Oh, and Londoner, one other concession.... re: the saying another’s country is better than one’s own in some fields.... I am a much stronger fan of British comedy than American. Outright no competition there, from my perspective.

These anti-american people in Sweden are really productive,you know what they like to do when they protest for anything that America does?
Smash every fucking window they can find this is for kindergardens,schools and stores well basically anything and throwing rocks at the police.

What a great way to show you hate USA to smash everyfucking thinb you can find in Sweden,oh god I really hate these leftiest in Sweden… :/

The animal group(which is also left here and anti-america) even throwed rocks at POLICE DOGS IN PROTEST.

IF YOU LOVE ANIMALS YOU WOULDNT THROW A FUCKING ROCK AT A POLICE DOG,these anti-american people are fucking nuts.
They all love MM too.

Londoner you’re fucking wrong yes,I live in one of the countries UN calls the best in basically everything,what happends when you use social reforms for ex health care is that people have no other options to get help if many others need it to,they wait they wait and they might die.

Now,if you have social and Private that would be the best way.
But hardly any countries have it.
MM is working against any private healthcare which is retarded by many reasons.

You notice that, you notice that I can deprecate my country and myself as being behind you in something? It comes easily to most other nations because we don’t bring up our children on the fallacy that we are the greatest in the world.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated that you are superior to Americans in humility.  Way to go.  And that is typically the views I see from Europeans.  That they are superior to Americans.  “Look at those fat lazy people across the pond, they just think they’re so great but they’re not.  We’re better than them because we don’t think that way.”

Yeah but Lowbacca, we are talking a LONG time ago here, note that I made a reference to this in my post, we are talking about the early 90s.

There was no ‘fashion’ for Anti-Americanism in the 90s, esp not in Britain since Reagan and Thatcher were the best of friends.

If you not seen it Lowbacca, you should definitely watch it, it did bring a tear to my eye when a woman was describing how her 18 month was refused treatment at a hospital and was forced to take that child to a different hospital where the child died.....and she HAD health insurance.

To Quez, why do protesters smash up shops and anything else they can get their hands on? Because they realised that the only thing people like you seem to understand is Money.  If a group of protestors can consistently cost you millions everytime they march, you are FAR more likely to ceed to their demands then you are that little group holding hands singing kum bi ya.

Money talks, whether that be in insurance costs for businesses, clean up costs for local councils, policing costs to police the marches etc etc etc.  People have come to realise that the only way to make change is through money....you live by the dollar you die by the dollar right?

Also I have never heard of MM saying he wants to do away with ALL medical insurance and healthcare.

Buzzion, you are typical of the response I outlined in my post, defensive.

Rather then dealing with the point I have made, you want to turn it into some sort of hatefest.

Read my posts I been on the internet since the very early 90s, almost 99% of my friends on the internet, which is a considerable amount over ten years are American.

You are also typical of the nature of many Americans, that everything MUST be about who is better.

I never said Europeans were better, not once, but to YOU because you only know the idea of being the best, the mere suggestion that somoene might do ONE thing better then you is an indication that they are entirely better then you.

I will admit over the past few years you have become more and more wildly known as a bunch of obese idiots ruled by a simpleton, you don’t really lend yourself to changing these thoughts to be honest, and these thoughts like any racist thoughts, soon fall away in the face of real conversation and considered talking, rather then kneejerk answers to the quesiton “What do you think of Americans” you actually ask people a number of questions and have a decent conversation, you would note that most of those people who will bark out “Obese idiots” will actually once slowed down, comment eloquently talk about the good and bad in America, the problem is you don’t get past the knee jerk reactions when dealing with the media...and that includes the Internet.

Yes, to provide a remedy you first have to establish the symptoms of the disease. Moore does that in his documentaries.

No, actually, he doesn’t.  He exaggerates problems with superlative examples which tend to be manufactured for dramatic effect, then makes a bunch of snide remarks about how conservatives have turned the world into a shithole for their own personal gain.  That doesn’t really fit the definition of anything you’ve credited him for.

And he got an Oscar for it.

Yeah, Titanic got some Oscars, too, that doesn’t make the first two hours watchable.  Besides, they don’t give out Oscar awards to a film for Best Achievement in Being Right About Stuff.  So what does an Oscar prove?

Londoner:

You notice that, you notice that I can deprecate my country and myself as being behind you in something?  It comes easily to most other nations because we don’t bring up our children on the fallacy that we are the greatest in the world.

I’ve noticed that you seem happy to pat your nation on the back for not being as ethnocentric (irony++?).  Too bad you wasted it on a straw man.

Americans generally become very defensive the moment you deprecate their country in anyway.

Anyone is going to get defensive when you deprecate their country or something else of import to them.  The word you chose, deprecate, quite literally means to condemn or disparage.  I do not consider it a character flaw to defend the honor of something I care about when it is being disparaged.

Which, incidentally, is precisely the treatment Moore gives this country in his films.  And that is the whole point here: that real, honest discussions with real, practical solutions are subverted and/or undermined by people like Moore, who use issues that could bear improvement as a prop to paint America as a series of broken and failing systems created or managed by incompetent, uneducated “good ole boys” that would just as soon step on their own grandma as share a dollar with anyone else.  It’s ludicrous.

In short, reasonable people can reasonably disagree, but the criticisms and arguments with which I and many others here take issue are the patently UNreasonable ones that DOMINATE the discourse today.

In the overall feel of the movie Sicko, do you think Moore’s stance was wrong?

Having seen his vision for health care in America, I say yes without reservation or hesitation.  Even if 100% of his information was 100% accurate (stop laughing), I would disagree with him on principle about making the federal government the first, last and only arbiter of my physical well-being.

Forget the little details, the mistakes, the ommissions the bending of the truth of the “trickery of editing”

I find arguments to “fake but accurate” as a valid means of addressing an issue to be as insulting as it is illogical.  The omissions, the editing, and the LIES are exactly the point.  If the evidence against American health care or American gun control or whatever was really so prevalent and damning, HE WOULDN’T NEED TO MANUFACTURE HIS EXAMPLES TO MAKE HIS POINT.

If you answer that you agree with Michael Moore, then I think the details are irrelevent, Lowbacca argues that it is more damaging then it is beneficial because it distorts the argument…

you actually ask people a number of questions and have a decent conversation, you would note that most of those people who will bark out “Obese idiots” will actually once slowed down, comment eloquently talk about the good and bad in America

Okay, here’s the point where you have to make up your mind about whether we should or should not insist that conversations of this sort be had at a reasonable level with mutually respecting persons.  The comment pulled from your more recent post suggests that the conversation is better when people slow down and genuinely discuss the issue, and yet you are highly critical of us for demanding that Moore stop lying and be real about the issue.  You can’t have it both ways.

