Michael Moore on FOX. Guess Hell just froze over.

There obviously is no definitive yes or no answer. But I guarantee you some vidiot would take a clip of an episode of someone in a wheelchair in America getting mistreated, and put it right after one of these benevolent Canadian clips and present it as a social experiment that is representative of the 2 countries.

I can hear Michael Moore's cubs rushing for the editing suite right now.

The video title couldn't be more irritating "Swedish cops show NYPD how to subdue people w/ hurting them". Should I assume it's supposed to say "w/o hurting them".

What's this, some condescending after-school special where we learn a life lesson? This is as dumb as Michael Moore cherry picking factoids about other countries and how much better society is over there. So fucking move there, I'm sure everywhere is Disneyland except for here in the U.S. I hate this stupid shit.

This should be retitled: Stephen Fry does his impression of Michael Moore meeting Roger Smith.

Here's a liberal hero: Michael Moore. Speaking truth to power, taking it to GM or whatever. Loves Cuban healthcare.

Here's a liberal hero: Margaret Sanger. Abortionist, racist, wanted abortion for black babies.

Here's a liberal hero: William Ayers. Bomb maker, terrorist, intellectual.

Here's a liberal hero: Che Guevara. Murderer, revolutionary, fashion icon.

We have the luxury of sitting at our keyboards knowing the intentions and full context of this dancer’s actions. The cop in the driver’s seat and those in front of the van would not have the same luxury, it was happening in real time. I don’t exactly applaud the policemen’s response but given full context I can pretty much understand it. But I won’t get sucked into the usual Michael Moore level of debate -“cops BAD citizens GOOD”

If this dancer wants to play the passive/aggressive thumb-sucker and ignore current events and say “golly, I was just dancing” then he deserves to get the stupid shoved right out of him. Although I don’t think that’s possible. Go spread your joy with some small town police force, maybe they will shake their heads and chuckle while you flash your roll of Mentos.

"By the numbers", which means "recent surveys", "studies have shown", "a nationwide poll", "let's look at some data", "overwhelming evidence has shown". All the statistical buzz phrases. I would rather see this issue presented in a ponderous TED presentation than this overly glib Michael Moore cartoon short.

To be clear, my problem is with the messenger, not the message.

A TV show is not science (regardless of what Neil deGrasse Tyson would have you believe).

"Cosmos" is not a scientific study or proof of anything (nor is The Daily Show). Now, Tyson or Stewart can, if they care to, write papers on climate change and show their proofs of whatever claims they want, but their papers would be subjected to peer review if they're to have any scientific validity whatsoever.

Alas, television is strictly entertainment for the serfs. (Next, you're going to tell me that Michael Moore has "proven" how great the Cuban health care system is... Oh, that happened already. Issue settled.)

One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.

I'm actually torn on Citizens United these days. The issue is with carefully defining terms. For example, how do we define campaign contributions? If the New York Times runs an op-ed endorsing a candidate, is that a contribution? If Michael Moore makes a film favorable to one candidate or another, is that a contribution? (hint... hint) Nobody likes the Kochs, but how do you sort out one from the other? What if the rich guys just decide to go buy newspapers instead? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/business/media/the-return-of-the-newspaper-barons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Michael Moore put HIM in his place, as a child standing against a man... bizarre video title - the exact opposite is happening in the video!

Congratulations! Your comment on Milton Friedman puts a young Michael Moore in his place has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Milton Friedman puts a young Michael Moore in his place, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Forfteen percent of all people know that.

Seriously, they got these stats from where? Michael Moore?