I might go see Sicko .moore on Leno

[Spider]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/29/michael-moore-with-jay-leno-and-a-dash-of-the-washington-post/
Long clip takes awhile to download , but it is good .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/29/michael-moore-with-jay-leno-and-a-dash-of-the-washington-post/
Long clip takes awhile to download , but it is good .......

:thumbsup:

The clip streamed just fine for me.

I'm looking forward to this movie.

Props to Moore for taking on yet another crooked industry.

[Spider]

:thumbsup:

The clip streamed just fine for me.

I'm looking forward to this movie.

Props to Moore for taking on yet another crooked industry.

:giggle: moore had an excellent point , terrorist get full medical at our expence , yet the People that worked 9-11 dont ...............the ones that we claim attacked us get free medical , yet citizens dont ........ I wonder how Rascal and his merry band of dolts explain this one

[W*GS]

I wonder when Moore is going to expose the public education system in this country... He could call it "Dummo", and detail how the educracy and the teacher's unions have assured us of brainwashed ignorant kids... But that would mean he'd have to take on the power brokers in the Democratic Party, and he sure as hell isn't going to go after the Left.

Moore is a lame agitprop artist, that's all.

[Spider]

I wonder when Moore is going to expose the public education system in this country... He could call it "Dummo", and detail how the educracy and the teacher's unions have assured us of brainwashed ignorant kids... But that would mean he'd have to take on the power brokers in the Democratic Party, and he sure as hell isn't going to go after the Left.

Moore is a lame agitprop artist, that's all.

LOL count on you for more bull**** ........so we blame it all on the schools and not the kids or the parents hey ........ good thinking W*GS ROFL!

[W*GS]

Spider with his usual crap, right on cue.

[Spider]

Spider with his usual crap, right on cue.

LOL it just burns your ass that I am right doesnt it ..... place all the blame on the union and schools none on the kids or their Parents .......... Stroke of genius W*GS

[W*GS]

Spider, you're wrong more often than you're right. You let your education end with your (public) schooling. And it shows.

[Spider]

Spider, you're wrong more often than you're right. You let your education end with your (public) schooling. And it shows.

LOL ...sure thing genius

[W*GS]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Spider]

Thanks for proving my point.

you do understand that your point is , it is all the teachers union and teachers fault right ? ROFL!
Just admit , you made your post cause you thought it was funny , and it slams Michale Moore who you fear...........

[W*GS]

If you're satisfied with the education your kids are getting, Spider, that means one of two things - you don't pay attention (in which case you're not a good parent), or, you're an ignoramus who doesn't know any better.

In any case, I don't feel Michael Moore. He's a liar and a fraud. He's more pathetic than dangerous.

[Spider]

If you're satisfied with the education your kids are getting, Spider, that means one of two things - you don't pay attention (in which case you're not a good parent), or, you're an ignoramus who doesn't know any better.

In any case, I don't feel Michael Moore. He's a liar and a fraud. He's more pathetic than dangerous.

I am very satisfied with my kids education ...... they are home schooled you twit .... But not because I am against the teachers or the Public school education ......you fear the hell out of Michale Moore , he speaks the truth and it damages your anarchist views

[W*GS]

Why are your kids home-schooled?

And no, I don't fear Moore in any way. He's a liar, and liars are never to be feared. The facts pulverize them, and the same will happen to Moore with "Sicko" as what happened after "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Even his most ardent supporters recognize that he plays fast and loose with the truth - why can't you see that?

[Spider]

Why are your kids home-schooled? yes by my wife and her friend Paula .......but like I said not because of the public schools , it is a 50/50 thing between us and the schools

And no, I don't fear Moore in any way. He's a liar, and liars are never to be feared. The facts pulverize them, and the same will happen to Moore with "Sicko" as what happened after "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Even his most ardent supporters recognize that he plays fast and loose with the truth - why can't you see that?

you fear the hell out of Michale Moore .......you know it , I know it ......

[W*GS]

What's so wrong with the public schools that you and your wife feel it necessary to home-school them at all?

