Michael Moore is a 99%'er

[jsc]

Michael Moore is a 99%'er. Just ask him.

Then ask about his vacation home:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abreitbart/2011/11/10/exclusive-photos-michael-moores-massive-michigan-vacation-mansion-beyond-99-percents-wildest-dreams/

 

[mjmjpfaff]

he is a big fat hypocrite, but we already knew that.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

So much irony with that being from Breitbart... Speaking of hypocrites...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The guys a creep, making money off of people that waste their money on his tripe

 

[chunkymonster]

Yeah, Michael Moore is 99%'er just like the Olive Garden is real Italian food.

 

[jsc]

So much irony with that being from Breitbart... Speaking of hypocrites...

Irony? Please explain how Breitbart is a hyprocrite.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

Irony? Please explain how Breitbart is a hyprocrite.

He was a huge progressive advocate before he one day woke up and became a Libertarian, now he has just become a celebrity for them.

Not to mention Andrew Breitbart is filthy rich as well, and him pointing out the success of an independent film producer is laughable at best. Michael Moore is great at framing his films on a very firm slant, a slant that has always spoken for the general public. Anyone from Michigan (generally) has seen 'Roger and Me' and it's detailing of GM's impact on Flint, Michigan, where I went to college; I'd start there.

Andrew Breitbart's History

He's about as reputable as Sean Hanity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any other "talking head." He's not a journalist and doesn't produce anything independently.

I'll ask this:

What has he actually contributed towards the discussion other than being on par with the mainstream media pundits or just raising talking points?


PS
Here was a piece from last month that I thought was pretty funny talking about the OWS protests. He's about as fringe-right-wing-conspiracy-talker as you can get.

 

[chunkymonster]

He was a huge progressive advocate before he one day woke up and became a Libertarian, now he has just become a celebrity for them.

I believe the functional phrase is Breitbart "woke up" from being a progressive and turned Libertarian.

Not to mention Andrew Breitbart is filthy rich as well, and him pointing out the success of an independent film producer is laughable at best. Michael Moore is great at framing his films on a very firm slant, a slant that has always spoken for the general public. Anyone from Michigan (generally) has seen 'Roger and Me' and it's detailing of GM's impact on Flint, Michigan, where I went to college; I'd start there.

Andrew Breitbart's History

He's about as reputable as Sean Hanity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any other "talking head." He's not a journalist and doesn't produce anything independently.

I'll ask this:

What has he actually contributed towards the discussion other than being on par with the mainstream media pundits or just raising talking points?


PS
Here was a piece from last month that I thought was pretty funny talking about the OWS protests. He's about as fringe-right-wing-conspiracy-talker as you can get.

So as to save yourself from outright hypocrisy, do you embrace the quantifiable omnipresent liberal media bias? Or, do you apply the same standard to such liberal media notables like Ezra Klein, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Rachael Maddow who's journolistic styles are just as questionable and who's wealth are just as impressive?

Truly tho, I think your comments are better reserved for Alex Jones that Breitbart.

And, not for nothing, Roger and Me was an excellent film, but Moore jumped the shark when he did Bowling for Columbine; Sicko gets an honorable mention.

 

[jsc]

Thanks guys, saved me the trouble.

Around about the time of "Bowling for Columbine", here is antigunner Michael Moore:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3734673664/nm0601619

Can you spell "hypocrisy"? "H-Y-P ... ".

Breitbart, on the other hand, is a successful liberal. He grew up.

 

[wanamingo]

Thanks guys, saved me the trouble.

Around about the time of "Bowling for Columbine", here is antigunner Michael Moore:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3734673664/nm0601619

Can you spell "hypocrisy"? "H-Y-P ... ".

Breitbart, on the other hand, is a successful liberal. He grew up.

lol Micheal Moore is a member of the NRA (No not the National Restaurant Association).

Also we know he is part of the 1%, so is the pope.......

 

[l0ckd0wn]

So as to save yourself from outright hypocrisy, do you embrace the quantifiable omnipresent liberal media bias? Or, do you apply the same standard to such liberal media notables like Ezra Klein, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Rachael Maddow who's journolistic styles are just as questionable and who's wealth are just as impressive?

Truly tho, I think your comments are better reserved for Alex Jones that Breitbart.

And, not for nothing, Roger and Me was an excellent film, but Moore jumped the shark when he did Bowling for Columbine; Sicko gets an honorable mention.

Ezra Klein: Younger than myself, I've never followed him or had any real interest. Can't see how he compares to someone 2x his age.
Aranna Huffington: Another great example of someone jumping ship as well, but I rarely read HuffPo and have yet to quote the site even once on here.
Paul Krugman: A Nobel prize winning economist; not sure when exactly he was Republican, the majority of everything I've read by him is all quite progressive/liberal.
Maureen Dowd: Worked for the NYT since like 83. Not sure how she is supposed to be a representation of the GOP/Conservatives.
Rachael Maddow: What about her? She's had some questionable stories, but all her facts are always there; the same could not be said for her equivalents though, particuarly Beck (Pre-Fox booting) and Sean Hanity.

I agree Alex Jones is pretty crazy too.

A current day reporter I read quite frequently; constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald.

But it's fine, defend Breitbart all you like, he's great at rabble-rousing, name calling and finger pointing, I mean look at how worked up you guys got over Michael Moore. Rather than cover real, meaningful information, he snoops around gathering information on people he's trying to defame. Why else would he have a whole expose about the guy? Oh that's right, because Michael Moore has bad mouthed Breitbart and since then the guy has been on a mission. Great "reporting."

BTW, I didn't know that because he had money that Michael Moore couldn't speak up for the little guy? Him and Dylan Ratigan (along with Rachael Maddow and Glenn Greenwald) are quite vocal for the average person and are not business sympathizers, thus the vocal support of the majority.

Also, last I checked Michael Moore was also a self-made millionaire, same as Breitbart, so I guess Michael Moore shouldn't be proud of his own fortune?

lol Micheal Moore is a member of the NRA (No not the National Restaurant Association).

Also we know he is part of the 1%, so is the pope.......

For real. I don't get the equating of being rich means you have to think like the rest of the 1%. 2 names: Warren Buffet & George Soros (and please don't give me any Beck material on Soros, it's so misguided).


Also, this was one of my favorite videos of Breitbart. - Like Oldmangamer, Andrew loves semantics.


Which brings me back to this:

I'll ask this:

What has he actually contributed towards the discussion other than being on par with the mainstream media pundits or just raising talking points?

This wasn't rhetorical.

 

[jsc]

Also, last I checked Michael Moore was also a self-made millionaire, same as Breitbart, so I guess Michael Moore shouldn't be proud of his own fortune?

Certainly, he should be. But get him in front of OWS, and why does he misrepresent himself?

 

[l0ckd0wn]

Certainly, he should be. But get him in front of OWS, and why does he misrepresent himself?

As what? Because he relates to the problems of the people there? I didn't know empathy was a bad thing, nor did I think remembering where you came from and how you got there as bad things either.