Moore's OK with that because he thinks that he'll be on the privileged side and not the oppressed side.

Meanwhile capitalism and personal liberty in a Republic catapulted a rag-tag group of 13 colonies with just the barest infrastructure to the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the earth in just 100 years. Think about that! Our experience with socialism has shown it to do almost the opposite in a shorter period of time.

Throw 'da bums out!!!

no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!

www.loyaltoliberty.com

If I had no other context by which to judge him, I would be

September 23, 2009 - 13:38 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt

thoroughly disgusted by his obvious lack of self-control, as evidenced by his gargantuan weight, and his total lack of decorum; showing up to public functions in a baseball cap and sneakers.

Arrested adolesence.

I was shocked to read that

September 23, 2009 - 14:10 ET by even steven

I was shocked to read that Moore had made another movie. I thought he already died of congestive heart failure.

After-Premiere Party

September 23, 2009 - 14:17 ET by slickwillie2001

Great post on the Moore movie and the decadent bacchanalia that followed:

"Following the Premiere, Esquire shuttles many of the attendees straight down to SoHo to the opening of The Esquire Apartment -- a fully decadent penthouse where every square inch is paid for by a luxury sponsor. Hot tub, $120k pool table, $60k home theater, fine food. The only thing lacking was a doormat saying “Welcome To Capitalism.”

I had fun….But ooooh the irony. Everyone I talked to was like, “man, this is the most bizarre combination. I bet Michael Moore would freak out if he saw that this was happening.”….And then he showed up. And was eating it up. And then one of the families from the film came."

Anti-Capitalist and All-You-Ca-Eat Buffet Addicted Filmmaker... : http://www.weaselzippers.net

There's also a disgusting picture of Moore there. One of his thighs is as big as Hillary's butt.

When Moore's movie attacking

September 23, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Constant

When Moore's movie attacking capitalism itself comes out to rave reviews and wide applause (among liberals) I hope that it will finally be okay to call them socialists without them saying that's a lie. Probably not, but it's nice to dream.

just wait until THIS movie comes out

September 23, 2009 - 15:06 ET by RayRay

usually, Hollywood portrays the US president (as well as CIA and military) as evil. But when Klinton was King, they came out with Harrison Ferd in 'Air Force One' where the pres was the good-guy action hero.

So you know that the whole town is awash now with eagerness over making movies about how a black president conquers all the evil of the world -- you know, the white conservatives/"racists".

Hey Moran.. put the shoe on the other foot..

September 23, 2009 - 15:25 ET by Gary Hall

Let's try that again, Mr. Terry Moran:

"Well, love ~~him~~ them or loathe ~~him~~ them, you got to give it to ~~Michael Moore~~ these newly involved citizens protesting against government takeover. He They get involved. ~~He's a~~ They are real citizens."

Balance - the ability to see - is so easy. That is, if you're not a biased quack.

(;~/ gary

So Michael Moore has taken a vow of poverty?

September 23, 2009 - 17:19 ET by laree

ABC lauds his new movie- really? So Michael Moore is going to give all the profits from his new movie to the masses, excuse me the collective? A chimp throwing feces gets people's attention too. But after awhile it loses it's shock value too.