Michael Moore is not taking care of himself and then when he finally has a problem he wants the government to take care of it....typical democrat.
So where do you draw the line? What's the maximum amount of calories a person should be allowed to eat in a week before they become exempt from receiving heathcare?
What's the maximum amount of alcohol anyone should be allowed to drink in a week before they become unfit to receive healthcare?
Did you actually watch 'Sicko'? How about taking Michael Moore out of the equation and commenting on the movie itself?
Maybe you should attack his ideas instead of his appearance. Oh wait, that would actually require some intelligence.
I think the idea of healthcare and taking care of your health can go hand in hand.
I like Michael Moore, but I also think he is very biased and a nutcase. He does bring some interesting points across and his documentaries are very interesting.
I think the idea of healthcare and taking care of your health can go hand in hand.
I think that deciding that taking care of your health should be a factor in determining who is, or isn't, eligible to receive health care is just a lame cop-out and a way of avoiding the fact that America's health care system is a fucking disgrace.
I like Michael Moore, but I also think he is very biased and a nutcase. He does bring some interesting points across and his documentaries are very interesting.
Biased how? Biased in that he challenges those in power?
Biased how? Biased in that he challenges those in power?
Maybe I should have worded that differently.. he will say somethings, obviously out of his ass to get a valid point across. Shock and Awe, exaturation.. It's totally obvious. If you don't see it, you are just as close minded as some of the rightwing nut jobs.
Sometimes I cringe when he argues for a point that I may agree with. He's a little out there, but thats how he earns his living and raises awareness, so more power to him.
Maybe I should have worded that differently.. he will say somethings, obviously out of his ass to get a valid point across. Shock and Awe, exaturation.. It's totally obvious. If you don't see it, you are just as close minded as some of the rightwing nut jobs.
Yeah, this sounds absolutely nothing like every politician and the mainstream media.
I'm not sure why people are bringing up gluttony and eating disorders. Whether or not Michael Moore (or anyone else) is obese because of their own personal gluttony or because of genetic or other factors outside of their control, it does not change the fact that they are a) still obese and b) highly questionable regarding any demands they make upon society as a result of their condition.
Universal health care means health care for everyone.
I hate michael moore because he gives a bad name to good causes.
How so? Care to elaborate?
Seems to me like the U.S media has given Michael Moore a bad name and as per usual the U.S population swallows it hook line and sinker.
Yeah, this sounds absolutely nothing like every politician and the mainstream media.
But he isn't a politician. He's supposed to be creating documentaries, or at least that is what he wants you to think. Some of us consider them mocumentaries, kind of like Spinal Tap.
He'll take a factoid and spin it totally out of context. Or take things out of chronological order to put his spin on it. He'll ambush people, get them to say something stupid, and then highlight that as a main point.
Look, he's good at what he does, but people just have to be a little more clear on what that is. To accept him as a straight-shooting, above board creator of documentaries is childish. To dismiss him completely because of who he is and what he's saying is childish. One needs to watch his movies with a little bit of a discerning eye.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
One needs to watch his movies with a little bit of a discerning eye.
It's interesting that Americans have been convinced that they should acquire a critical faculty when watching any Michael Moore documentary, but they've never thought to adopt this same critical faculty and apply it to every other aspect of the media.
Michael Moore challenges power in some documentaries and suddenly the whole population become film critics. I'd be interested to see some of the horseshit criticism churned out in the mainstream U.S media every time Michael Moore makes a movie. It makes me wonder why they can't take the same amount of time and effort to prepare the population before every State Of The Union Address, or before every Hollywood produced distortion of history.
It's interesting that Americans have been convinced that they should acquire a critical faculty when watching any Michael Moore documentary, but they've never thought to adopt this same critical faculty and apply it to every other aspect of the media.
Yawn. That's right. We're only critical with Michael Moore. Good one.
This is why I'm not going to engage in much dialog with you. You are pretty well set in your beliefs, I in mine, and and common ground wil be tricky.
Michael Moore challenges power in some documentaries and suddenly the whole population become film critics. I'd be interested to see some of the horseshit criticism churned out in the mainstream U.S media every time Michael Moore makes a movie. It makes me wonder why they can't take the same amount of time and effort to prepare the population before every State Of The Union Address, or before every Hollywood produced distortion of history.
Well, there are plenty of sites offering criticism of Bush and Bush's policies. Plenty of sites offering criticism of the bailout plan. Plenty of sites offering criticism of Obama and his appointments thus far. I'm not sure why you've missed all of that. And every time there is a Hollywood movie like Pearl Harbor, Nixon, Schindler's List, in addition to the gushing, there are lots of critics pointing out historical errors or different perspectives. Perhaps you simply don't look for anything that contradicts the point you are seeking to make.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Okay.