You remind me of the wealthy lefties who send their kids to private schools. Hypocrites all around.

And no, I don't fear Moore. Why do you respect a known liar and fraud?

[Spider]

What's so wrong with the public schools that you and your wife feel it necessary to home-school them at all?
part of it is me , part of it was Miss J , either way my Kids enjoy home schooling more , and that all you need to know ......

You remind me of the wealthy lefties who send their kids to private schools. Hypocrites all around. and you are an Idiot , I didnt give you enough info to form any kind of conclusion .........

And no, I don't fear Moore. Why do you respect a known liar and fraud?

Because he scares the hell out of you and people like you

[W*GS]

Not willing to explain why the public schools aren't good enough for your kids.

Speaking of cowardice... You're too chicken to explain why your kids aren't in the public schools. What's wrong with them?

I'd love to debate Moore. I'd tear him one big enough that he'd end up skinny from all his fat running out of the hole.

[Spider]

Not willing to explain why the public schools aren't good enough for your kids. you got all the info you need ......

Speaking of cowardice... You're too chicken to explain why your kids aren't in the public schools. What's wrong with them? still smartin over making an assumption and having it backfire ?
what part of 50/50 of me and miss J eluded you is a mystery ......
I'd love to debate Moore. I'd tear him one big enough that he'd end up skinny from all his fat running out of the hole.

LOL you are a legend in your own mind .Seriously

[W*GS]

If you played dodgeball as well as you argue, Spider, you'd suck.

The public schools aren't good enough for your kids. All your bull**** trying to hide that fact doesn't work.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I'd like to see you go up against a paper bag. I give you nearly a 50% chance of winning.

[Spider]

If you played dodgeball as well as you argue, Spider, you'd suck.

The public schools aren't good enough for your kids. All your bull**** trying to hide that fact doesn't work.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I'd like to see you go up against a paper bag. I give you nearly a 50% chance of winning.

LOL Lets hope yo do better against moore ...... you know that ripping him new one thing Hilarious!

[spdirty]

I heard Michael Moore eats babies and blames Cheney.

[Spider]

I heard Michael Moore eats babies and blames Cheney.

and the downside is what ?

[spdirty]

and the downside is what ?

Babies are cute...he also eats puppies.

[W*GS]

Still can't justify why your kids are home-schooled...

Obviously, you and your wife think your kids are better off not being in the public schools. What are your reasons? Are they double-secret?

[spdirty]

Look at the little one in my avatar...have you ever seen anything so cute?

[Spider]

Still can't justify why your kids are home-schooled...

Obviously, you and your wife think your kids are better off not being in the public schools. What are your reasons? Are they double-secret?

you have all the info you need .........deal with it any way you can

[Spider]

Look at the little one in my avatar...have you ever seen anything so cute?

;D just mine but that goes without saying . but she is cute

[W*GS]

You're just a paper tiger, Spider. You probably fight like you argue - all bark and no bite.

[Spider]

You're just a paper tiger, Spider. You probably fight like you argue - all bark and no bite.

care to find out ?

[W*GS]

As expected...

[Spider]

As expected...

is that a no ? Dont believe your own crap enough to find out ? ....... Iam willing to accommodate

[W*GS]

You're a marionette, that's all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL count on you for more bull**** ........so we blame it all on the schools and not the kids or the parents hey ........ good thinking W*GS ROFL!

Ha!

Moore has probably been W*GS' personal Emmanuel Goldstein since MM exploded so many of "The NRA's" bullsh*t premises with "Bowling For Columbine." ;)

:D

[W*GS]

"Bowling for Columbine" is about as truthful as "Fahrenheit 9/11", which means it's chock-full o' lies...

[Spider]

You're a marionette, that's all.

Puppet hey ........... well better then anarchist .......

[Spider]

Ha!