Because they realised that the only thing people like you seem to understand is Money.

“People like you”, huh?  Is this the thoughtful, enlightened discourse for which I am expected to drop my criticism of someone who is contributing to the demise of discourse in my country?

Buzzion, you are typical of the response I outlined in my post, defensive.

Rather then dealing with the point I have made, you want to turn it into some sort of hatefest.

Actually, he’s disagreeing with your claim to humility.  And you’re getting defensive about it.  He is only pointing out that the shoe is on the other foot, and he happens to be correct.

Read my posts I been on the internet since the very early 90s, almost 99% of my friends on the internet, which is a considerable amount over ten years are American.

The old cliche in America for people trying to distance themselves from being viewed as racist, is “some of my best friends are black.” It’s almost a joke these days, but your comment smacks strongly of that sentiment.

You are also typical of the nature of many Americans, that everything MUST be about who is better.

Sigh… yeah… if only “many Americans” thought more like Europeans, then they wouldn’t feel compelled to draw comparisons.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 06:06 AM

To Quez, why do protesters smash up shops and anything else they can get their hands on? Because they realised that the only thing people like you seem to understand is Money.  If a group of protestors can consistently cost you millions everytime they march, you are FAR more likely to ceed to their demands then you are that little group holding hands singing kum bi ya.

Money talks, whether that be in insurance costs for businesses, clean up costs for local councils, policing costs to police the marches etc etc etc.  People have come to realise that the only way to make change is through money....you live by the dollar you die by the dollar right?

So wait, are you saying we should respect vandalism as a form of political speech?

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 06:13 AM

Buzzion, you are typical of the response I outlined in my post, defensive.

So wait, you come here and tell us what you think is wrong with Americans, and then feel that a reply pointing out what’s wrong with your post is “defensive”?  Note that he didn’t defend Americans “being the best”.  He pointed out that he sees Europeans doing what you claim we do.  If you hang out here long enough, you’ll see the same thing.

Rather then dealing with the point I have made, you want to turn it into some sort of hatefest.

I didn’t see anything in his post more hateful than was in yours.

Read my posts I been on the internet since the very early 90s, almost 99% of my friends on the internet, which is a considerable amount over ten years are American.

You are also typical of the nature of many Americans, that everything MUST be about who is better.

Keep in mind that people tend to be more arrogant online than in real life.  Perhaps you’re not judging us fairly.

I will admit over the past few years you have become more and more wildly known as a bunch of obese idiots ruled by a simpleton, you don’t really lend yourself to changing these thoughts to be honest, and these thoughts like any racist thoughts, soon fall away in the face of real conversation and considered talking, rather then kneejerk answers to the quesiton “What do you think of Americans” you actually ask people a number of questions and have a decent conversation, you would note that most of those people who will bark out “Obese idiots” will actually once slowed down, comment eloquently talk about the good and bad in America, the problem is you don’t get past the knee jerk reactions when dealing with the media...and that includes the Internet.

So wait, when a foreigner barks out to us that we’re “obese idiots”, we should pay it no mind, but if an American barks out, “we’re the greatest,” it’s proof of something grand?  These are double-standards you’re setting for the behavior of Americans versus non-Americans.  This is exactly what Lowbacca was talking about when he said it’s hip to be anti-American.

I also agree with Lowbacca about British comedy.  It is better than American.

Anyone is going to get defensive when you deprecate their country.

No, that is the point, we do not.

You prescribe something to us that isn’t true, because it is the reality for you, you see it as an absolute it must be the case because that is all you have ever known.

I would disagree with him on principle about making the federal government the first, last and only arbiter of my physical well-being.

At no point in the movie does he suggest this should be the case, in fact he even ridicules people who use this argument as false.

You do realise that in England and in France that there are private hospitals, private health care, private dentists? You understand that our governments are not the only arbiter of our physical well being?

better when people slow down and genuinely discuss the issue, and yet you are highly critical of us for demanding that Moore stop lying and be real about the issue.  You can’t have it both ways.

You are comparing two entirely different things, one is the slow down of knee jerk reactions another is your perception of a movie maker not entirely being honest with an issue.

How are in anyway related, how do you compare them to the point of suggesting I can’t have it both ways, when the two are soo far removed from each other that its quite frightening.

“People like you”, huh?  Is this the thoughtful, enlightened discourse for which I am expected to drop my criticism of someone who is contributing to the demise of discourse in my country?

Well someone who starts the discourse with “Your fucking wrong” is always going to get my ire rather then my considered debate.  I feel if you talk to people like that, you can only expect to get a little dirt dished back at you, also given the tone of the piece I don’t even think that poster would consider it an insult, like many Americans they are quite proud of their own desire to become rich.

Actually, he’s disagreeing with your claim to humility.

No he wasn’t, he was saying that Europeans see themselves as superior, something as I said in my reply is an almost uniquely American trait of absolutes, either we are better then you or you are better then us....there seems to be no middle ground of equality for you, which is what I was actually saying originally.

You know the oddest thing w0rf that you are hear complaining about Michael Moore and your view that he likes to take things out of context, construct examples to fit his own agenda etc etc, and then you take a quote of mine entirely out of context and try and use it as a brush to tar me with racism against Americans.

My point was there that my friends are Americans, and that this isn’t some Anti-American tirade.

Though I should not be surprised at the reply, I mean this comes from a country where some of the media portray anyone who is against the war as against the troops....anything to deter from the real argument.

And lets get down to that shall we w0rf, your ONLY defense against socialised health care seems to be the idea that the government will completely control your health.

Yet I have shown you that private health care exists in countries with universal health care, so if the government is not the first, last and only arbiter of your physical well-being......what is your problem with it?

Europeans see themself as superior?
No we don’t, the French does though.

Fuck them,they got nr1 in the healthcare list and MM is then stunned he got an standing ovation in Cannes?!

...

So wait, are you saying we should respect vandalism as a form of political speech?

I would go further and say it’s economic terrorism.

I have been to America several times, I really like the place..Hell I even thought about emigrating a few times and I love my country, but I also love your bill of rights and your constitution.  I have met soo many Americans from NY to Kansas to California to New Hampshire, and the one thing that almost all of them had in common was the unshakable belief that America is the greatest country in the world....not just a great place to live, but the greatest.

I didn’t say he was being hateful, I said he was trying to turn the argument into a hatefest.

