I think you've twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:

"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"

The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.

So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.

If you read what I wrote further down, "The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here, or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)" the same could be true when applied to Momma Mia a movie that made what? 350 plus million worldwide and over 100 million stateside?

My point is that by choosing NOT to list all of these films with a so-called "liberal or leftist agenda", the one's he's using to come up with this average, he is not simply being intellectually dishonest, but statistically speaking, his methodology would be considered tainted by any reputable and or professional number cruncher because he LUMPS THEM TOGETHER.

He never explains the parameters used to decide which films are liberal and of leftist and WHY they are according to his guide. That's problem number one.

Number two: It is a fallacy to suggest or assume that those films (which has not provided a list for, NOR the one's he has listed) were not successful BECAUSE they have a so-called liberal or leftist bent.
He can't prove that had ANYTHING to do with box office receipts. In fact, Bill O'Reilly in his monthly tirade against George Clooney often makes the same mistake, though I don't think really think it's a mistake at all, I think it's willful exclusion of a greater truth and I think O'Reilly damn well knows it.
On more than one occasion, Mr. O'Reilly has claimed that America doesn't want to see Mr. Clooney's films because he's a leftist and then pointed to numbers for "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" and, strangely, "Good Night and Good Luck" (which was quite profitable, given that it was about 1950's journalist and shot in black and white. By the way, the second highest grossing black and white film after Schindler's List in the last 25 years. And yes, I looked it up.). Dangerous' box office tally was low because it was an independent film with very little money put into marketing it and was about a kooky game show host who may or may not have been a CIA operative…hardly Middle American Multiplex fare. And that is true of Che, too (a three hours plus epic shot largely in SPANISH) The material in and of itself was NEVER going to make a lot of money, but there is NO EVIDENCE (you know, actual, empirical data) to PROVE that they numbers are a reflection of anything but audience antipathy or a greater interest in seeing a popcorn picture instead. Oh, and here's yet another intellectually dishonest thing about what he said, he didn't include the fact that Che was only about TEN screens in the U.S or Religulous, which was only on about 150 as compared with the average of the so-called GOOD films on his website, which averaged how many screen per theatrical release….2800 plus! Go ahead, Do the math. And besides, INDEPENDENT films that are not meant to appeal to a WIDE-RANGING audience are NOT EXPECTED TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS BIG BUDGET "Audience Friendly" fare, that's why they don't COST AS MUCH TO MAKE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Third, and finally: As I've said some many times now, but feel the need to reiterate it once more…
By purposefully LUMPING together HUGELY successful films with GIANT BUDGETS and GIANT MARKETING BUDGETS BEHIND THEM with smaller, Independent films with tiny budgets for the sake of having one number drag down the other OR vice-versa, is a MANIPULATION OF DATA to suit a preconceived notion that you wish that data would fit into, but does not. For example, who is considered to be the single biggest "Socialist" filmmaker in this country according to Conservatives? Michael Moore.
Okay well, do you have ANY idea how well his films have done? And they're DOCUMENTARIES. By lumping less successful films together with his HUGE successes the author is PURPOSEFULLY trying to skew the statistics to make it appear as though his films are NOT successful. And that is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. Oh, and you know what else is doing brisk business right now, MILK. So much for those liberally minded films tanking at the box office.

I think you twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:

"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"

The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.

So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.

You do have to be a Christian to put your faith in this Creator and receive Him as your Savior.

I think you twisted Baehr's words regarding liberal films . Here is the full quote, emphasis mine:

"In fact, this year, MOVIEGUIDE® calculates that movies released in 2008 coming from a more liberal or leftist sensibility (INCLUDING Steven Soderbergh’s movie honoring Che Guevara, “Mamma Mia!” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous”) averaged only $11.4 million at the box office…"

The word "including" means that you must count the liberal flops of 2008 along with hits like "Mamma Mia!" Since the flops are so numerous, the average box office for last year liberal films is going to seriously decline. If you ignore the flops, then the average goes up significantly.

So, Dr. Baehr's math is accurate as well as reinforces his argument that liberal films are rejected by many moviegoers.

"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.

And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?

Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.

The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)

And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.

Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?

"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.

And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?

Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.

The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here, or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)

And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.

Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?

Would I rather follow an Harvard and Columbia educated guy OR the College dropout Rush Limbaugh?
Or, maybe you're not in Rush. How about the guy who didn't even get that far, who never went to college, Sean Hannity? Or Glenn Beck or…Oh wait, I se pattern starting to develop here.

You're an IGNORANT twit, just like the nattering nabobs of Conservative talk and your fellow brethren who blindly follow them. It's a simple case o the DUMB and uneducated leading the DUMBER and even less educated. Talk about ROBOTS.

"Che, Mamma Mia, and Religulous averaged only $11.4 million at the box office" Really? Sounds like Conservative math to me. The three films total domestic box office was 158 million, divide that by three and you get what? 52.6 million. Must be that "Voodoo Economics" that HW Bush was talking about.

And what about this nugget, "…such movies averaged only about $15.5 million and $7 million per movie from 2002 through 2008. And, that includes the pro-Communist, socialist diatribes of Michael Moore"? Really?

Mr Moore's three films from those years, Bowling, Fahrenheit, and Sicko ALONE made a combined total of 166 million domestic, which is an average of 55 million dollars.

The author is purposefully bunching Mr. Moore's HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL documentaries in with other films he deems "promoting an unabashedly socialist or Communist viewpoint" (films he doesn't list by name or provide numbers for, here or on his amusing, little website) from a six year period in order to make it appear as though Moore's films were not as successful as the FACTS prove them to be. In FACT, Mr. Moore's "Fahrenheit"is still, by far, the highest grossing documentary film in the history of cinema, both domestically and worldwide. In FACT, it is sill more successful than EVERY Christian-themed movie (with the exception of Gibson's Passion)

And really, Mr. Baehr, "Commie Rats?" I thought red-baiting went out of style even long before the end of the Cold War? You're a walking anachronism. A dinosaur. Impotent and obsolete, you're a cranky old fogey whose time in limelight has long since passed. You'd think in your what, 80 (90?) years of life, you would have developed a stronger moral core as opposed to the rotten core you've developed by skewing statistical data in order to convince others that your paranoid delusions are, indeed, true. (Oh, how ethical and Christ-like of you!) And to think that Mr. Penn was making fun of you,,,and your brethren, too.

Sources: Media By Numbers, Box Office Prophets, Box Office Mojo. I wonder where he got his, the Focus on the Family website OR, did he just make them up OR, does he have a faulty calculator OR, is he using some archaic system found on a piece of Papyrus with Yahweh's signature at the bottom and has yet to get the hang off this Godly system of percentages? Again, I can't help but wonder, and I can help but ask, what would Jesus do?