It takes a certain genius to find your niche target, develop a product, market it, and then make millions off of it.
And yet, I find it quite idiotic to throw political support for someone who will take all of those hard-won earnings away in higher taxes to the millionares.
The ancient Supreme court once pointed out in a ruling that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” Taxing weighs the initiative of the working against the hungers of the political beauracracy. While a certain amount of government is needed, cases abound about how waste and corruption destroy the wealth of our nation. Taxing should be structured to encourage the best workers, and work motivators from around the world to live amongst us and contribute here, in the land of the free.
Each of the major party candidates have major weaknesses, yet their stated policies differ mainly in tax policy. Their running mates both exhibit greater personal ambition than ability for the nation as well. Highly reminiscent of another recent administration.
He stands to make about 100 million on this movie. Genius.
no, he is not a genius, or an idiot.
he is a complete idiot.
Just think if lived somewhere like N. Korea or China…Off with his head!!! :lol:
just because you think he is wrong does not make him an idiot. similarly, just because someone else thinks he is right doesnt make him a genius. making a politcal propaganda movie is neither genius nor idiot. perhaps the first person to ever do it could have an argument for genius, but by now, its simply applying an old idea to a new situation. he hasnt done anything in his movies factually that was new or shocking, it was simply the same old “facts” and “statistics” that are thrown around by all the other sources. the only difference is he manages to make his mildly entertaining. i hate him, and i disagreed entirely with “Bowling for Columbine” but i found it entertaining. all he is, is a fat, asshole, political activist who has some skill with movie making, thats all. he is neither genius nor idiot.
I don’t care what you think of him or his movies. He made something like 30 million personally off this movie. Genius.
NO! making money does not make you a genius. jesus christ yanny, i just said the same thing “it doesnt matter what you think of his movies”
disagreeing with me makes you an idiot. :lol:
the opposite of wise would be foolish i think, but definetly not idiot.
Well, an idiot would be an ignorant, or brutish-type of person. He might not necessarily be foolish; in fact, he might be very clever or wily, thus making him ignorant, but not foolish.
Whipping out my Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook, the definitive source on attribute definitions :lol: :wink: .
Intelligence: How well someone learns and reasons. I consider high intelligence to the definition of genius.
Wisdom: Common sense, perception, and intuition. Less academic, more “street”, such abilities are not a requirement for being a genius.
An idiot has to have low intelligence, however, that person’s wisdom could be anything. A fool has to have low wisdom, but that person’s intelligence could be anything. Animals are idiots, but often possess a killer instinct and exeptional perception, so thier wisdom would be relatively high (they lack common sense and certain forms of intuiton, though, so not that high).
Michael Moore has a high wisdom. He understands intuitively how to create a product that will attract audiences, and has a knack for making even the most innocent events appear sinister. Often, though, his anaylsis of the information is pathetic, and his conclusions, even with the evidence he provides, are not believable. As such, i would not put his intellignec very higher. Only average.
Moore can succeed, but by that definition, George Bush would be a genius, becuase he is president of the most powerful nation in the world. Thats success in my book, but even i know that Bush is not particularly bright. His intelligence is only slightly above average.
Ahh so idiocy is merely ignorance. Good to know that! Anyway if that’s true wouldn’t that make Dubya an idiot, as he was ignorant when it came to whether Iraq had WMDs. So in that sense wouldn’t Moore’s criticism be correct even if its not always 100% right.
It always comes back to W. for you, doesn’t it? I’m not even going to bother to reply, it won’t get anywhere. Look to CY’s definition, it’s better than mine
its more than taking a shot when someone devotes an entire movie to why he hates and thinks you are an idiot.
i think the entire smear-campaign idea is excessive. i loathe this part of politics. personally, i think that neither side should be allowed negative campaigning, only positive, because you shouldnt have to make your opponent look bad to beat him. if you cant on your own, you dont deserve the position. however, i also think that if one side does engage in it, its acceptable for the other to do so.
keep in mind the following
1. the attack ads on kerry’s record come from people who served with him, not people who simply question his record. lying or telling the truth they may be, but they do have first-hand knowledge whether they share it or not
2. they are not affilated with GWB. the connection with the republican party is insofar as they were funded by one wealthy republican, not connected with the bush campaign.
3. moore’s movie (and the similar detractors using the same threads) came before the ads.
4. Bush’s war record has been attacked as well.
i dont think either side should do it, but if kerry’s side will, i think bush can too. fair is fair
how is michael moore any more credible then Bush? why should bush be expected to outcry about swiftvets when kerry doesnt about moore?
negative campaigning is anything that has to do with the other candidate in my opinion. any criticisms should be saved for debates, when you are face to face. all campaign ads and anything else should simply be promoting one candidate, not attacking, discrediting, or defaming another. during election season (at least) any ads that attack one or another candidate should not be allowed, whether they are independents or tied to a particular campaign.
of course bush decries the movie specifically about him, it must be tremendously insulting to have a movie made attacking you. but he would naturally have far less personal feelings about something attacking kerry. i dont think either should be allowed in election season, but when it does happen, you cant expect one candidate to care too much about the other
Neither.
I said genius though, he certainly knows how to get a point across.
you guys are kinda geting off topic.
Oh well; we had mostly beat the old topic to death anyway :P.
But unlike SwiftVets Moore didn’t get any politically motivated funding to make his film
difference: the swiftvets made a commercial, which doesnt make money, only costs money. they needed funding. moore, making a movie, especially since he had made “successful” movies in the past, would obviously find it easier to find non-politically motivated funding, because it would turn a big profit for whoever funded him, they wouldnt care what the message was.
So one could argue that had there not been an election the SwiftVets would not have surfaced,
well DUH. what the heck is your point? if kerry werent running, who would care what his war record was, good or bad? no one! the only reason it makes any difference at all is because he is running for office.
but that Moore would’ve still made his film.
yes, for the same reason that swiftvets made their commercial. you really have no point in this train of thought.
. I would also add that not only did he smear McCain’s war record, but that his father did on Clinton in '92, and Dole in '88, and smeared Reagan in the '80 primaries. Negative campaigning has long been a trend with the Bush family.
are you kidding? negative campaigning is a trend with EVERY politician. not just the bushs. you are really showing your hatred of bush here.