Well as I say, I been all over America visiting friends, I spent just over a year there in 1997-1998, so I am not really basing this on reactions on a message board, this is from talking and dealing with Americans on a daily level, in America...also remember this was pre 9/11, this wasn’t a backlash to an attack, this was just the way most of the people I met felt, that America was the greatest country in the world, it seemed entirely rational and normal for them to think like that.

The point is, as I said, if you start to talk to people properly, you find that the kneejerk reaction changes into a more considered opinion, there is good and bad in America....I have spent entire evenings talking in conversational tones with a wide and varied group of Americans and at the end of the day, they still believe that America is the greatest country in the world, it isn’t a kneejerk reaction, it is an ingrained feeling, not of personal superiority, but of national superiority.

To JimK,

Does the last part of the post not say, “Question Everything?”

And where is the lack of intelligenice or being “on point” where is that lacking in my question? The question YOU should be asking is, do YOU have anything intelligent or on point to say. It was a simple question, that can be easily answered. Don’t insult my intelligence just because you lack in intellect. Have blessed Day, JIMK...ooo it rhymes...but we’re NOW off point.

Latisha - a simple “no” would have sufficed.

Londoner - I’m sorry that you consider our pride in our country and a belief that we can, if we try, accomplish anything to be bad things.

America is the greatest economic power on earth.  We’re currently the greatest military power, and regardless of some of the setbacks by the Bush Administration, the greatest scientific power.  We’re running neck and neck with the Japanese on the technology front.

Do we have flaws?  Yep.  Same ones everyone else has.  The difference is, we don’t use those flaws to define ourselves.  Well, most of us don’t anyway.  I find it sad that other people use what is negative about themselves to define them.  I don’t want to live like that.  Sorry you don’t like it, but that’s just one of the long list of reasons that we wanted to be citizens and not subjects.

Your claim that some Europeans don’t see themselves as superior to not only Americans but everyone else is laughable at best.  We could go around and around telling anecdotes, citing examples, “proving” that at the end of the day, people all over the world think that the way they do things is the best.

Right now, at this point in history, we are the top dogs.  It’s not an accident that we got here in such a remarkably short period of time.  There are buildings in England older than this entire country.  Other nations have had thousands of years head start on us, and yet here we are.

You can talk about it as a negative all day, but you won’t shame us into a false display of humility just to appease others.  We kick ass.  Plain and simple.  Even when we fight amongst ourselves.  Even when we elect fairly assholish presidents.  Even though we make the same mistakes all other human beings make...The United States of America kicks ass.  To paraphrase Diamond Dave, ain’t nothin’ like it in the whole world.

Crap.  In all of that response to Londoner, I forgot the salient point.

You do realise that in England and in France that there are private hospitals, private health care, private dentists? You understand that our governments are not the only arbiter of our physical well being?

You do realize that Moore is advocating that we abolish that exact thing, right?  He’s advocating a system with ONE point of care - the government.

At the very least, if for some bizarre reason people actually believe that the federal government can somehow not screw this up royally and we end up with socialized medicine, I still want a choice to opt the hell out of the system.  Moore wants to take that away from me.

Londoner,

If you don’t really care about anecdotal evidence about non-Americans having the same self-biases that Americans have, then why should we care about your anecdotes about talking with Americans?  You continue to set double-standards in order to try to prove that Americans as a whole have a trait that is common among many around the world.  You dismiss counter-arguments as out-of-context.  How do you turn a conversation into a “hatefest” without being “hateful”?

We have a lot to be proud of in this country.  We also have some things to be embarrassed about.  The hope is that we will use the things we’re proud of to fix the things we’re embarrassed about.  To try to shame us out of the pride we do have is ridiculous.  It might work in other forums, but not so much here.

You prescribe something to us that isn’t true, because it is the reality for you, you see it as an absolute it must be the case because that is all you have ever known.

Except, right now, you are getting defensive, as though I should not say things about you that you dismiss as untrue.  You are doing exactly what you have come here to criticize us for doing.  That has nothing to do with a superiority complex or an inferiority complex, we just don’t like being lied about.

The real question is, why does it matter so much to you what level of pride Americans take in their country?  Why has it become one of the prominent themes of your recent posts?

At no point in the movie does he suggest this should be the case, in fact he even ridicules people who use this argument as false.

Except he just gave a speech calling once again for nationalized health care.  Oops?  See, I look at the full body of Moore’s crusade against the evils of anyone-who-disagrees-with-him, rather than assuming the sum total of his philosophy is wrapped up in a single film.  Someday soon, perhaps you too will see that there is what Michael claims to believe, and the ideals he actually campaigns for on a daily basis, and they do not always overlap.

You are comparing two entirely different things, one is the slow down of knee jerk reactions another is your perception of a movie maker not entirely being honest with an issue.

You claim that conversation is better when knee-jerk reactions are slowed down.  Misleading propaganda specifically constructed to raise the ire of the populace is the very definition of generating knee-jerk reactions.  The overarching premise to criticizing Moore’s work is to STOP the propaganda and STOP the knee-jerk reactions and STOP poisoning the discourse so that we CAN move past the vitriol.  How in the world is that NOT related?  And you sit here and defend his work, saying that his methods are not relevant to the issue?

there seems to be no middle ground of equality for you, which is what I was actually saying originally.

So Americans are wrong in their (supposed) division of everything into comparative absolutes, but that logic is still equal to your logic?

You know the oddest thing w0rf that you are hear complaining about Michael Moore and your view that he likes to take things out of context, construct examples to fit his own agenda etc etc…

That is MY VIEW?  Are you saying he does NOT take things out of context?  That he does NOT construct his examples?  You posted earlier that if his point was correct, that the details were not relevant, essentially conceding that these criticisms were accurate.  That is not just MY VIEW about his work, it is the TRUTH about his work, and you have practically admitted as much.

and then you take a quote of mine entirely out of context and try and use it as a brush to tar me with racism against Americans.

I did no such thing.  For starters, America is a nation, not a race, so there is no such thing as racism against Americans.  Second of all, I was not trying to “tar” you as anything, I was only pointing out that claiming you have American friends has nothing to do with whether or not you (deliberately or unconsciously) view your humility as a better way to think.  It only makes you sound defensive, like you need to add that as a disclaimer.  THAT was MY point.  Are we clear now?

Though I should not be surprised at the reply, I mean this comes from a country where some of the media portray anyone who is against the war as against the troops....anything to deter from the real argument.

Yeah, that must be it.  All these many and many and many of Americans, all of whom apparently are your best buddies, tell everyone they are against the troops, so that must also be my mindset, huh?

