OT: Michael Moore's Sicko

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:34 am

nathannn wrote:how are people saying michael moores movie was all complaining and no solutions?
the solution was throughout the whole movie, Universal Health Care, that IS the solution.
how could anyone not want this?

One side of the debate says it's not FREE, it comes out of your taxes, so universal healthcare means higher taxes.
The other side says private corporations are more interested in making money than properly taking care of US citizens' health.
Then both sides argue which system ultimately results in better health care including shorter waits, nobody being turned away and the best treatment possible.

I honestly don't know because I'm not completely familiar with all the variables involved. I am glad it's being looked at. I sincerely hope MM does a documentary on the state of the US school system, that's an issue that really bothers me.

I do know that it's an industry that's been overlooked and shit goes on like higher drug prices in the US, but the same drugs can be bought cheaper in Canada and US citizens are prohibited from going to Canada to buy them even though the drugs were designed and made in the US, weird shit like that. The current system also means if you don't have health insurance (mainly through your employer) and you get hurt you can become terminally in debt, or decide to NOT get medical treatment.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:00 am

From a philosophical point of view:

Never, ever look at your gross money and compare it with your net. It gives you a false impression of what income is and taxes mean. Of course do people, who earn more money have to pay higher taxes. Because by demanding more value ( = money as a carrier of this value) to be given to them by society in exchange for their work they put more pressure on the whole system to deliver it. These are infinitely complex mechanisms to maintain a balance in the whole of a capitalistic economy. Taxes are just a simple substitute for this. In fact, the strain which richness of sole individuals puts upon society is enormous but impossible to accuretely measure.

Think about this...

Greetings

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:50 pm

Tone Deft wrote: Are you really paying attention?

I most certainly am.

I'm sure the same thing goes on in your country, but you're too busy pointing fingers at the US to look in your own backyard.

No, it doesn't. That is why I made the observation I did.

Oh well, Blair is just a Bush lap dog, so suck it.

You see? You don't even know the name of our Prime Minister.

I would truly love to get more worldwide news from you guys, therein lies my frustrations with Euro polito-trolls, a lot of you are worse than Fox.

I'm sorry - you've lost me.

I agree though, you know Bush is in trouble again when Fox talks about Clinton's blow jobs. Clinton blew his wad, Bush blows up people. Do you think anyone would even believe it if a Bush sex scandal came up?

I don't think you understood the thrust of my post.

The point I was making was regarding the cult of personality regarding your talk show hosts/radio announcers/news anchormen and journalists.

Over her people don't tend to debate what Jeremy Paxman or Jon Snow said about a certain political topic - the focus tends to be more on the politicians themselves than the TV pundits.

In your country the opposite appears to be the case - from here anyway.

You've never heard of Jono Coleman or John Humphreys but I know who Rush Limbaugh and Cenk Uygur are.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:09 am

lmfao

P-W-N-T

popslut wrote:
Tone Deft wrote: Are you really paying attention?
I most certainly am.

You most certainly are.

I'm sure the same thing goes on in your country, but you're too busy pointing fingers at the US to look in your own backyard.
No, it doesn't. That is why I made the observation I did.

It doesn't? Don't make me move over there.

Oh well, Blair is just a Bush lap dog, so suck it.
You see? You don't even know the name of our Prime Minister.

Fuck... Well, Bush will make a puppet of Brown sooner or later (hope not.)

I would truly love to get more worldwide news from you guys, therein lies my frustrations with Euro polito-trolls, a lot of you are worse than Fox.
I'm sorry - you've lost me.

France and the UK had changes of heads of state, barely a word was said here about it. Dumbshits like me don't even know the names of the new heads of state (I forgot that transpired), I'd LOVE to read about what's going on in other countries. I hear about the US constantly and it's ALL bad news. Even our independence day is completely shit upon.

I agree though, you know Bush is in trouble again when Fox talks about Clinton's blow jobs. Clinton blew his wad, Bush blows up people. Do you think anyone would even believe it if a Bush sex scandal came up?
I don't think you understood the thrust of my post.

The point I was making was regarding the cult of personality regarding your talk show hosts/radio announcers/news anchormen and journalists.

Over her people don't tend to debate what Jeremy Paxman or Jon Snow said about a certain political topic - the focus tends to be more on the politicians themselves than the TV pundits.

In your country the opposite appears to be the case - from here anyway.

You've never heard of Jono Coleman or John Humphreys but I know who Rush Limbaugh and Cenk Uygur are.

At this point I don't think I'd trust myself to tie my own shoes.

Well shit, the world just got a little weirder for me. How civil of your countrymen to be so respectful, I feel like someone just told me my fly was open. Americans really do stand out as being notoriously fucked in the head. I assumed it was par for the course here so it must happen everywhere, people are people.

