• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Just finished watching "Sicko"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i don't believe in supporting lies, even if they are supposedly for my side.
Oh cool... so you wouldn't mind pointing out a few of these lies for yourself?

Since I am sure you saw the movie, without linking to OTHER peoples' "opinions", please point out what you thought were lies about the american system shown in the movie.

I don't expect to see you here again!

if you don't understand that michael moore distorts the truth to make his points you have your head stuck pretty deeply in a hole. i believe in consistency of values. imagine if a right wing "documentary" maker took the same liberties. would you just say..oh thats fine?

 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
1
0
I don't understand why universal healthcare is seen as a bad thing by so many posters in this thread. Health insurance for everybody? OH THE HORROR! :confused:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,915
20,834
136
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
What, from charity organisations?
It's called Medicaid. And free healthcare for illegals.
Actually, it's called the Hippocratic oath. see, when you go in for an emergency, you have to be treated, and you will be--poor or not. Oftentimes, the poor can't pay, and the hospital gets saddled with the bill.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Oh, I could get my prescription meds from Walmart? Oh wait.. they don't include any of mine... Do they sell Aids prescriptions for $5 instead of thousands?
You're purposefully ignoring the point of my post. The same thing that resulted in generic prescriptions going for $5 at Wal-Mart also occurs with medications elsewhere like for AIDs. Prices eventually come down. Especially as new drugs enter the market and patents run out.
YOU CAN NOT WAIT FOR "eventually" WHEN YOU NEED MEDICATION NOOOOOOWWWWWWW!

You have NO CHOICE when you NEED IT NOW!

This isn't complicated. Stop being braindead for the love of god.
Obviously it is too complicated for you as not every medication for every disease or illness is priced at extreme premiums that only a few can afford. Maybe the newer and/or experimental medicines but medicines that have already been out on the market for a while are not.

I recall reading an article about an AIDs patient asking his doctor why he wasn't prescribed some treatment that just came out. The doctor responded that the treatment that he did prescribe can work just as good, is cheaper, and is readily available. The treatment that the doctor prescribed did, in fact, end up working well for the patient too.
I pay the equivalent of $300 a month for generics that I need to survive.. do you think I should stop them until they come down in price?

Please tell me some of the illnesses and diseases that are cheap to treat with generics.

Have you seen the movie? You keep dodging the question.. strange!
You're full of it. No, really. I'm sorry to hear that you have to pay so much for medication but you're being an ass if you think I'm suggesting that you stop taking the medicine. But guess what, under Socialized Health Care, either you pay through higher taxes or reduced availability of medicine or someone else pays for you. Regardless, the cost is still there.

Generics for illnesses/diseases that I've personally encountered? Asthma (depending on the medication), Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure. Obviously, medication for things like cancer and AIDs will be higher because these are more extreme illnesses/diseases.

And no, I haven't seen Sicko in its entirety. I've seen a few bits and pieces. I also have no desire to see Sicko in full because Moore is a Socialist Propagandist. He manipulates facts, tells half-truths, and out-right lies depending on the situation to fit whatever angle he is pushing. He did it with Bowling for Columbine (seen). He did it with Fahrenheit 9/11 (half seen). He did it with Sicko.

And before you insinuate that I'm being paid by the RNC to post here...I'm an independent and lean more Libertarian than anything else.
There you go. You finally admit you haven't seen the movie you are supposed to be commenting on. Please stop the trolling.

The only "bits and pieces" you have seen are previews and what others want you to see. How can a movie sway you if you don't see it... Of course, this didn't stop you from trolling a thread in which you haven't even seen the movie you are commenting on!

This is the typical for the internet.. people don't need to to determine things for themselves when they could find sites to support their opinion for them!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Fox News told me the Democrats want socialized health care. I listens to Fox News. They is all knowing. They is mother, they is father.
Well, you know what they say about assuming.

FYI - I don't watch Fox News.
You mean like assuming about an entire movie and trolling threads about them?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i don't believe in supporting lies, even if they are supposedly for my side.
Oh cool... so you wouldn't mind pointing out a few of these lies for yourself?

Since I am sure you saw the movie, without linking to OTHER peoples' "opinions", please point out what you thought were lies about the american system shown in the movie.