Way to prove you’re capable of looking beyond your prejudices and genuinely listen to what someone is trying to tell you.  If you plan on laying that “against the troops” mindset at my feet again, kindly save us both the trouble and just piss off now.  But if you actually want to talk about Moore or about the state of health care, and not about who thinks who is better than whom, or who just spews whatever the media feeds them to say, then let’s talk.  But don’t bring this “typical American” BS to the table and expect me to believe you’re genuinely interested in pushing past the knee-jerk opinions.

And lets get down to that shall we w0rf, your ONLY defense against socialised health care seems to be the idea that the government will completely control your health.

It is NOT my “ONLY” defense, it is the only one I have mentioned in this thread.  Any time you’re ready to drop the generalizations, buddy…

It is my primary disagreement on principle (there are many examples on this blog that would highlight my disagreements on execution).  My view, quite simply, is that the more responsibility the government takes for our well-being, the less freedom that individuals have to control their own fate, for good or ill.  So my ideal for a free society is by maximizing our personal freedoms by minimizing government intervention.  Please note that “maximal” and “minimal” are relative terms, not absolute ones, in case you feel like sinking back into that tired argument again.

Health care is particularly perilous because it has tendrils that extend into many different aspects of everyday life.  Most obvious are the tax dollars which are appropriated regardless of whether you want to spend that amount of money on health care or not.  And traditionally, the government has been relatively poor stewards of tax monies, meaning that a nationalized plan will either cost us twice as much or provide half the coverage, due to bureaucratic waste.

Once the government has that money, it becomes the one who decides how to spend it on your health care.  That means that the doctors you see and the treatment you receive are on the good graces of people who have no vested interest in your household, your family, your situation.  If a private company turns you away, you can take your business to someone who will take your case.  Who do you turn to when the federal government tells you you’re not allowed to go there?

There has been discussion on the boards that, in England, there has been talk of banning tobacco.  In particular, barring the impractical “solution” of prohibition, a longtime Brit board member has postulated that the government is taking steps to “squeeze” the market out instead.  They say that tobacco is bad (and they’re probably right), but not so bad that it’s worth shutting down the industry, apparently.  So instead they are using social engineering tactics to try and condition people not to smoke.

Now tobacco is one thing, and several cities here in America have taken the step to ban smoking in public buildings, although I doubt that the federal government will approach again the folly of prohibition.  But what happens when the government decides that fattening foods are draining tax dollars?  Or sugars?  Or caffeine?  What happens when chiropractic care becomes prohibitively expensive because people are spending too much time in their chairs arguing on the Internet?  What other forms of social conditioning will be mandated by the government to meet their bottom line?

To cover even the most marginal elements of our society, and to ensure that people are not simply left out to die, some level of “safety net” care is unavoidable in its necessity.  But by degrees, the more security we seek from a government source, the more personal freedoms we give up to achieve that.  What is needed is for people to learn to care more for each other, not for them to hand things over to the government to do all the caring for us.  Such thinking is antithetical to free living.

Londoner,

JimK is right we do kick ass and there are reasons for it.  We believe anything is possible if you want it bad enough.  This country was founded on the principle of picking yourself up by the bootstrap, getting in the game and dominating.  All men are creatred equal, but some try harder than others.  There should be no shame in that.  Why do you think we have no queen?  Nobody was born better than anyone else.  Divine right is pie in the sky.  I know the so-called royal family is largely ceremonial, but come on A QUEEN?

Londoner - I’m sorry that you consider our pride in our country and a belief that we can, if we try, accomplish anything to be bad things.

Again twisting the argument.  I have never said your belief in your own ability is a bad thing.

I suggested that your own belief in yourself is soo strong, soo overwhelming that when someone like Michael Moore comes along and points out the shortcomings of your country, you become overly defensive and nit picky about details rather then accepting that perhaps America isn’t the greatest country in the world, that you are in fact no better and no worse then many western countries.

There is a massive difference in believing in yourself and believing you are better then everyone else.

It isn’t about defining yourself by your flaws, its about admitting them, accepting them and acting to fix them, you seem to be completely unresolved to fixing anything and seem more intent on attacking someone who points out those flaws, even the big part on your website about the money Moore sent you, you seem to have missed the major point he was trying to make there, that you have such great freedom of speech that he didn’t want to see that broken, it wasn’t about your wife, it wasn’t about pretending he was better then you or a gracious human being, it was about preserving what was great about America, freespeech, the ability for you to write your tirades against Michael Moore, but you’re so hell bent on belittling and attacking the man that this point seems to have gone right over your head.

You seem to have missed some of my posts here JimK the point where I said I have seriously considered emigrating to America, my comments on how much I envy your bill of rights, your constitution and the very freedom enshrined therein that Michael Moore supported when he sent you that money, whether you needed it or not, or it was misrepresented, he didn’t send you it for any other reason then to preserve the freespeech that your country is so respected for.

Londoner sure does sound like he’s getting awfully defensive about things doesn’t he?

And you completely missed my point Londoner, although that’s not really surprising since you’ve got your nose stuck so far up in the air you can’t see what’s in front of your face.

What you are doing is in essence complaining about how Americans see themselves as greater than other places and people in the world.  You then proceed to show that you are humble, but at the same time pointing out that you are humbler than americans.  You then mention that the rest of the world is humbler than americans.  You’re going “we can point out our flaws, unlike you who only think you’re better than the rest of the world, so we are actually better than you because of this.”

You’re trying to act humble but you’re not being humble about it.  You’re just being a hypocrite.  All other matters beyond this become pointless until you realize that.

Posted by A Swede on 06/13 at 11:31 PM (Link to this comment)

“Yes, to provide a remedy you first have to establish the symptoms of the disease. Moore does that in his documentaries.”

Actually, he spins and makes up stuff which posions honest conversation about problems.

I am not sure what is defensive about my comments w0rf.

Yes w0rf he may have made a speech, but where in that speech, and where in the context of nationalised health care, does it preclude private health care?

It just doesn’t.  That is something you have tacked onto the idea, so it makes it easier for you to argue against it.  National health care does not preclude private health care, the two can run side by side very easily and very effectively.

His methods are not relevent to the issue, I understand why you take that view, but as I said in an earlier reply bringing the information to the masses is far more important then getting the facts absolutely 100% right.  He is a movie maker, not a policy maker, you admit there are problems with the health care system you have? you may disagree with Michael Moore on the length and breadth of those problems and the way in which he showed them, but you know the problems exist, well now so does everyone else who has watched his movie a quite considerable amount both at home and abroad, and they can bring pressure to bear on policy makers with their vote and their voice, and the policy makers can use the resources at their disposal, which are far greater then those of Michael Moore, to discover exactly what the issues are and how to improve them.