A cool aspect of this site is the international crowd, I like hearing what's going on around the globe, all the US talk gets to be boring, a lot of it resounds with me as echoes of Fox News, extreme views, rants, panics, fear, hate...

More and more I get the impression that the US has more of an influence around the world than I would care to admit, I've actually been trying to be of the mind that there's MORE going on around the globe than what I read and see about my own country. I know the US influence is huge, but not to the point of being the ONLY country worth talking about.

Wow, Hong Kong is now under Chinese rule??? They made a canal all the f-ing way through Panama?? The earth is round?? When did all this happen??

I'm going to go sit in the corner for a while.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:19 am

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:25 am

b0unce wrote:

How quickly everyone forgets about the Cold war, the reason most of those bases were put in to begin with.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:31 am

/sick joke

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
partial quote:

America's Empire of Bases
by Chalmers Johnson

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

At one time the sun never set on the British Empire (because god would never trust a Brit in the dark), not anymore. I don't know if the US will fall in our lifetimes but all things fall at their peak (chinese proverb), speaking of China...

It's not only the Cold War, it's EVERY war, incursion, invasion, occupation, it seems the US never withdraws troops. Influence through hegemony.

Nod · Post by **Nod** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:40 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote:How quickly everyone forgets about the Cold war, the reason most of those bases were put in to begin with.

Another article in which the map was used:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5564

'The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.'

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml

'The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 - 46 per cent of the global total'

'Defence'?

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:01 am

Tone Deft wrote: [France and] the UK had changes of heads of state...

Without wishing to appear pedantic, our head of state remains HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Prime Minister is her humble servant. But I digress.

Thanks for not assuming I'm just mindlessly Yank-bashing Tone - I'm not. I fully accept that our political setup is irredeemably fucked up and out of touch.

Just not quite as badly as yours.

Your research topic for this week - "Cognitive Dissonance" or "How a clique of elderly white men keep a population of 300 million subdued and docile."

It's almost like your country is trapped in a kind of "stupidity beam" - propogated by the political right and focussed by the media - although its effects are not just limited to the US - dolts like M. Breqs are proof of that.

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:08 am

JACKAL & HYDE wrote: How quickly everyone forgets about the Cold war, the reason most of those bases were put in to begin with.

Not to mention those nations are free to kick us out when they want to (except for maybe the former axis powers...not sure on that; and Cuba but c'mon).

Western Europe is full of intelligent grown ups. If they think they would be better off without our forces or our money, they'd politely request our departure and we'd gladly go. Perhaps their leaders remember 1945-1991?

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:10 am

Incidentally...

JACKAL & HYDE · Post by **JACKAL & HYDE** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:12 am

Nod wrote:
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:How quickly everyone forgets about the Cold war, the reason most of those bases were put in to begin with.
Another article in which the map was used:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5564

'The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.'

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml

'The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 - 46 per cent of the global total'

'Defence'?

Uh huh....

And what do you think would happen if half those bases closed?

N Korea instantly invades South Korea.

China attacks Taiwan or Japan, they'll flip a coin I guess.

Cuba starts getting shipments of TONS of weapons and god knows what else. Remember the Cuban missle crisis? Same dictator there.

Chaves is currently building a super army of over 1.3 million men and is building one of the largest air forces in the world. For what purpose?

Theres still tension between the US/EU/Russia on several strategic fronts.

So once again, what do you think would happen if half those bases closed? World peace? More like WWIII.

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:12 am

kramerica wrote:...politely request our departure and we'd gladly go.

You're delusional.

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:17 am

popslut wrote:
kramerica wrote:...politely request our departure and we'd gladly go.
You're delusional.

So what would happen. I'll concede that we'd "grudgingly go" (knowing what threats may emerge or which still linger) but you're delusional if you think we'd use force against our Western European allies to remain there. Seriously man?

Nod · Post by **Nod** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:23 am

kramerica wrote:Not to mention those nations are free to kick us out when they want to (except for maybe the former axis powers...not sure on that; and Cuba but c'mon).

Are they? They'd just pack up the nukes, bases and hidden torture centres, happily go home and build a health care system?

Western Europe is full of intelligent grown ups. If they think they would be better off without our forces or our money, they'd politely request our departure and we'd gladly go. Perhaps their leaders remember 1945-1991?

I'd wager at this point there's a large percentage of European populations, thoroughly sickened by Neocon (as distinct from US) actions post 9/11, that would vote in any party bearing such a manifesto. Nevermind Western Europe - the people of Diego Garcia have been telling the US to go for years - has it worked? They aren't remotely interested in US forces or US money - they just want what was stolen from them, again shamefully aided and abetted by the UK government, returned.