I'm not even going to address the idiotic discussion regarding Michael Moore's weight or speculation in regards to his health as it is quite clearly a tasteless personal attack that holds no water as an argument for...or against...the man's character.
I really don't understand why people get so pissed off at Michael Moore for making his documentaries. Sure they lean towards the left, Sure they have an agenda, and of course they only represent one-side to an argument.
Are you actually telling me that this is a surprise?
I mean look at us
We all come on here with our own personal agenda...our own slant towards an argument.
If given the same chance as Michael Moore, Limbaugh, O'Reily...we'd do the exact same shit.
There is no fairness in media. It will always have a slant. The trick is to accept this as fact and ensure that you are informing yourself on both sides of the argument.
The media is only there as a tool to give us a side of an argument in order to help us deduce where we personally stand on an issue.
Sometimes one side of the argument is more prevelant in the media than another.
That's the way it has always been and you are kidding yourself if you think this will ever change.
The pendulum is always swinging back and forth...Left and Right
I'd say about 5 or 6 years ago...The mainstream media was very much a right wing voice where as today....there seems to have been a direct shift towards the left.
Sure it's fustrating when one side of the argument dominates the mainstream...but to me it's all the more reason to seek another point of view.
We have a wealth of tools to find this information. Sometimes it takes a little bit of investigation to get that other side of the argument.
I don't knock Michael Moore for what he does...and I sure as hell don't knock people like Rush, or Bill O'Reily.
I like to listen to all of these opinions. Some cases they are extreme but when mixed together it brings you one step closer to the middle of the argument where you can absorb all the information and....
Well, there are plenty of sites offering criticism of Bush and Bush's policies. Plenty of sites offering criticism of the bailout plan. Plenty of sites offering criticism of Obama and his appointments thus far. I'm not sure why you've missed all of that. And every time there is a Hollywood movie like Pearl Harbor, Nixon, Schindler's List, in addition to the gushing, there are lots of critics pointing out historical errors or different perspectives. Perhaps you simply don't look for anything that contradicts the point you are seeking to make.
Plenty of site saying this, plenty of sites saying that....e.t., e.t.c. Yeah I know. I was talking about the mainstream media, not the internet.
Funny how Spielberg is still held in the highest regard though, while it's become perfectly acceptable to heap a ton of vitriol on Michael Moore, despite his Oscar winning credentials. Weird that.
Okay.
I'm not even going to address the idiotic discussion regarding Michael Moore's weight or speculation in regards to his health as it is quite clearly a tasteless personal attack that holds no water as an argument for...or against...the man's character.
I really don't understand why people get so pissed off at Michael Moore for making his documentaries. Sure they lean towards the left, Sure they have an agenda, and of course they only represent one-side to an argument.
Are you actually telling me that this is a surprise?
I mean look at us
We all come on here with our own personal agenda...our own slant towards an argument.
If given the same chance as Michael Moore, Limbaugh, O'Reily...we'd do the exact same shit.
There is no fairness in media. It will always have a slant. The trick is to accept this as fact and ensure that you are informing yourself on both sides of the argument.
The media is only there as a tool to give us a side of an argument in order to help us deduce where we personally stand on an issue.
Sometimes one side of the argument is more prevelant in the media than another.
That's the way it has always been and you are kidding yourself if you think this will ever change.
The pendulum is always swinging back and forth...Left and Right
I'd say about 5 or 6 years ago...The mainstream media was very much a right wing voice where as today....there seems to have been a direct shift towards the left.
Sure it's fustrating when one side of the argument dominates the mainstream...but to me it's all the more reason to seek another point of view.
We have a wealth of tools to find this information. Sometimes it takes a little bit of investigation to get that other side of the argument.
I don't knock Michael Moore for what he does...and I sure as hell don't knock people like Rush, or Bill O'Reily.
I like to listen to all of these opinions. Some cases they are extreme but when mixed together it brings you one step closer to the middle of the argument where you can absorb all the information and....
But he isn't a politician. He's supposed to be creating documentaries, or at least that is what he wants you to think. Some of us consider them mocumentaries, kind of like Spinal Tap.
He'll take a factoid and spin it totally out of context. Or take things out of chronological order to put his spin on it. He'll ambush people, get them to say something stupid, and then highlight that as a main point.
Look, he's good at what he does, but people just have to be a little more clear on what that is. To accept him as a straight-shooting, above board creator of documentaries is childish. To dismiss him completely because of who he is and what he's saying is childish. One needs to watch his movies with a little bit of a discerning eye.