Surely it is more important that the issue is in the public eye and people see the problem rather then having a very dull very boring documentary that is 100% accurate but as dull as watching paint dry.

Yeah, that must be it.  All these many and many and many of Americans, all of whom apparently are your best buddies, tell everyone they are against the troops, so that must also be my mindset, huh?

I don’t even understand what you are saying here, did you miss a bit out?  I was commenting that in America a lot of people have made accusations against people who are against the war in Iraq as being unsupportive of the troops.

What you said in the quote makes no sense in that context.

If a private company turns you away, you can take your business to someone who will take your case.  Who do you turn to when the federal government tells you you’re not allowed to go there?

Two flaws here, firstly the assumption that another company will take your business and secondly that you would have no rights in a government based scheme, you have a right to Free Speech, a Right to Bear Arms and such, you would have the RIGHT to medical care, that is why it is called Universal Health Care, because the government would not have the right to turn you away.

There has been no talk of banning tobacco in England, yes smoking is banned in most enclosed public spaces (from 1st July) but there is a record of passive smoking issues, I can’t say I agree with that, but you are no more exempt from this then we are, the only difference is if I get cancer from second hand smoke, no matter my financial circumstances, no matter the small print in my insurance forms, I will get treatment, you can’t be so sure can you?

I am not sure how a man in New Hampshire can do more to help a man in California, without passing that money through the hands of Government, you may make the claim that Charities can do this, but Charities are less accountable then government, you don’t get to decide who is on the board of a charity, you can’t decide that you don’t like the leadership and change it, you can in politics, you just need to vote.

Surely the people with the most accountability are the best ones to run such a system, because they want to protect themselves.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 02:10 AM (Link to this comment)

“In the overall feel of the movie Sicko, do you think Moore’s stance was wrong?”

That we need to do away with private healthcare? A stance more radical than the UK? Yes.

“Do you feel that the American System is better then the system provided by other western countries?”

Yes. Better service care. We already have social programs that cover the needy. A few people fall through the cracks (example: loose insurance for some reason but made too much money to qualify for social services). We could clean this up by providing some new program to cover those who are in need but dont qualify for the existing programs.

you seem to be completely unresolved to fixing anything

And that statement better than any other reveals the depth of your ignorance. No one, not one single poster in all the years I’ve read this site, has ever expressed a position which is even remotely similar to your silly mischaracterization. The fact that a person disagrees with a proposed solution to a problem does not mean that person is in denial about the existence of the problem, or that they don’t want to fix the problem. For that matter, a person could support a given level of socialized healthcare, even the same type of program Moore supports, and still be critical of Moore.

Sorry I missed your post Sethery so I will reply now.

You can try and turn the argument into a “hatefest” without being “hateful” quite easily.

“You are making your comments because you are anti-american”

There, what is hateful about that? But it is turning the argument into a hatefest isn’t it, it stops being about the issues and the information and becomes about who hates who.

In reply to Buzzion, I did not even suggest we were better then you because of our humility, what I was saying was that it is something that is, it seems, uniquely American, the idea that you are better then everyone else on a national level, isn’t really something that we encounter in Europe, we have our national pride, of course, but it tempered.

I never said this made us better then you, remember that was your idea, one that really only goes to prove my point, as I stated earlier, I seem to be repeating myself alot, you seem to think there are only two states, 1, we are better then you, 2 you are better then us.

You don’t even seem to acknowledge that there could be some equality here.

And that statement better than any other reveals the depth of your ignorance. No one, not one single poster in all the years I’ve read this site, has ever expressed a position which is even remotely similar to your silly mischaracterization. The fact that a person disagrees with a proposed solution to a problem does not mean that person is in denial about the existence of the problem, or that they don’t want to fix the problem. For that matter, a person could support a given level of socialized healthcare, even the same type of program Moore supports, and still be critical of Moore.

Well the point I was making was the time effort and membership of this site all dedicated to attacking Michael Moore seems quite high why the effort to fix the health care issues your country seems quite low, since I personally have been arguing with people on the internet about health care for almost 15 years and your system has barely changed and you could argue that it has got worse.

Hence my comment about being unresolved to fix the issue and more content to attack Michael Moore on details.

I am not sure what is defensive about my comments w0rf.

Your biggest flaw as demonstrated by your posts here.  You can’t see the log in your own eye for pointing out the mote in everyone else’s.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 04:13 AM (Link to this comment)

“Buzzion, you are typical of the response I outlined in my post, defensive.”

I think I get it. Any criticism of your argument/s is defensive.

Charities are less accountable then government

Not in this country they aren’t.  See, this is part of why no one is giving credit to anything good in your long-winded attacks on America and Americans.  You pepper your posts with nonsense like this.  You’re simply *wrong* about a lot of these details.  Perhaps a little less telling us about your long and storied history as an online arguer and a little more research before you make your arguments would serve you well.

Posted by sl0re on 06/14 at 12:38 PM
I think I get it. Any criticism of your argument/s is defensive.

Bingo.  He can criticize and it’s out of love and a true passion for educating others about their flaws, but if he gets criticized, it’s “Americans being defensive.”

Transparent as an I.M. Pei building, this one is.

In reply to Buzzion, I did not even suggest we were better then you because of our humility, what I was saying was that it is something that is, it seems, uniquely American, the idea that you are better then everyone else on a national level, isn’t really something that we encounter in Europe, we have our national pride, of course, but it tempered.

Original quote by you:

You notice that, you notice that I can deprecate my country and myself as being behind you in something? It comes easily to most other nations because we don’t bring up our children on the fallacy that we are the greatest in the world

The manner in which you have presented this shows your problem.  You are claiming to show humility.  You are claiming that its easy for the rest of the world.  You are claiming its very hard for americans.  You are claiming that you are BETTER at being humble than americans.

You believe you are superior at being humble in relation to americans.  And just because you want to claim that a chicken is a turkey won’t make it go “gobble gobble.” In other words, what you claim you are trying to do can’t cover up what you really are doing.

A charity is bilking you out of money and not doing what it promises, and you can stop giving them money and possibly even use the government to sue them to return the money you donated.  Try to stop paying the government money when you think they aren’t properly doing what was promised, and then try suing them to get it back and get them to change their ways?

Who’s easier to hold accountable again?

I personally have been arguing with people on the internet about health care for almost 15 years and your system has barely changed and you could argue that it has got worse.

So here’s a question to no one in particular: Exactly how many years of personal internet debating experience are equivalent to some level of qualification I should give a rat’s ass about? I agree with the statement that the health care situation has gotten worse in recent years, I disagree that the problem has been caused by not enough involvement by government.

