Makes me laugh and want to gouge my eyes out at the same time. I give props to Moore causing such a strange mixture of comedy and disgust.

i haven't seen any of his other stuff, so far my first impressions are that he's cringey and perhaps a bit heavy handed in the way he presents information.
he's making some interesting points though, but i'm not sure on his views on the bank bail outs. wether they were democratic or not, i suppose it's open to debate wether they actually helped the economy..

money

OP here
I agree with Moores points, but...he always acts annoyingly smug.

Wow, I just watched this at a friend's house yesterday. There is so much I laughed at, especially that part where he uses Japanese/German car industries being rebuilt and hurting the American car industry to somehow criticize capitalism. Yea, like that isn't capitalism in itself, you goddamn blowhard.

He pretended like junior pilots weren't junior pilots but seniors being paid shit. Which isn't true. And even if they were paid that badly, they aren't forced to be pilots and could be something else and then the airlines would have to raise the wadges to get more pilots, that's how capitalism works.

I'm a liberal fag btw, but not as crazy as MM.

didn't watch it all but the Citigroup memo is real, the Walmart life insurance policies were real but they stopped using them years ago.(still fucking creepy and scandalous) everything else falls under partially true and over dramatic.

It's not really anti-capitalism so much as anti-corporatism

Sicko is better

You want a real documentary watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0979263/

the buddy -buddy shit with Wall st and the white house is true but pretty much nothing you can do about it

Moore doesn't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

>>1040888
more like he assumes the average person doesn't(which is true) and frontloads it all into a single buzz word

>implying Germany and Japan are "socialist"

Moore >Capitalism sucks! Pay money to see my movie and pay for my luxurious lifestyle.

>>1040956
If a Tea Partier looked at Japan, they'd probably call it a socialist hellhole, yet it's one of the most capitalistic countries on the planet.

trying to find more info on the top 1% have 95% wealth or whatever he claimed.

Moore is good at what he does. Don't always agree with him, and sometimes twists things to >IMPLY IMPLICATIONS but he's damn good at what he does.

>>1040861
There's a difference?

Great film.

Delicious butthurt and delusional Capitalist tears.

Canadian Bacon and Bowling for Columbine are his best pieces of work.

Roger and Me best

Hes a really good filmmaker, but he should stop calling his movies documentaries, there is some level of objectivity inherent with that profession and type of film, Moores movies are biased as ffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

I don't even know where to begin with this piece of work.

I watched it with a group of my friends, and we made a contest of pointing out falsities, persuasive tactics, and other elements of the movie that indicate it's a piece of propaganda. Pausing it between discussions on how wrong it was ended up extending the movie watching by probably an hour - sometimes points had to be brought in in gaps of seconds.

It frightens me greatly to think that people might actually take this propaganda piece at face value and are actually convinced to hate capitalism when there is never any critique of capitalism ever in the movie, only corporatism! Michael Moore could have made such a strong and correct point with using corporatism, but instead he preferred to use this documentary as just a means to the ends of pushing Socialism.

this is probably the best thing he's directed since his TV Nation series in the 90s. I thought it was very good at exposing the frailty of the banksters' "authority".

>>1041037
>of pushing Socialism

He isn't a Socialist.

>>1041037
If you could turn that critical eye to your every day life, then you might end up actually being non-retarded for much longer.

>>1041037
so many specifics in your post!

>My face when 'dead peasants' insurance.

Hahahahaaaa! Nice work with that medieval corporate serfdom, america.

I think it gave some mixed messages.

Capitalism = Good
Corporatism = Bad, an example of Capitalism when it's not regulated properly.

It seemed like it was trying to say the whole Capitalist system was bad, when really it's only bad when there's no real control on how much power is distributed.

>>1041037
>Pausing it between discussions

wow you guys sound like an awesome bunch of fags

the old US propaganda videos he dug up basically showing capitalism=nationalism were fucking classic

>>1041061
all liberals are socialist

>>1041072
yea that shits bothersome. Considering my company insures its equipment in case of destruction, do the same for employees seems to draw a parallel

people=equipment

>>1041077
>Implying that people didn't think corporatism wasn't an inevitable and laudable component of capitalism before the epic failure.

Keep clutching at them straws, cappie.

For the people thinking it was anti-capitalist: It wasn't.

The point of the love story was to show that Moore liked the idea of capitalism, but hated how the U.S. is turning into a nationalist and corporatist based economic system.

>>1041115
Conservatives still believe that, which is why they like tax breaks for companies investing money earned here overseas.

Corporate interests = US interests.

The name of the movie should be "Keynesians: A love story"

>>1041152
>For the people thinking it was anti-capitalist: It wasn't.

It was clearly and blatantly anti-capitalist. Only those capable of thinking afterwards can come to a conclusion that it is in fact anti-corporatist.

The way it was presented bashed capitalism, presented corporatism as capitalism, and in that sense the film was dead wrong.

