It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Michael Moore’s $2M Hypocrite House: Film Director Lives Like The 1% He Condemns

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by maximumpower
reply to post by jude11

I don't understand. I didn't even bother reading your post anyway so idk if you are for/against the OWS protests. Either way, I am for OWS and I don't hate Michael Moore for living in a mansion. I don't hate the rich people for being rich, I hate them for hoarding all the money- there's quite a difference. He's not a hypocrite for living in a mansion because he can afford it, maybe if he had higher taxes he couldn't. But I'm pretty sure he still could. It's not his fault he doesn't pay taxes (because he isn't required to!) and apparently he would if taxes were raised since he has taken a stance against the other 1%.

As the incoherent post above me says: I'm pretty sure Michael Moore isn't even part of the 1%... A 2 million dollar house is chump change for people with the real dough.
edit on 17-11-2011 by maximumpower because: Adding to my argument

Maximum, no offense, but why would you comment if you haven't read the OP's original post? Sometimes the threads have more to them than just what the title says. Just sayin' for future reference.

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I'd say he earned his money and didn't ruin anyone else's life making it.

Michael Moore actually has a well earned reputation in the industry for riding on free internships plus over working and under paying staff.

It's one thing for James Cameron to hire free interns on the set of Avatar ... but James Cameron as a person isn't stating strong messages about workers etc ... Plus Cameron tends to hire union staff.

Moore hires non-union staffers despite being pro-union and tries his best to avoid ever putting staff in a position where pressure could be put on him to treat them as union staff. His associate producer has been known to threaten to fire persons if they become classified as union, and has claimed budget constraints etc ... against paying people full rates.

Twisted irony is Moore seems to do all the things his productions tell the public is wrong. Generally speaking an internship with Michael Moore isn't worth much unless you want to try to get on the tonight show after it.

I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it that this is what he does, then? Sure, no problem.....

Pinke, the Michael Moore insider, has spoken......
edit on 17-11-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
michael moore isn't the 1% everybody is complaining about. they would be the people that were considered "old money" or people on the social register.

he actually fights the 1% thru his movies. he's a very well placed ally. he got rich fighting the elite. that's his reward. you should support him and be happy for him. but he is a tool on some issues.

he stood up to them while everybody else went dutifully to work and wouldn't even dare question the establishment, let alone any injustices.

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by jude11

He earns good money. As long as he pays his fair share in taxes...and is perhaps even socially responsible with where he parks his money...who give's a rat's patoot?

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it that this is what he does, then? Sure, no problem.....

Pinke, the Michael Moore insider, has spoken......
edit on 17-11-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)

Be incredulous (I usually can't spell that word, but I think I got it right today!) as you like ... it doesn't really change my thoughts or my personal experiences in the matter. Perhaps if you gave me examples of Moore's amazing treatment of employees and staff I might consider changing my mind The areas I work in are pretty small, but I don't really care for sharing personal experiences, nor do I care if you trust mine.

You could always have looked some of it up yourself actually. There appears to be quite some coverage on it:

There's also plenty of online places to ask about these types of things and do your own research.

There are all kinds of reasoning as to why it's okay for Michael Moore to do this by fans of the person ... the majority of these reasons ring false to me though.

Claiming it is legal, he pays taxes, so therefore it's okay ... doesn't matter to me. Moore is pretending to strongly believe in a cause, but using the advantages presented by laws he opposes. Claiming to stand up for the little person whilst kicking them in the butt to hurry up with the coffee is what it appears to be.

Claiming the internships are valuable learning, and unions are difficult ... from my knowledge, internships of this nature aren't that useful. Plus, if you're floating the cash Moore is, there is no excuse not to bring your non-union employees up to the same level as your union staff other than saving money.

Claiming the rest of the film industry does it, so why not Moore? ... Yes, it happens. Yes, there are many sharks in the industry. Moore pretends to be a dolphin whilst being a shark. Just because you're a jerk in a sea of jerks doesn't make it 'okay'. It especially doesn't make it okay when you're asking everyone else to change.

All these things mixed with disingenious practice whilst filming to me add up to a person not worth trusting, even if I may agree with some of the persons political views.

The term 'be the change you want to see' applies here; you're welcome to believe whatever you like though.

edit on 17-11-2011 by Pinke because: last sentence bit

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:10 PM
Porky has a nicer house than Me. So what?

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:36 PM
The problem I have with Moore is he is not honest.

He uses very deceptive editing practices in his movies.

His Oscar winning farce being one of the worst culprits.

Then you have a whole group of people that take everything he says as the gospel.

And they believe it because Moore said so.

Whether he is 1% or not he is a hypocrit and a liar.

He started out fighting for the working man, fighting for his beloved flint.
Yet he gives nothing back but lies and lives like a king off of them.

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:57 PM
He rages against all that is capitalist, advocating a socialist system, all the while reaping the rewards of the system he despises. Hypocrite is right.

And yes Oldcorp, that could possibly be the best episode of TTIV yet!
edit on 17-11-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:43 PM

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I would think conservatives would be cheering Michael Moore for living the American dream, and as another poster suggested, he didn't make his money off the suffering of others!

That being said, how do you know he doesn't house a bunch of people there?

If he did,he would be using them in his next documentary.

He claimed he was cheated out of the profits if one of his movies,and sued.

Typical rich guy,who wants ALL his share of what he feels is his right. Hes not satisfied with the millions hes made already.
Whats he going to do with it,Eat it?

Anti-Capitalist my....................