Well the point I was making was the time effort and membership of this site all dedicated to attacking Michael Moore seems quite high why the effort to fix the health care issues your country seems quite low,

So from your perspective I must be a horrible neglectful student since, as far as you are aware, I spend absolutely no time studying and at least some amount of time posting on Moorewatch, right?

Londoner,

The first one in an argument to issue a hateful remark is the one to turn it into a “hatefest”.  In your example, you neglect the fact that other people are responsible for how they respond to the accusation.  They can dismiss a ridiculous accusation without getting hateful.  Besides, your example didn’t even apply to Buzzion’s post, which was the basis of your “hatefest” claim.

What I don’t get is that you seem to be infinitely forgiving of Moore for “not being 100% accurate” (even though we’re criticizing his deceptions, not just mere mistakes), but then you insist on accusing us of things you can only claim other Americans have done.  You leap on any criticism of your point to claim we’re proving your point.  If your point were that we will criticize stupid points, you would have a point.  But then, we wouldn’t be critizing that point, because it would be correct.

It’s as if you came here in order to dictate to Americans how Americans behave, and pretend that any argument with you proves your point.  It’s sad.

I have had these arguments a few time and they generally fall into the same catagories, misrepresentations and personal attacks, but one thing I would like you to read.

American culture, the idea expressed earlier that you need protection from your government is born out of how and why America was created.

See coming mainly from Europe, to escape persecution and over bearing governments America has that mindset, that the government is a bad thing, to be fought against and held at bay.

In the intervening years between your creation and today, most European countries have turned their governments into tools for their own benefit, that provide health care, pensions, education and transport and much much more, you have never done that because you have been soo busy protecting yourself from an overbearing and controlling government, by keeping it small and insignificant and out of your lives.

Maybe, just maybe, it is about time you realised that your government can work for you, it isn’t about what you can do for your government, it is about what your government can do for you.  If you look around the world you will see examples of bad government, but you will also see examples of excellent government that works for the people.

Maybe, just maybe, it is about time you realised that your government can work for you, it isn’t about what you can do for your government, it is about what your government can do for you

Yes that’s how government should be.  However that is not what you are advocating.  There is a difference between having the government work for you and having the government run your life for you. The government works for me best by leaving me the fuck alone.  “We’re from the government and we’re here to help” is a scary thought.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 09:00 AM (Link to this

“Maybe, just maybe, it is about time you realised that your government can work for you, it isn’t about what you can do for your government, it is about what your government can do for you.  If you look around the world you will see examples of bad government, but you will also see examples of excellent government that works for the people.”

Pass

Maybe, just maybe, it is about time you realised that your government can work for you,

I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

you have never done that because you have been soo busy protecting yourself from an overbearing and controlling government, by keeping it small and insignificant and out of your lives.

Actually we haven’t. We now have a virtually unchecked overbearing, uncontrolled, controlling government which is far more involved in every aspect of our lives than it should be. As a result I have to spend every day listening to Marxists blame the failings of American society on American ideals, when such failing are in fact largely the result of our departure from our ideals.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 11:00 AM

In the intervening years between your creation and today, most European countries have turned their governments into tools for their own benefit, that provide health care, pensions, education and transport and much much more, you have never done that because you have been soo busy protecting yourself from an overbearing and controlling government, by keeping it small and insignificant and out of your lives.

Clearly you’re not familiar with our government.  It’s budget is 20% of our GDP.  I hardly call that insignificant.

Maybe, just maybe, it is about time you realised that your government can work for you, it isn’t about what you can do for your government, it is about what your government can do for you.

For a lot of Americans, it’s about what we can do for ourselves, and whether the government should do the things we can’t do for ourselves.  In a lot of cases (military, highways, etc.) we have decided that yes, the government should do those things that we can’t do as individuals.  The argument is whether healthcare is one of those things that the government must do for us.

If you look around the world you will see examples of bad government, but you will also see examples of excellent government that works for the people.

In which of those two do you think the American government falls?  And is free healthcare the sole metric for that decision?

Alternately, Londoner, you could say that those European countries could change their systems to one more like, say, America’s.  After all, if it’s good enough that you considered moving here…

Government working for the people? This the same Europe where, in many countries, denying the Holocaust, an act of thought and word alone, is a crime?

Londoner, I’ll outright say that there is at least one other country I could be happy living in, even though I define myself as an American. In just under 3 days, I’m leaving for 6 weeks in Australia, a country I absolutely love to spend time in and in some respects, would prefer to the U.S. Though to be honest, I don’t think I could consider myself anything but an American, even living there. There are definite things that I prefer about there, from a cultural perspective as well.
Further, there’s a good reason for defensiveness here, and you summed up why yourself.

I will admit over the past few years you have become more and more wildly known as a bunch of obese idiots ruled by a simpleton, you don’t really lend yourself to changing these thoughts to be honest, and these thoughts like any racist thoughts, soon fall away in the face of real conversation and considered talking, rather then kneejerk answers to the quesiton “What do you think of Americans” you actually ask people a number of questions and have a decent conversation, you would note that most of those people who will bark out “Obese idiots” will actually once slowed down, comment eloquently talk about the good and bad in America, the problem is you don’t get past the knee jerk reactions when dealing with the media...and that includes the Internet.

You acknowledge that people have a more negative knee jerk reaction, but then thats all you contribute to this discussion is these knee jerk reactions and assumptions about Americans.
I also am a tad intrigued as to how you comment on there being no anti-Americanism in England in the 90s because Thatcher and Reagan were friends. Both since Reagan sort of wasn’t president, and also becuase by that logic, there isn’t any now because of the Bush and Blair friendship.

Overall, if people view an attack as unfair and unwarranted, such as, oh say, sweeping generalisations about 300 million people, they’re going to get defensive because thats not a critique thats just insults. There is a way to raise these points honestly and fairly and be treated equally in the process. That you don’t choose that pathway says far more about you than it does about Americans.

It isn’t about defining yourself by your flaws, its about admitting them, accepting them and acting to fix them, you seem to be completely unresolved to fixing anything and seem more intent on attacking someone who points out those flaws

Oh, good!  That means that the only real issue here is your straw man arguments based on incorrect perspectives.  That’s what we do.  That’s not what Moore does.

that you have such great freedom of speech that he didn’t want to see that broken… it wasn’t about pretending he was better then you or a gracious human being

Where does putting the clip INTO HIS MOVIE as a public display fit into your theory of pure-hearted philanthropy?  If that were his motivation, the anonymous donation could just as well have stayed anonymous.  Obviously there are some things more important to Moore than giving someone a hand up.

Incidentally, Moore is so committed to free speech and fostering criticism of his work that he took the forums off his own site years ago.

my comments on how much I envy your bill of rights, your constitution and the very freedom enshrined therein

What exactly do you envy if our country is of the exact same valuation to you as every other Western nation?

I am not sure what is defensive about my comments w0rf.

Then go back and read the paragraph again.  I stated it very clearly.

Yes w0rf he may have made a speech, but where in that speech, and where in the context of nationalised health care, does it preclude private health care?  It just doesn’t.  That is something you have tacked onto the idea, so it makes it easier for you to argue against it.

From Huffington: “Moore wants his fellow Americans to seize this moment when health care will be publicized to demand that the state governments and Congress enact a universal, single-payer system”

From PNHP.org: “In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.”

The terminology is clearly defined.  Next time you’re going to treat me like I manufacture my arguments, you’d better be damn sure.

His methods are not relevent to the issue, I understand why you take that view, but as I said in an earlier reply bringing the information to the masses is far more important then getting the facts absolutely 100% right.

Let me know when he brings informtion to the masses, and you and I can have that conversation.  All I see are distortions and exaggerations to turn every issue facing America into the tragedy of a broken system brought about by evil conservative principles.  When he stops bs’ing and BRINGS INFORMATION then we’ll have a STARTING POINT for the discussion.

I’m not asking him to be perfect, but being honest and fair would be a nice start.

He is a movie maker, not a policy maker, you admit there are problems with the health care system you have?

Every system “has problems”, that is far from the point.  A system that “has problems” is not the same as a system that is “broken” and “killing people” and every other superlative you can throw at it.  If I yell “fire” in a theater, it may be somewhat accurate considering someone just lit a cigarette, but can you really say that it’s better to cause a panic and do all that damage just to inform everyone, rather than just going up to the guy and saying, “please put out your cigarette”?

I was commenting that in America a lot of people have made accusations against people who are against the war in Iraq as being unsupportive of the troops.

And you EXTRAPOLATED that to suggest that people here are just crying wolf about socialized medicine rather than talk about fixing the actual problems.  Because that’s what the media tells us we should say.  That’s why I referred to the MINDSET and MEDIA MANIPULATION (you know, the parts of my quote that you LEFT OUT?), and put “against the troops” in quotes to show it was your demonstrative EXAMPLE of such a mindset.  It’s intellectually dishonest, it’s not fair to the people who are actively trying to engage you, and I can’t think of a reason why I SHOULD just sit back and be insulted like that.

Two flaws here, firstly the assumption that another company will take your business

Why is that a flawed assumption?  I don’t know of many businesses that succeed without customers.

and secondly that you would have no rights in a government based scheme, you have a right to Free Speech, a Right to Bear Arms and such

The government doesn’t MANAGE speech, the government doesn’t MANAGE the gun industry.  In this case the government would be MANAGING health care.  These comparisons are ridiculously inaccurate.

you would have the RIGHT to medical care, that is why it is called Universal Health Care, because the government would not have the right to turn you away.

You mean other than the hospitals in England that are refusing surgery to people unless they stop smoking?  That no-right-to-turn-you-away?

if I get cancer from second hand smoke, no matter my financial circumstances, no matter the small print in my insurance forms, I will get treatment, you can’t be so sure can you?

Yes.

you may make the claim that Charities can do this, but Charities are less accountable then government

Charitynavigator.org.  Go there, and see comparisons between different American charities, and their performance evaluations.  Then come back and tell me that government-run programs achieve a NINETY-PERCENT payout rate of funds appropriated for those programs.

Surely the people with the most accountability are the best ones to run such a system, because they want to protect themselves.

And you think the way American politicians protect themselves is by running their government efficiently?  REALLY?

Hence my comment about being unresolved to fix the issue and more content to attack Michael Moore on details.

Just keep downplaying his lies and distortions to make it sound as though we are arguing whether a company’s profit margin was 8% or 8.3%.  See how far that takes you.

This is not difficult.  It’s been the mindset of humankind since the beginning of the scientific age.  You don’t just start with your conclusion and work backwards, you go where the facts take you.  And if the facts do not take me where Michael Moore is going, I’m not going to sit here and pretend like they are, just because you think it serves some larger social agenda.  We’re supposed to be living in an age where reason and forensics trumps emotion and rhetoric, yet you keep trying to convince us that stuff no longer matters here.  For the life of me, I can’t fathom why it would be more important to believe a pretty lie than a dull truth.

Actually we haven’t. We now have a virtually unchecked overbearing, uncontrolled, controlling government which is far more involved in every aspect of our lives than it should be. As a result I have to spend every day listening to Marxists blame the failings of American society on American ideals, when such failing are in fact largely the result of our departure from our ideals.

This I agree with, one of the things I have always appreciated tho not always agreed on is the republican idea of government staying out of peoples lives.

Government provides even the most republican state with many many things, as stated in the movie, Fire Crews, Police, Libraries....these aren’t things you want to give up are they? Do you think they are the route of the problem?

So why would medical care become that problem, why can’t it be done like the Fire Fighters, there to benefit you not to control you.

Sethery you confuse reality with ideaology, the idea is to keep government small, the reality is a republican leader who has wiretapped you, pried into your private lives and created the largest government you have ever had....doesn’t change the platform on which he was elected, Republican Party, for small government.  Ideaology and Reality are seldom the same.

As to where does the American Government fall in the realms of good and bad government, I would think pretty good, could it be better sure, what couldn’t be better, but overall I think it has in its history done a good job, at the moment it is failing in a spectacular way, overriding your constitution, bringing in hastily over powerful bills like the Patriot Act etc etc, but overall it has been a half decent government.

But then, maybe you are right, maybe you should be overly cautious, I mean look at what your government has done in recent years, I don’t and you will probably take this very badly, but there you go, I don’t think your politics has grown as ours have.  I honestly believe it would take a very small amount to push America into a Tyranny, a Dictatorship, you seem almost ready for it as a country.

I will be honest tho, I could easily see England going that way too, politicians get away with far more today then they did 20 years ago, in the 60/70s Nixon was forced to resign, Bush has done far worse and yet he remains in office.

The same is true of England our politicians have behaved worse today then they have done in the past, yet we seem incapable of ousting them from power.

We’re supposed to be living in an age where reason and forensics

I should copy this statement to my clipboard it would certainly save me a lot of typing…

As I have already said.