>>1041155
Michael Moore probably believes in those old Protectionist ideas more than any conservative.

>>1041155

Corporate interests != Societys interests

>>1041152
>anti-capitalist: It wasn't.

"Capitalism is evil."

Try watching the fucking material before you comment on it. Then again you cappies are getting pretty fucking desperate these days.

>>1040888
yeah but politicians support corporatism

it's entertaining, but they're really just garbage

>>1041219
They support whoever has the largest bribes.. I mean campaign donations.

Seriously, this shit's ridiculous. There ought to be a law, and there is, but Congress exempts itself from all ethics legislation.

It's quite a piece of propaganda and all, but I get that the main point is that capitalism is a good thing, but it got derailed in the US.

I find that his main point was that the democracy is no longer. Companises can do whatever they see fit, the pointless gambling taking place in wall street fucked the country for nothing and ultimately the people paid the price and was not even entitled to ask questions.

It's not anti-capitalist and accusing it of socialism is merely branding something so it will be more easely hated by those who want to hate it from the first place.

free market mutha fucka!

>>1041350
>but I get that the main point is that capitalism is a good thing, but it got derailed in the US.

Then you were watching it with your head in a bucket of sand.

Seriously, cappies. You are going to have to try a hell of a lot fucking harder than this. It's getting embarrasing.

>>1041396
The main point is, capitalism was to be a free system that allows all people to have a chance to persue their hapiness.

It now functions in a system where everyone's lifes are centered in working and if there is no regulation stoping the corporations, they will fuck you over and sideways and make you pay for it.

Can anyone disagree with this?

this movie is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the general public today

>>1041444
>implying your "above it all" and not a typical hourly wage earner living with your parents

>>1041467
>your

>>1041472
>Oh crap, an argument I can't counter
>I'll just criticize his spelling, nobody will notice.

Let's stick to the argument, shall we?

>>1041467

no, im "above it all" because i know the actual definition of ideals i decide to criticize and dont go around buzzing "capitalism" everywhere like some sort of douche tard hippie

Hate Michael Moore, can never watch any of his films.

>>1041442
I would agree that that was Moore's point.
I would disagree with the validity of it

>>1042078
>I would disagree with the validity of it
Well... Look around?

>>1042118
Yes the results would be damning if your premise was true. There are plenty of regulations in place (and more are being put into place every year). The problem is that the govt. has the power to destroy or prop up individual companies or even entire industries through regulation and handouts.

Has some decent ideas, but goes so idealistically over-the-top with them that he practically kills his own credibility. It's like watching a novice debater trying to formulate arguments without reverting to manifesto.

My favorite Moore film was Sicko, mostly because he was on camera less than any of his other movies. I despise documentary makers who feel they, not the issue or subject at hand, are the stars. There was also scraps of real journalism, not his regular ambush tactics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9tGywMwjoA&playnext_from=TL&videos=tLDBabEMhOg&feature=s
ub

NEWS FLASH

>>1042182
Not if the government was a true democracy, where the people have a voice and have power, where the leader is elected with legitimacy and the people have the power to oust him should he fail his oath.

Which was sort of the point on 9/11, I guess.

If the people holds the government and it, in turn, holds the economy and the corporations, they are unable to fuck the people in anyway they choose.

The problem is, the people barely control the government and the economy is being de-regulated systematically since reagan. The movie focuses on the second point, but I hope for one on the first, in the future.

I don't care for him because he is always so smug when on camera. He is a cocky fuck and it makes me want to slice his belly open. Even on news interviews he has this fucking attitude that just angers me whenever I see him or hear him speak.

>>1042218
Well i would argue that today we operate as a representative democracy which is closer to a "true democracy" then the constitutional republic we supposedly are. But I'm not quite sure what the argument your making is are you suggesting that giving the govt the power to propup or destroy businesses/industries is a good thing as long as they only operate when a popular majority would agree?

Certain de-regulations have taken place but many new ones have also been but in place the economy is still quite heavily regulated and influenced by government spending and restrictions. This being the case I think blaming capitalism as a whole for the economy's problems is a bit foolhardy. Certain aspects of the capitalist system we have in place are not good, but what exactly these problems are is a whole different arguement

Fat faggot who misleads his viewers via editing and faux facts.

He is basically the leftist version of Fox News but in documentary form.

GOOD DOCUMENTARY. MIKE DOES A GOOD JOB POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS CORRUPTION.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. VOTE ACCORDINGLY THIS NOVEMBER,

>>1041442

I can disagree with you because your wrong.

>>1042324
I'm not blaming capitalism, but if the system allows banks to get money from taxpayers to fix shit up, leaving the people unable BY LAW to ask ANY questions about it, then we have a problem.

Speaking in simple terms, the capitalist system exists to provide all with a good living, and it failed to do so, not by it's nature, but by those who are within it.

That means that those who are within it need to change the way they are playing, and since that doesn't equate directly in making a profit, companies need to be forced to do so.