Michael Moore and his unending fight against the forces of evil! (APPLAUSE)

I find it strange that people claim the Canadian health care system is free. It isn't. You STILL have to pay when it comes tax time. Sure, if you go many times in a year to a hospital, you save money, (but that's no real advantage considering you've had to have gone to a hospiatal several times), but otherwise, you have to pay for it when it comes time for........

TAXES......

Ugh. Our taxes (I'm a Canadian, sorry) are a LOT higher than the US'. And while I appreciate public health care in many cases, it's tragically been taken too far out of context and sometimes just plain abused.
 
Great point Dr Corbett. People fail to realize that NOTHING, not even a hospital, can run at a loss. Ergo, someone must be paying for it, and it takes the form of taxation in backwards social democracies.

As for the subject at hand, Moore suffers from the inherent disadvantage of being a giant buffoon.
 
Yes. Basically, if there isn't public healthcare, here is how I understand the system:

- Get refused service and die.
- Get service because it is an emergency, and then work off the debt for years.

Yes, national healthcare would come from the pockets of the taxpayers, but is that a problem? They will benefit from it. And if not them, then their cousin or aunt or sister. And if not them, then the poor guy who lives down the street...

I guess people just aren't charitable any more...*sigh*
 
Michael Moore looks like the poster boy for inbred, white, trailer park trash. Thankfully he'll probably not last too much longer.

Pilate, strangely silent on rmsharpe's response there eh?
 
You mean this? It's already been replied to!

(1.) A high school shooting in Michigan. Moore says that Charleton Heston holds a "pro-gun rally" just after the shooting. In fact, Heston held a "get out the vote" rally eight months after the shooting.

(2.) The U.S. "aid" to the Taliban. In fact, the money in question was given to the United Nations and non-governmental organizations to relieve famine.

(3.) Moore says that there were 11,127 firearm homocides in the United States. In fact, the real number was about 3,000 less than what he had stated.

(4.) Heston again. This time, Moore says that he is a "racist." In fact, Heston picketed segregated restaurants and led the actors component of King's 1963 Washington D.C. march.


1. Archer quoted an entire speech that Mr. Heston gave ten days after the shooting.

2. Semantic nitpicking. The USA did give millions of dollars to the Taliban as sweetener money, ostensibly to reward their progress in combatting opium. I don't care about the pathways, and "aid" is still definitely the correct word.

3. Governmental sites & documents that Moore quoted were cited; I checked them. Clearly two government agencies didn't agree about the numbers. It IS pretty dirty politics for Moore to pick the higher figure :p

4. I suspect this is out-of-context slander. I'd like to see a source [a block quote containing the specific quote from Moore].

Since I rarely or never agree with Moore and am not "on his side", I'd be interested in any other evidence of lies, though.
 
2. Semantic nitpicking. The USA did give millions of dollars to the Taliban as sweetener money, ostensibly to reward their progress in combatting opium. I don't care about the pathways, and "aid" is still definitely the correct word.

3. Governmental sites & documents that Moore quoted were cited; I checked them. Clearly two government agencies didn't agree about the numbers. It IS pretty dirty politics for Moore to pick the higher figure

Adebisi's link covers both of these.

2- The aid was humanitarian assistance through the UN and non-government agencies, to help relieve famine in Afghanistan.

3- Moore used numbers from the CDC, which had ALL gun deaths, not just gun homocides. (ie it included instances where a gun was used legally in self defense and police use against criminals)
 
@Pilate
I was specifically waiting to here your usual response with appropriate links, references and footnotes. It's not like you not to respond with overwhelming evidence. I found that strange.
I personally know very little of Moore other than the usual media overviews. I haven't found him compelling in any of the interviews I've seen with him. I'm sure his books are as full of half-truths, distortions and falsehoods as any on the right, but that's just a guess.

edited for clarity
 
Definitely shady statistics then. On the other hand, even the lower figure is still startling compared to the other countries' stats and proves whatever point he was making amply ;)

I was specifically waiting to here your usual response with appropriate links, references and footnotes. It's not like you not to respond with overwhelming evidence. I found that strange.

Oh, I don't think much of Moore, so it's not worth the effort ;) To me, he is just a polemicist, like Noam Chomsky with fewer facts and more hate-rhetoric.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
Yes. Basically, if there isn't public healthcare, here is how I understand the system:

- Get refused service and die.
- Get service because it is an emergency, and then work off the debt for years.

Yes, national healthcare would come from the pockets of the taxpayers, but is that a problem? They will benefit from it. And if not them, then their cousin or aunt or sister. And if not them, then the poor guy who lives down the street...

I guess people just aren't charitable any more...*sigh*

Wrong again.

Don't doctors take a hypocratic oath for a reason? You can spew forth all that filthy crap about the public good, but there is no way you can justify the collection of funds necessary for healthcare at the tip of a gun. I say NOTHING about charity. In fact, you'd be astonished to find out that charity exists in the world today. But just like religion, there should be a complete separation of state and economics.
 
Originally posted by newfangle



But just like religion, there should be a complete separation of state and economics.

Without the state ensuring that "the poor" have equal access to educational and economic resources as "the wealthy", then the state will end up with only ignorant "poor" and lazy "wealthy".
 
(1.) A high school shooting in Michigan. Moore says that Charleton Heston holds a "pro-gun rally" just after the shooting. In fact, Heston held a "get out the vote" rally eight months after the shooting.

1. Archer quoted an entire speech that Mr. Heston gave ten days after the shooting.

You are confusing the two speeches. More uses a very clever method to make you think that the rally in Flint was held right after the shooting, when it was actually held eight months later. You can read about it in the article that you apparently didn't read. Recommended for all Bowling fans...

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
 
Roger Moore and Ann Coulter are probably the first people I'd name for participation in a real-life celebrity deathmatch. To me they (and Limbaugh, and Chomsky, and I'm sure you can name others) are just political anticheerleaders - their ideological opponents are not only ignorant and wrong, their motives are evil and their methods are dirty. Whenever anyone goes there I pretty much stop listening, as I don't think I'm going to learn anything worthwhile at that point. William F. Buckley comes to mind as someone that attacks ideas and not people (with the exception of Gore Vidal, and I would have done the same thing there). Could anyone help me out and either point out where I'm wrong with Buckley or name a liberal pundit that fits the same mold?


Edit: replace all Roger with Michael, please.

Obviously too many Bond movies watched...
 
Originally posted by IglooDude
Roger Moore and Ann Coulter are probably the first people I'd name for participation in a real-life celebrity deathmatch.

Roger Moore is already dead!
 
Top Bottom