20 May 07
Originally posted by monster truckI'll reiterate...
Why on earth would you mention Ghandi and Moore in the same breath?
Do you really believe Moore's contribution was "the most positive of acts."?
"Thank god Gandhi isn't around in this era of pessimism and negativity. I'm not comparing Moore to Gandhi, just commenting on the fact that some people will find the negative in the most positive of acts. "
I believe that a very ill woman getting medical treatment is positive, yes. How you can view it as negative says more about you, than it does about me.
D
20 May 07
Originally posted by RagnorakYou're refusal to acknowledge the disgusting nature of Moore's actions is quite alarming. Perhaps you should take another toke and reconsider.
I'll reiterate...
"Thank god Gandhi isn't around in this era of pessimism and negativity. I'm not comparing Moore to Gandhi, just commenting on the fact that some people will find the negative in the most positive of acts. "
I believe that a very ill woman getting medical treatment is positive, yes. How you can view it as negative says more about you, than it does about me.
D
21 May 07
Originally posted by KunsooMichael Moore is as bad a champion for the left as Bush is for the right.
This is quite extraordinary. Michael Moore basically uses his money to save the life of his adversary's wife. Naturally his adversary takes the money (12 grand) and insults him for it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m/2007/05/18/2007-05-18_much_moore_for_a_foe_in_need.html
What gives with people?
He is clearly so intent on representing his own side that his lack of balance means that anyone right of centre is going to ignore him.
21 May 07
Originally posted by AmauroteSubjects that would normally be ignored?
I think he functions like a lens who focuses interest on subjects that would otherwise be neglected. He isn't very reliable, and he is at heart basically a showman. But he is in his defence a very good showman.
I don't think he's made a good film since Bowling For Columbine; and even then, I preferred him his TV Nation days, which were better suited to examining the United States' dark underbelly.
Subjects such as guns, 9/11 and health care are hardly ignored.
I would say he goes after the hottest hot button topic at times of peak interest, but that's just me.
21 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkI don't think healthcare has been properly debated over there for many years courtesy of 50s-style red-baiting (and the Dems are equally culpable on this) which made any kind of socialism - even the municipal kind - beyond the pale. For the most part the argument has been more state involvement in personal insurance versus less involvement - which is fine, but is not a decent analysis of all the options.
Subjects that would normally be ignored?
Subjects such as guns, 9/11 and health care are hardly ignored.
I would say he goes after the hottest hot button topic at times of peak interest, but that's just me.
He's not alone in this: at the moment Richard Dawkins has brought atheism back as a major discussion point, and Christopher Hitchens is busy popularizing anti-clericalism. Neither are new, but neither have been as coherently presented by the media as they might have been.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199186
21 May 07
Originally posted by AmauroteI agree about the red-baiting. And in Europe, not even the conservatives argue against socialized medicine. Seems you have a conflict of interest in a for-profit business when a healthy population would create an economic hardship for you. You hear medical industry spokespeople singing the praises of private care, but when you actually make any demands of them they whine, "hey, we're trying to run a business here!"
I don't think healthcare has been properly debated over there for many years courtesy of 50s-style red-baiting (and the Dems are equally culpable on this) which made any kind of socialism - even the municipal kind - beyond the pale. For the most part the argument has been more state involvement in personal insurance versus less involvement - which is fine, ...[text shortened]... r are new, but neither have been as coherently presented by the media as they might have been.
As to atheism, well, I'm not sure how it relates to the topic. I'll come back an post the thoughts of an atheist, Regis DeBray, about Hawkins theme of the inherent evil of religion.
21 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteI would disagree, healthcare is debated on a continual basis.
I don't think healthcare has been properly debated over there for many years courtesy of 50s-style red-baiting (and the Dems are equally culpable on this) which made any kind of socialism - even the municipal kind - beyond the pale. For the most part the argument has been more state involvement in personal insurance versus less involvement - which is fine, r are new, but neither have been as coherently presented by the media as they might have been.
As for socialized medicine, we've seen how it works in Canada, we've no desire to have those kind of waits for surgery.
The problem being basic supply and demand. We all know what happens to demand when the cost of a service is zero. Socialized medicine needs to get beyond this problem before it can go anywhere.
If I was a inclined to support socialized medicine, I would say to start at the state level. Let it be a states issue first. That's generally how this country operates best anyway. Letting states do what works best in that particular state is generally the best option, especially when it doesn't involve interstate commerce.