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:39 AM
reply to post by Blue Shift

Or how they got it. Mathematically, it's likely that if you're in the 1%, you have some kind of shady racket going. It's simply nearly impossible to be amongst that company unless you're

1) Printing money from money in the stock market, for creating no real product or service (honest/ethical investing in what you believe in is prob. a different story -- everyone knows that's not how the super rich invest -- they invest in what will make them richer, usually perpetually)

2) Tied to the upside of some monopoly

That's not to say that in other ecosystems being at the top would make you likely guilty, but in our current ecosystem, where exploiters/never-ending greed are king, math says you prob. are.
edit on 11/18/2011 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by jude11

That’s a very cool looking house, too bad it’s “occupied” by a douche. It’s not what I have in mind when I think of Michael Moore, I envision someone like John Wayne (if still alive) living there.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by jude11

Umm OK so people who are wealthy havee no place being at OWS?

I do not understand your logic here, as far as i know Micheal Moore has been exposing corruption and giving back. He did not get BAIL OUT MONEY!

As far as I am concerned he is on the same page with OWS.

Before OWS was unemployed hippies, now when someone that is well off joins OWS the anti-OWS people complain about that too. You see OWS is not about poor against rich it is standing up to those who received money illegally robbing the tax payer and scamming the public and other issues, the corrupt banks keeping us poor , not some fat guy that makes movies. Moore is not even a 1%er he is more like a 5%er more likely a 10%er. We are talking about the elite! You know the Morgans, Rockafellers, Bilderbergs ect.

You are really reaching here, this thread was a waste of my time reading.
This is nothing short of a Witch Hunt

edit on 18-11-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by jude11

Im have to say...SORRY...your wrong on this one. A 2 million dollar house does not make you part of the 1%. The top one percent of the worlds wealth is held by billionaries. If he were buying 25 million dollars houses, then you might have a point.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

Go for it. If you make a good movie people will pay to see it.
If it sucks then people will say your a talentless hack and you will lose tons of money and never work in the industry again.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:14 AM
people for the rich like to bring up actor pay or athlete pay.

i have no problem with either, and heres why.

actors and athletes have strong unions. they know how much money their product makes, and demand a fair share. for example, an extra in a film gets $115 a day. this is for background. no lines, just stand in the back. having done extra work your day is stand around, eat craft services, stand around. when the shot is finally ready, you run and scream for an hour. the principal makes $655 a day. all of this is in the budget. many films lose money, but think of films that cost $80 mil, and return $300 mil. this is why many principal actors shave off up front pay and take "points on the back", or a percent of return. thats without merch. to bring this back to moore, his film "roger and me" had a budget of $140,000. it returned $6.7 million in the u.s.

the same with athletes. they make the owners billions a year, crippling their bodies to do so. they demand a fair share.

a corp is different. the ceo will fire half the staff and due to the lack of payrole count it as a win, and take home tens of millions in bonus. ceosare hired to keep payrole down, however any savings they make for the company the take in their bonuses. for example, the forbes 400 ceos make 12 mil a year on average. if all of them took just a million cut, from 12 to 11, then they could put 200,000 people to work at $50,000 a year.

people like to say the top are the job creators. they arent. its the people at the bottom that create jobs. its the people at the bottom that buy toasters. a million people at the bottom will by a toaster for every one at the top. that means the bottom controls demand, and without demand you have no business.

i guess my ultimate point is, the end of year bonus for stock holders and ceos should be spread to the guys doing the work.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
$2 million ?

one of my customers in greenwich has her place on the market for $45 million

he is not the 1%

trust me

You only have to make just over 500,000$ to be in the top 1%. Your client and Michael Moore are both in that percent.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by TinkerHaus

No one in OWS is complaining simply because people are well off.

No one is asking people to give up their lives of luxury.

They are asking for a level playing field. They are asking for rules, regulations and laws that favor the rich at the expense of the poor to be changed from the ground up.

This is why nobody can understand why they are not protesting on Capitol Hill, where the laws are made and the lobbyists graze.

Ever wonder why Obama and other pols support OWS?

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:20 AM
I think it's so silly to write a subject like that about Moore. We know very well that when this "99%" is talking about "1%", they are talking about people less than 1%. It would be a little funny when OWS protestors would have signs with message "WE ARE 99.8%!" for example. Even if Moore is mathematically in 1% he is no zionist psycho in my opinion or someone evil egomaniac who is messing up the world so think twice when you make a subject like that! You are just jealous of his second house or something. Keep in mind that not everybody who have lots of money in this world are not evil maniacs

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by blupblup

reply to post by jude11

When will the moronic, propaganda spewing morons that oppose these Occupy Global movements, get it into their thick heads.... that nobody has an issue with people making money or with rich people.

It's GREED and CORRUPTION that are the issues.


OK.... why dont you put some finite numbers on what constitutes GREED and CORRUPTION for us to follow? I mean, can a person that makes $500/week be GREEDY and CORRUPT if he decides to cheat his people out of a minor sum of $10,000, which is a treasure to them?

Or are there thresh-holds? Please enlighten us moronic, propaganda spewing morons on exactly what you mean, OK?

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office. moore-net-worth/

So,,,,,what are you saying????????

That someone worth 50 mil should live in a cardboard box.....................How about a crack house with holes in the walls.

Why did you make a thread about a guy's house

He makes money off of people,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,everybody eats it up

Its about the ridiculous earnings made by people such as actors, filmmakers, public offices, non-profit organisations and ceo's.

If they back the occupy movement they should thanks....just give me a normal everybody else.

Such salaries are part of the mess we are in....The argument they use, and rightious so, is.....these qualified persons for the job will go to the highest bidder ...and competitor. This escalate into absurd salries which the consumer has to pay in products like your toothpaste and tickets...for example. And if you think of it, these idiot salaries are all BS.

edit on 18/11/2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in