I don't expect to see you here again!

if you don't understand that michael moore distorts the truth to make his points you have your head stuck pretty deeply in a hole. i believe in consistency of values. imagine if a right wing "documentary" maker took the same liberties. would you just say..oh thats fine?
As I suspected, you have no actual examples.. just speculation and attacks. I have some anti milk and anti vaccinations for you... they will show you the evils as well!

Post some examples as I challenged you and then we could talk.. otherwise you are just trolling with insinuation.

What is with this garbage where people come to comment on a movie they haven't seen? Pathetic.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Better than average Moore? :laugh:

Sicko is nothing but far left-wing propaganda, per usual with a Moore film.

One question to ask yourself is...since Michael finds health care so awesome in communist Cuba, why the hell doesn't he stay there, make his films there, and get his health care there too? Why did he come back?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Better than average Moore? :laugh:

Sicko is nothing but far left-wing propaganda, per usual with a Moore film.

One question to ask yourself is...since Michael finds health care so awesome in communist Cuba, why the hell doesn't he stay there, make his films there, and get his health care there too? Why did he come back?
Aaaand you haven't seen it. NEXT! More trolling from the typical suspect. probably rated the thread a 0 too, because that is your job.

Say it with me... you can't comment on what you haven't seen.

For "far left wing propaganda", my doctor republican father liked it and agreed with it. Of course, he actually SAW it!

And the cuba comment is something I already addressed earlier in the thread.. though trolls don't bother reading threads.... It is more efficient to throw in some generalizations, attacks, and innuendos and move on.
 

OpenThirdEye

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,154
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Better than average Moore? :laugh:

Sicko is nothing but far left-wing propaganda, per usual with a Moore film.

One question to ask yourself is...since Michael finds health care so awesome in communist Cuba, why the hell doesn't he stay there, make his films there, and get his health care there too? Why did he come back?
QFT

Moore's a left-wing douche
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: OpenThirdEye
Originally posted by: Pabster
Better than average Moore? :laugh:

Sicko is nothing but far left-wing propaganda, per usual with a Moore film.

One question to ask yourself is...since Michael finds health care so awesome in communist Cuba, why the hell doesn't he stay there, make his films there, and get his health care there too? Why did he come back?
QFT

Moore's a left-wing douche
Isn't it funny though that not one person could actually ever point to a flaw in the movie(especially the american part)? Sure they could link opinion sites, but no one could actually point out something themselves.... the political machine with tons of money behind it just insinuates, attacks, and moves on!

QFT!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Better than average Moore? :laugh:

Sicko is nothing but far left-wing propaganda, per usual with a Moore film.

One question to ask yourself is...since Michael finds health care so awesome in communist Cuba, why the hell doesn't he stay there, make his films there, and get his health care there too? Why did he come back?
prop·a·gan·da /?pr?p?'gænd?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

The irony in your posts are strong.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You still haven't seen the movie you troll.
Look who's talking :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

And yes, I have seen it. It's a piece of shit, just like the director.

Now move along.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You still haven't seen the movie you troll.
Look who's talking :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

And yes, I have seen it. It's a piece of shit, just like the director.

Now move along.
Oh great.. then you should have NO problem pointing out some problems with the American section(2/3s of the movie). Please point out all the flaws and propaganda from your OWN experiences!(not linking to some other sites' opinion)

We will be waiting!(a long time) Of course you seem to think that emotes have the same effects as facts in your posts.

As soon as you challenge these trolls, they run away.. they have no real personal opinions... they are pretty much the equivalent of viral marketters.. try to do as much harm as possible without actual content posts and then run.. much more efficient to hit and run and try to troll all over.

Does anyone truly believe he saw the movie? Not in a million years.

And to call me a troll after all of the actual content I posted here? He should be banned for comments like that...
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Also, be sure to include how the following are left wing propaganda-

Hospitals dumping people at the curb when "treatment" is done.
Insurances paying people to deny claims by looking through history to find any excuse(yeast infection)
Insurances denying claims to cancer patients(killing them)
The health industry buying out our politicians and then hiring them into big pharma positions.
Denying insurance to anyone that might possibly hurt profits.
Health insurances giving benefits to doctors that deny claims.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
I am just astonished that Pabster would cut and run on giving his personal analysis of the movie he claims to see and thoroughly criticize. It is so unlike him!

If anyone has any doubts that people are paid to come and throw around insinuations regarding political opposition on forums, look no further than this thread.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,344
9,073
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Why does this thread only have one star?