Regardless of his politics, I don't think Michael Moore is a very good movie maker. I have not seen Sicko, but I saw Bowling for Columbine, and it wasn't really that great. It was all over the place with a bunch of different messages and points, rather than sticking to one topic. I have seen way better documentaries than that one.
I agree with you. I think it was well said. There are definitely Michael Moore haters, just as there are those who defend him and rely on him to inform their opinions.
As Gonzo said, no different from Rush, O'Reilly, and I'll add Hannity and Olberman, etc...
Sometimes people like to use Moore's pieces as evidence of something, when in reality, his movies are closer to OpEd pieces than peer reviewed studies.
I used to like Moore. I found him witty and sarcastic. I still own VHS tapes (remember them?) of Roger & Me, and his TV Nation series. But for me, he lost his wit, and became redundant, obnoxious, marginalized and mostly irrelevant.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Do not extoll the virtues of your system whilst complaining about problems it helps create. UHC lowers the cost of living dangerously, prohibits private medical practice wherein doctors may offer premium services, hampers the overall supply of medical service, and makes everyone's health someone else's responsibility, and you have the gall to then say you love it while at the same time complaining about waiting for 4 hours in an emergency room??? You have to be kidding.
Easy to act like its some big problem when your not sick and can afford HC. But when the shoe is on the other foot I think you would have a very different perspective. How about just a bit opf empathy for the less fortunate in the worlds richest country?
Care to explain how it would "lower the cost of living" dangerously? What exactly is bad about that?
And if waiting 4 hours for health care bothers you then use private health insurance. Most Western countries retain both systems so your statement that private health insurance will be "prohibit(ed)" doesn't hold much weight in practice.
I agree with you. I think it was well said. There are definitely Michael Moore haters, just as there are those who defend him and rely on him to inform their opinions.
As Gonzo said, no different from Rush, O'Reilly, and I'll add Hannity and Olberman, etc...
Sometimes people like to use Moore's pieces as evidence of something, when in reality, his movies are closer to OpEd pieces than peer reviewed studies.
I used to like Moore. I found him witty and sarcastic. I still own VHS tapes (remember them?) of Roger & Me, and his TV Nation series. But for me, he lost his wit, and became redundant, obnoxious, marginalized and mostly irrelevant.
Moore's value is in making you think about things differently and bringing to attention information that is often ignored. He highlights a lot of important relationships/conflicts of interest between governments and corporate America in his docos's. He cops a lot of shit, but unlike O'Reilly, Hannity and co his heart is in the right place.
Comments
So where do you draw the line? What's the maximum amount of calories a person should be allowed to eat in a week before they become exempt from receiving heathcare?
What's the maximum amount of alcohol anyone should be allowed to drink in a week before they become unfit to receive healthcare?
Did you actually watch 'Sicko'? How about taking Michael Moore out of the equation and commenting on the movie itself?
I like Michael Moore, but I also think he is very biased and a nutcase. He does bring some interesting points across and his documentaries are very interesting.
I think that deciding that taking care of your health should be a factor in determining who is, or isn't, eligible to receive health care is just a lame cop-out and a way of avoiding the fact that America's health care system is a fucking disgrace.
Biased how? Biased in that he challenges those in power?
Sometimes I cringe when he argues for a point that I may agree with. He's a little out there, but thats how he earns his living and raises awareness, so more power to him.
Yeah, because it's always best to let someone else make up your mind about a person rather than trust your own judgment, right?.
Yeah, this sounds absolutely nothing like every politician and the mainstream media.
Universal health care means health care for everyone.
How so? Care to elaborate?
Seems to me like the U.S media has given Michael Moore a bad name and as per usual the U.S population swallows it hook line and sinker.
But he isn't a politician. He's supposed to be creating documentaries, or at least that is what he wants you to think. Some of us consider them mocumentaries, kind of like Spinal Tap.
He'll take a factoid and spin it totally out of context. Or take things out of chronological order to put his spin on it. He'll ambush people, get them to say something stupid, and then highlight that as a main point.
Look, he's good at what he does, but people just have to be a little more clear on what that is. To accept him as a straight-shooting, above board creator of documentaries is childish. To dismiss him completely because of who he is and what he's saying is childish. One needs to watch his movies with a little bit of a discerning eye.
Such as?
It's interesting that Americans have been convinced that they should acquire a critical faculty when watching any Michael Moore documentary, but they've never thought to adopt this same critical faculty and apply it to every other aspect of the media.
Michael Moore challenges power in some documentaries and suddenly the whole population become film critics. I'd be interested to see some of the horseshit criticism churned out in the mainstream U.S media every time Michael Moore makes a movie. It makes me wonder why they can't take the same amount of time and effort to prepare the population before every State Of The Union Address, or before every Hollywood produced distortion of history.
You have to consider the source of the documentary you saw. Who made it?
Their agenda seems to have been clear.
Search is your friend. There have been threads on just about every Moore movie when they've come out.
Yawn. That's right. We're only critical with Michael Moore. Good one.
This is why I'm not going to engage in much dialog with you. You are pretty well set in your beliefs, I in mine, and and common ground wil be tricky.
Well, there are plenty of sites offering criticism of Bush and Bush's policies. Plenty of sites offering criticism of the bailout plan. Plenty of sites offering criticism of Obama and his appointments thus far. I'm not sure why you've missed all of that. And every time there is a Hollywood movie like Pearl Harbor, Nixon, Schindler's List, in addition to the gushing, there are lots of critics pointing out historical errors or different perspectives. Perhaps you simply don't look for anything that contradicts the point you are seeking to make.
I'm not even going to address the idiotic discussion regarding Michael Moore's weight or speculation in regards to his health as it is quite clearly a tasteless personal attack that holds no water as an argument for...or against...the man's character.
I really don't understand why people get so pissed off at Michael Moore for making his documentaries. Sure they lean towards the left, Sure they have an agenda, and of course they only represent one-side to an argument.
Are you actually telling me that this is a surprise?
I mean look at us
We all come on here with our own personal agenda...our own slant towards an argument.
If given the same chance as Michael Moore, Limbaugh, O'Reily...we'd do the exact same shit.
There is no fairness in media. It will always have a slant. The trick is to accept this as fact and ensure that you are informing yourself on both sides of the argument.
The media is only there as a tool to give us a side of an argument in order to help us deduce where we personally stand on an issue.
Sometimes one side of the argument is more prevelant in the media than another.
That's the way it has always been and you are kidding yourself if you think this will ever change.
The pendulum is always swinging back and forth...Left and Right
I'd say about 5 or 6 years ago...The mainstream media was very much a right wing voice where as today....there seems to have been a direct shift towards the left.
Sure it's fustrating when one side of the argument dominates the mainstream...but to me it's all the more reason to seek another point of view.
We have a wealth of tools to find this information. Sometimes it takes a little bit of investigation to get that other side of the argument.
I don't knock Michael Moore for what he does...and I sure as hell don't knock people like Rush, or Bill O'Reily.
I like to listen to all of these opinions. Some cases they are extreme but when mixed together it brings you one step closer to the middle of the argument where you can absorb all the information and....
USE YOUR OWN FUCKING BRAIN!!!
To come to a conclusion.
The Procecution Rests.
Plenty of site saying this, plenty of sites saying that....e.t., e.t.c. Yeah I know. I was talking about the mainstream media, not the internet.
Funny how Spielberg is still held in the highest regard though, while it's become perfectly acceptable to heap a ton of vitriol on Michael Moore, despite his Oscar winning credentials. Weird that.
Well said.
Regardless of his politics, I don't think Michael Moore is a very good movie maker. I have not seen Sicko, but I saw Bowling for Columbine, and it wasn't really that great. It was all over the place with a bunch of different messages and points, rather than sticking to one topic. I have seen way better documentaries than that one.
I agree with you. I think it was well said. There are definitely Michael Moore haters, just as there are those who defend him and rely on him to inform their opinions.
As Gonzo said, no different from Rush, O'Reilly, and I'll add Hannity and Olberman, etc...
Sometimes people like to use Moore's pieces as evidence of something, when in reality, his movies are closer to OpEd pieces than peer reviewed studies.
I used to like Moore. I found him witty and sarcastic. I still own VHS tapes (remember them?) of Roger & Me, and his TV Nation series. But for me, he lost his wit, and became redundant, obnoxious, marginalized and mostly irrelevant.
Easy to act like its some big problem when your not sick and can afford HC. But when the shoe is on the other foot I think you would have a very different perspective. How about just a bit opf empathy for the less fortunate in the worlds richest country?
Care to explain how it would "lower the cost of living" dangerously? What exactly is bad about that?
And if waiting 4 hours for health care bothers you then use private health insurance. Most Western countries retain both systems so your statement that private health insurance will be "prohibit(ed)" doesn't hold much weight in practice.
Moore's value is in making you think about things differently and bringing to attention information that is often ignored. He highlights a lot of important relationships/conflicts of interest between governments and corporate America in his docos's. He cops a lot of shit, but unlike O'Reilly, Hannity and co his heart is in the right place.