Buh . . . but . . . I thought Michael Moore didn't care about profits!

He's an American crusader!

Get the truth out!

The little guy!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/02/michael-moore-harvey-weinstein-fahrenheit-911.html

(I don't care about someone seeking what they feel they are rightfully entitled to. I just laugh that this guy who paints himself - and is held up by others - as some kind of altruistic soul, wants his damn money just like the rest of us)

 

Yep, and Al Gore turns the lights on in his house so he can't care about the environment. At least the wingnuts have something to talk about for the next four days in hopes that Rep. Ripped Biceps fades and Rep. Don't Call Me Boner Boehner tries to dodge the National Enquirer.

 

My point was more about the idealistic narrative that people like to assign to their heroes or people who produce work they enjoy. Again, Moore should seek what is his, even if that pokes a hole in his preferred narrative.

But any chance to do the whole "WINGNUTS!!!!" dance, will obviously not be allowed to pass.

 

Your point was that Michael Moore likes to be paid for his work and therefore he is a hypocrite because he tried to do something meaningful with said work and therefore should forgo any claim to profits. That is a stupid and lame point.

 

Who considers Michael Moore a hero? He's hated by the right far more than he's beloved by the left.

Nice trolling, though, Peter.

 

On behalf of Sportsjournalists.com, I would like to ask you two knuckleheads to take this to a PM.

 

I never thought Moore was a guy who worked for free. I don't know who did. And this works with the narrative some assign to him as he's fighting a corporation.

 

No one said he works for free, or that he should. They do say that he's out to educate, with profits secondary to that mission. The fact that, six years later, he's asking for MORE money is worth noting.

Nice point regarding the corporation.

The final demise of the Politics board removed a very interesting thread that would dispute this. And even if he's "more hated by the right than beloved by the left," that would make me ask: who is paying to see his films? And why would intense hatred from conservatives negate the idea of love from the left?

He is quite admired as a filmmaker, and rightfully so. He knows how to make a point, even if it's not the usual detached "documentary" style. Let's not act like he doesn't have an intense fan base.

It's amazing to have one's posts so completely misread on a site for journalists.

 

What does he do with his money?

What would Weinstein do with it?

 

Your headline says you "thought Michael Moore didn't care about profits!" You've since been forcedto back off that and had to admit that "no one said he works for free or that he should." Now who's misreading and misleading?

All in all, a really dumb thread and a poor attempt at the end-around of the ban on political discussion, using the No. 1 symbol of what conservatives like to think all people who didn't vote for George W. Bush are about. Maybe you could close it up with the picture of John Kerry hunting.

 

And here we see an attempt to return to the narrative, which I have been told doesn't exist.

Who cares? It's Moore's money. And if the court finds that it's Weinstein's, he can do with it as he pleases.

I suppose these things are there if you have them in your head before reading, and then don't actually bother to read.

Please stop trying to bring politics into this thread in a transparent, shameless attempt to get it locked.

 

I consider myself more left than right. And Michael Moore is a douchebag on this side of the fence, too.