I fail. :(
Because people are paid to go on the internet and try to downplay everything that is against them. Additionally, people can be VERY afraid of anything that is not on their "side" of politics. It is a sad system and people work VERY hard to try to downplay and spin everything against them. It runs rampant on these forums and many many others.
Wow... way to throw away what little credibility you had left on these forums. Unfounded accusations of paid shills are pretty much the ultimate hallmark of the tinfoil beanie troll. Welcome to those ranks!


Sicko was par for the course Moore. He starts off with some good premises and makes some good points, and then throws it all away on obvious lies and glossed-over generalizations. Yes, the US health care system desperately needs fixing, but no, it's not all sunshine and roses everywhere else.
Like in BFC, where he rightly calls the US media to task for fearmongering and improper correlation (which is the title of the movie), and then fearmongers himself in favor of gun control, proposes a singular silly idea for how to bring about gun control (most of the real "gun nuts" already make their own bullets), and labels a former Civil Rights leader a racist.
His style makes sense if you consider that he's just propagandizing to the typical knee-jerk member of the United States of Amnesia, but if you're actually aware of the facts and the circumstances, you can easily see through his nonsense and recognize that the real solutions are nowhere near as simplistic black-and-white as he tries to make them out to be. Complex problems are made worse when you try to fix them with simple solutions.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,344
9,073
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am just astonished that Pabster would cut and run on giving his personal analysis of the movie he claims to see and thoroughly criticize. It is so unlike him!

If anyone has any doubts that people are paid to come and throw around insinuations regarding political opposition on forums, look no further than this thread.
Dave? Is that you?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,924
7,048
126
I could explain why Moore is, yet again, wrong in just one sentance:

The definition of slavery is one man being entitled to the labor of another.

But since that never seems to work, I post this speech:


Health Care Is Not A Right
by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]

"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."

The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.

 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
ooops, I meant to move this to P&N before the terms "democrat", "political opposition", "propaganda", "left-wing", "socialized", etc.

Must have mis-fired. Reloading... ready, aim, fire
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Originally posted by: Amused
The definition of slavery is one man being entitled to the labor of another.
QFT and nice article/speech btw.

What freakin happened to survival of the fittest? If you're too weak, dumb, challenged in what ever way to provide something productive to society why is it my obligation to support you? Short term help for those in need is great and available from many sources including your local church so why the hell does the government need to provide for you with my money? Yeah, I know, that's cruel and I have no humanity. So what! I'd rather be accused of that by people who don't know me than pay the way for people I don't know. If you can't contribute productively to society in a way that insures you have what you need, then you have no business being part of society. Hey, if you've grown old and can no longer care for yourself, maybe it's time you moved on to the next life or the dirt or whatever your personal beliefs may be. Moore's a fat tool with a socialist agenda and will do anything including lie to make his point. Are there flaws with our current system, you better believe it. But lack of service to the poor isn't one of them. If you have cancer and don't have insurance, I guess it's your time. Everyone dies and the world is overcrowded anyway. The last thing we need is a bunch of nonproductive sick people hanging around. Life's not fair, get used to it. Didn't your parents teach you that?

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am just astonished that Pabster would cut and run on giving his personal analysis of the movie he claims to see and thoroughly criticize. It is so unlike him!
If I felt like giving a personal analysis, I would. I don't. And something tells me you would dismiss it with no thought, as you do everything else. I'm not a movie critic, and don't pretend to be one. I just call bullshit when I see it, and Sicko stinks to high heaven.

If anyone has any doubts that people are paid to come and throw around insinuations regarding political opposition on forums, look no further than this thread.
You're certainly making one wonder if your paycheck doesn't say MOORE on the signature line.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,344
9,073
126
The only thing one really needs to know about the movie is that Canadians and Europeans have been VERY critical of the rosy picture that Moore painted of their healthcare systems.

And IMO, troll accusations of "paid shill" should be punished with vacations by the mods.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am just astonished that Pabster would cut and run on giving his personal analysis of the movie he claims to see and thoroughly criticize. It is so unlike him!

If anyone has any doubts that people are paid to come and throw around insinuations regarding political opposition on forums, look no further than this thread.
Dave? Is that you?
Yeah, it's cool when people use insinuations and generalizations as arguments. .troll and run... Why should anyone care if smear campaigns are used for arguments? Nonprofjon, is that you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY