Michael Moore's "Sicko" WATCH THE MOVIE HERE!!!

[BrandiJo]

idk, maybe i am taking it at face value, but to me it seems really wrong that places who are suposedly under us (cuba) and places we claim are worse off in medical care (canada) are actuly more pleased and happy with the care they get then i am, my husband is, my fmaily, my friends, my neigbors, and just about anyone i have ever heard whine about medical care is. I think there is pry more to the story then he is saying, but thats true with just about anyone and anything... i do think the film is worth watching, and i think it makes some very valid points as well.
​

 

[Empty Hands]

Mr. Moore sent a check anonymously to pay this person's bills.

Well, it isn't anonymous anymore...

 

[Empty Hands]

...Lumpy Reifenstahls...

Do you really think that sort of thing adds anything to your argument, or does anything to convince anyone not already convinced? This type of rhetoric is a symptom of our current political sickness and I wish the abusers of it could get over it.

 

[CoryKS]

Do you really think that sort of thing adds anything to your argument, or does anything to convince anyone not already convinced?

I presented no argument. I attempted to convince noone. I posted a link to a movie review.

This type of rhetoric is a symptom of our current political sickness and I wish the abusers of it could get over it.

Is this type of rhetoric also a symptom of our current political sickness? Just wondering. Because I don't see any protestation from you below it.

 

[crushing]

Spoiler Alert!!!!

Michael Moore makes the point in his film by showing how the guy who runs the top website on the net whose sole purpose is to attack him, almost had to shut the site down because his wife's medical bills had skyrocketed to tens of thousands of dollars (despite being insured) and he could no longer afford to run the site.

Mr. Moore sent a check anonymously to pay this person's bills.

Spoiler Alert Ends.

Well, it isn't anonymous anymore...

Hey, that's a pretty good example!

Of course if it were really meant to be an anonymous check, it would still be an anonymous check. Deceitful? Maybe. A lie? No.

 

[Empty Hands]

I presented no argument. I attempted to convince noone. I posted a link to a movie review.

Changing Michael Moore's name to the second most famous Nazi propagandist of all time is presenting an argument.

Is this type of rhetoric also a symptom of our current political sickness? Just wondering. Because I don't see any protestation from you below it.

"Chimpy McLackwit" and "Iwannajihad"? Absolutely. If I spent my time protesting everything I found objectionable, I would have no time for anything else. Your Nazi reference (besides a self-Godwin) was just bad enough that I had to react.

In any case, accusing me of political bias (I am neither reflexively conservative NOR liberal) is a dodge and a logical fallacy (tu quoque or maybe ad hominem).

 

[CoryKS]

Changing Michael Moore's name to the second most famous Nazi propagandist of all time is presenting an argument.

Probably the most famous propagandist filmmaker of all time, of any ideology. Moore is probably second. I'm afraid the Godwin award goes to you.

"Chimpy McLackwit" and "Iwannajihad"? Absolutely. If I spent my time protesting everything I found objectionable, I would have no time for anything else. Your Nazi reference (besides a self-Godwin) was just bad enough that I had to react.

See above. BTW, there's a Nazi reference here you might want to look into. It's curious that that you find drawing a parallel between Moore and a fellow propagandist to be more objectionable than an expression of utter contempt for the current president. I mean, since you're neither reflexively conservative NOR liberal and all.

In any case, accusing me of political bias (I am neither reflexively conservative NOR liberal) is a dodge and a logical fallacy (tu quoque or maybe ad hominem).

Show me where I accused you of political bias. I simply pointed out one of many posts where the rhetoric qualified as, as you put it, "a symptom of our current political sickness". Pretty much all of it goes unchecked. So perhaps you can understand my confusion on why you are now quibbling about word choice.

 

[Empty Hands]

It's curious that that you find drawing a parallel between Moore and a fellow propagandist to be more objectionable than an expression of utter contempt for the current president. I mean, since you're neither reflexively conservative NOR liberal and all.

Sorry dude, no one sees the name "Leni Riefenstahl" and thinks "propagandist" full stop - they think "Nazi propagandist." For you to pretend that you did not intend the Nazi inference is beyond belief. Also, at about 30% approval, there are clearly alot of conservatives that hold the current President in contempt. That is not poisonous to the national debate - calling your opponents Nazis or even "Chimpy McLackwit" is.

Show me where I accused you of political bias.

Immediately questioning why I did not also protest rhetoric opposite in partisanship to your own is an implicit inference of political bias. i.e. I am only concerned with anti-Moore rhetoric and not anti-Bush rhetoric, which is not true.

I simply pointed out one of many posts where the rhetoric qualified as, as you put it, "a symptom of our current political sickness". Pretty much all of it goes unchecked. So perhaps you can understand my confusion on why you are now quibbling about word choice.

Once again, I don't have time in my life to protest every single thing I find objectionable. Your post with the out-of-the-blue Nazi comparison rose to a certain level where I felt compelled to protest. Look at it this way - it is a compliment to you and MT where I thought the post might do some good - I wouldn't bother on sites like FARK or even with certain posters here.

 

[crushing]

Sorry dude, no one sees the name "Leni Riefenstahl" and thinks "propagandist" full stop - they think "Nazi propagandist."

I'm hesitant to butt into this one, oh well. . .

I'm not saying I don't see your point. I'm just curious as to which of the famous propagandist filmmakers out there he could have used instead as a comparison and still make his point that he sees those films as just propaganda? Without people having to google the name he used?

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm just curious as to which of the famous propagandist filmmakers out there he could have used instead as a comparison and still make his point that he sees those films as just propaganda?

Steven Spielberg? Just kidding.

He could have simply labeled the film propaganda, with reasons why. He could have also made the same comparison (again, with evidence) in a much less tendenentious way without changing Michael Moore's name, and definitely without changing it to essentially "Fat Nazi". If someone wants to say "Michael Moore's films are propaganda like Riefenstahl's because they share ABC traits for XYZ reasons", that is a lot less problematic IMO.

I would say the same thing to fans of Shrillary Clinton, Dumbya Bush, Chimpy McFlightsuit, Herr Gropenfuhrer (Arnie) and so on.

 

[bluemtn]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-K. Lane/ tkdgirl
-MT Moderator-

 

[Hawke]

Michael Moore and California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) discussed Sacramento's first-in-the-nation premiere of Moore's latest documentary, "Sicko."

Part 1

Part 2

Questions and Answers from the movie SiCKO