Moore has probably been W*GS' personal Emmanuel Goldstein since MM exploded so many of "The NRA's" bullsh*t premises with "Bowling For Columbine." ;)

:D

LOL ..... no doubt

[W*GS]

More on "Sicko" from Kurt Loder, of all people:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

[Bronco Bob]

More on "Sicko" from Kurt Loder, of all people:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

Of course Loder is full of **** too:

[Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years]

Most political pundits credit the Democrats push for gun control and the
subsequent support of Republican candidates by the NRA as losing the
Congress for the Democrats. But don't let facts get in the way of
a good anti-Moore rant.

[yavoon]

More on "Sicko" from Kurt Loder, of all people:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

god when kurt loder opens both barrels at you at....mtv.com! you must be some kind of special douche.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Most political pundits credit the Democrats push for gun control and the
subsequent support of Republican candidates by the NRA as losing the
Congress for the Democrats. But don't let facts get in the way of
a good anti-Moore rant.

He never does. :D

[W*GS]

Most political pundits credit the Democrats push for gun control and the subsequent support of Republican candidates by the NRA as losing the Congress for the Democrats. But don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Moore rant.

Loder doesn't say Hillarycare was the cause of the Democrats' spanking in the 1994 mid-terms; he says it was a cause. Loder isn't full of it in that regard.

In any case, when Loder and people like him can see through Moore's agitprop, his one-trick shtick is wearing thin. I suspect "Sicko" won't make Moore near as many millions as "Fahrenheit 9/11" did.

[Bronco Bob]

Loder doesn't say Hillarycare was the cause of the Democrats' spanking in the 1994 mid-terms; he says it was a cause. Loder isn't full of it in that regard.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Does Loder have ANY proof that the Clinton healthcare plan influenced anyone not working in Heath Insurance to vote
Republican?


In any case, when Loder and people like him can see through Moore's agitprop, his one-trick shtick is wearing thin. I suspect "Sicko" won't make Moore near as many millions as "Fahrenheit 9/11" did.

Is that the criteria for the validity of a documentary, how much it makes
at the box office?
Franky I've never even heard of this Loder, and even so, it's just one
person's opinion. Why is his critique any more valid than someone like:

Boston Globe's Ty Burr, "...hilarious, sobering..."

Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips,
"...a very entertaining position paper, and a reminder that we should do better by more of our citizenry."

filmcritic.com's Chris Cabin "...Moore's most sincere portrait of American life in the trenches since the groundbreaking Roger & Me."

E! Online's N.V. Cooper,
"It puts a fire in your belly, and rage in your heart."

Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt,
"Michael Moore intelligently, comically and incisively diagnoses and calls for the treatment of a sick U.S. health care system."

New York Times's A. O. Scott,
"Michael Moore has never before made a film that stated his bedrock ideological principles as clearly and accessibly as Sicko."

Rolling Stone's Peter Travers,
"In a summer of dumb, shameless drivel, Moore delivers a movie of robust mind and heart. You'll laugh till it hurts."


San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle,
"Sicko will scare people, and it probably should."

USA Today's Claudia Puig,
"...a fascinating exploration and powerful indictment of a pressing national problem."

Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Sean Axmaker,
"Moore eases up from the political sideshow theatrics that make his previous films so entertaining and maddening."

All of these critics gave SICKO excellent reviews.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809723348/critic

This sort of reminds me of the right wingers on Global warming where
almost every scientists in the world say's it's real, and they cherry pick
the one scientist who says it isn't.

[W*GS]

Saying it doesn't make it so. Does Loder have ANY proof that the Clinton healthcare plan influenced anyone not working in Heath Insurance to vote Republican?

Hillarycare was just one of several moves by the Clinton administration that squandered the political capital he had after winning in 1992. Remember, however, that Clinton only got 43% of the vote, and he was treading on thin ice. The Hillarycare debacle, the gays-in-the-military mess, and other leftward moves he made in 1992-1994 bit him on the ass in 1994. He got his chain yanked by the voters, and to his credit, he recognized that.

Is that the criteria for the validity of a documentary, how much it makes at the box office?

Moore does not make documentaries, any more than Oliver Stone does. Get that through your "progressive" head.

And no, Loder isn't the only one who thinks "Sicko" is little more than another Moore hatchet job on the truth. Do some Googling.