This is not a government report, not a white paper, it is a film, a movie, entertainment. Is it based on fact, is it presented as fact, yes it is, is it totally removed from fact, is no part of it true? No, but you aren’t concentrating on the truthful parts are you, just the parts you feel you can take a dig at, the parts that you feel you can find a flaw in the presentation.

It really makes no sense to concentrate purely on the parts you think are unfounded while ignoring almost 2 hours worth of footage that wasn’t all wrong.

It brought the debate to the table and it entertained.

It done its’ job.

You just don’t like what it has to say so nit pick it and try and pretend that somehow it is a disservice that we are all now talking about and exploring the health care system in America.

Why, I have no idea, you people confound me in ways you wouldn’t believe.

Posted by Londoner on 06/14 at 01:15 PM

Sethery you confuse reality with ideaology, the idea is to keep government small, the reality is a republican leader who has wiretapped you, pried into your private lives and created the largest government you have ever had....doesn’t change the platform on which he was elected, Republican Party, for small government.  Ideaology and Reality are seldom the same.

Since you didn’t provide a quote, I don’t know where you think I was confused.  Looking back, when you discussed reality, I replied regarding reality.  When you discussed ideology, I replied about ideology.  If you move the goalposts on me...I’ll know.

As to where does the American Government fall in the realms of good and bad government, I would think pretty good, could it be better sure, what couldn’t be better, but overall I think it has in its history done a good job, at the moment it is failing in a spectacular way, overriding your constitution, bringing in hastily over powerful bills like the Patriot Act etc etc, but overall it has been a half decent government.

There have certainly been questionable actions, but they’re being challenged by our Congress and in the courts...just as it was intended.  Many of the most egregious claims are actually quite overstated.

But then, maybe you are right, maybe you should be overly cautious, I mean look at what your government has done in recent years, I don’t and you will probably take this very badly, but there you go, I don’t think your politics has grown as ours have.  I honestly believe it would take a very small amount to push America into a Tyranny, a Dictatorship, you seem almost ready for it as a country.

I think you’re wrong, but in the event you’re right...it’s why we keep our guns.  It’s a lot harder to impose tyranny on 90 million armed civilians.

Regarding Sicko, you claim it makes no sense to concentrate on the deceptions (swapping my term for yours, since we’re talking about the same thing).  I say it makes no sense to ignore them outright.  A good debate can still ensue even when a website points out a movie’s deceptions, don’t you think?

So why would medical care become that problem, why can’t it be done like the Fire Fighters, there to benefit you not to control you.

Fire fighters are employed by the state. Unless your version of universal care includes health care practitioners being employed by the state, rather than just funded by it, the analogy fails (it fails for many other reasons as well, many of which have been described by other posters over the past few days).

Sethery you confuse reality with ideaology, the idea is to keep government small, the reality is a republican leader who has wiretapped you, pried into your private lives and created the largest government you have ever had....doesn’t change the platform on which he was elected, Republican Party, for small government.

So you agree with me that the problem is not the ideals of limited government, it’s the departure from those ideals?

at the moment it is failing in a spectacular way, overriding your constitution, bringing in hastily over powerful bills like the Patriot Act etc

Is anyone else getting the impression (from both Londoner and PeteMate) that the Brits somehow get an unrealistic portrait of what America is really like?

Yeah, but so do most Americans.

Government provides even the most republican state with many many things, as stated in the movie, Fire Crews, Police, Libraries....these aren’t things you want to give up are they? Do you think they are the route of the problem?

Actually, the bulk of these services are provided by local and sometimes state governments, not federal.  The modern public library system in the US owes its present state to Andrew Carnegie’s $50m contribution to starting up new libraries (that’s $500m+ in today money), and they are about 90% funded by local taxes.  I grow very tired of straw man arguments that minimal government intervention is supposed to mean no infrastructure and no local controls.  Can we dispense with that, please?

So why would medical care become that problem, why can’t it be done like the Fire Fighters, there to benefit you not to control you.

Firefighters are only there in the most dire of emergencies, like when my house is actually on fire.  Universal, single-payer health care does not and by definition CANNOT restrict itself only to emergencies, nor do I expect the government (not even the local government!) to fund the fire department to the level where they go around and change the batteries in my smoke detector every six months for me, or make sure that I turn off the oven when I leave the house.

I honestly believe it would take a very small amount to push America into a Tyranny, a Dictatorship, you seem almost ready for it as a country

Oh, good, so you watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and got spooked by that piece of propaganda as well.  I was worried that you had not achieved the Moore Crisis Trifecta.

This is not a government report, not a white paper, it is a film, a movie, entertainment.

Then chalk it up as a fictional movie, a la Canadian Bacon, and not a documentary.

Is it based on fact, is it presented as fact, yes it is, is it totally removed from fact, is no part of it true?

Even the devil can quote Deuteronomy, that doesn’t mean he has the right idea.

No, but you aren’t concentrating on the truthful parts are you, just the parts you feel you can take a dig at, the parts that you feel you can find a flaw in the presentation.

Again, you act like this site just picks nits, when in fact the truth is so woefully absent from these movies that you and others defending him can’t even claim they’re true.  You have to say that he “has the right idea” and he is “entertaining” and “provoking discussion”.

I want a Moore defender come on here and praise Bill O’Reilly for being entertaining and provoking discussion.  I want that person to tell me what a great benefit Bill is to American society.  Not only do I expect that to happen, but even if someone were that wrong-headed (or jesting), I would take equally strong exception to that premise.  All of these jokers are a blight on rational discourse, and if I had my druthers, not a one of them would have a job in front of (or behind) a camera except maybe to give weather and traffic reports.  And in many cases, I’m not sure I could trust them not to make THAT politically charged.  “The freeways are packed with a bunch of pinko commie bastards who hate the troops so be careful driving home tonight.” “Tomorrow will be partly to mostly cloudy because evil rich fat cats are making the clouds bigger with their toxic dumps.”

You just don’t like what it has to say

You mean I don’t like lies and distortions?  Gee, what the hell is wrong with me?  Yeah, I can see how I’m the one who’s out to lunch on this issue.

so nit pick it and try and pretend that somehow it is a disservice that we are all now talking about and exploring the health care system in America.  Why, I have no idea, you people confound me in ways you wouldn’t believe.

It probably would be confounding to someone who claims the movie’s purpose is to bring information to the people, and then say the movie’s purpose is to entertain, and damn the information.

This is (still) very simple.  A poor premise with poor supporting points intended to enrage the populace with images of class warfare, does not provoke discussion.  You can’t honestly think nobody debated health care issues before the release of Sicko…

[correction]
*Not only do I NOT expect that to happen*
[/correction]