[Bronco Bob]

And perhaps America's most famous film critic, Roger Ebert, on SICKO:

"Yes, nitpickers can find fault with any attack on our system. There are four health care lobbyists for every congressman. But there's room for irony when the owner of an anti-Moore Web site can't afford to maintain it when his wife gets sick. And room for tears when a claims investigator for an insurance company tells Congress she knows she was her company's instrument for denying clients care they needed that might have saved their lives."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/REVIEWS/70620003/1023

[Bronco Bob]

Moore does not make documentaries, any more than Oliver Stone does. Get that through your "progressive" head.

Yet another bit of W*gs cluelessness. Define documentary film.
Now explain how Moore's films don't fit that criteria.


And no, Loder isn't the only one who thinks "Sicko" is little more than another Moore hatchet job on the truth. Do some Googling.

Better than that, I did some Yahoo-ing. I guess you overlooked the ten critics
I cited as examples of critics who gave Moore's film excellent reviews.

Like I said, you are always going to find the one or two oddballs who don't
agree with something. Doesn't make their opinion any more valid that
the majority of critics who liked the movie.

[W*GS]

Yet another bit of W*gs cluelessness. Define documentary film. Now explain how Moore's films don't fit that criteria.

Cherry-picking and dropping context are two of Moore's favorite tactics; critics had a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11" on those grounds alone. From what I've read from people who don't suck Moore's flab-encased cock (i.e., people not you), he's up to more of the same in "Sicko".

Like I said, you are always going to find the one or two oddballs who don't agree with something. Doesn't make their opinion any more valid that the majority of critics who liked the movie.

Whether or not a critic likes "Sicko" has no relation to it's truthfulness. A critic may even like it as an example of filmmaking, but still find it deceptive. Can you compute that?

[Bronco Bob]

Cherry-picking and dropping context are two of Moore's favorite tactics; critics had a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11" on those grounds alone. From what I've read from people who don't suck Moore's flab-encased cock (i.e., people not you), he's up to more of the same in "Sicko".

I see W*gs is up to his usual evasion to avoid answering the question. Once again.
Define documentary film. Now explain how Moore's films don't fit that criteria.



Whether or not a critic likes "Sicko" has no relation to it's truthfulness. A critic may even like it as an example of filmmaking, but still find it deceptive. Can you compute that?

Or a critic may think Moore is spot on with his exposure of the health care
system in this country. re: Roger Ebert. Can you compute that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yet another bit of W*gs cluelessness.

It's breathtaking in its scope, huh? ;)

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha!

I guess it should come as no surprise that W*GS comes down on the side of insurance companies, HMOs, and their political enablers.

[W*GS]

Nope, as usual, LABF.

Thinking Moore is full of his usual crap does not mean I think the US health care system is A-OK. Moore's "solution" for the problem wouldn't work.

But, given your binary political beliefs, anything else is beyond your comprehension.

[W*GS]

I see W*gs is up to his usual evasion to avoid answering the question. Once again. Define documentary film. Now explain how Moore's films don't fit that criteria.

Here's how Moore would describe the years 1941-1945: America soldiers killing millions of Germans, Japanese and others. Not technically untrue, but with so little context and such gratuitous cherry-picking that it's worthless as a fact.

Or a critic may think Moore is spot on with his exposure of the health care system in this country. re: Roger Ebert. Can you compute that?

Moore is telling so few parts of the entire story that anyone who thinks he's telling all the relevant parts of the story is a dupe.

[Bronco Bob]

Here's how Moore would describe the years 1941-1945: America soldiers killing millions of Germans, Japanese and others. Not technically untrue, but with so little context and such gratuitous cherry-picking that it's worthless as a fact.


What does that have to do with whether it is a documentary or not?


Moore is telling so few parts of the entire story that anyone who thinks he's telling all the relevant parts of the story is a dupe.

So Roger Ebert is now a dupe, according to W*gs. You have a very inflated opinion of yourself.Hilarious!

[W*GS]

What does that have to do with whether it is a documentary or not?

What I wrote is technically true - and if Moore put it in one of his films, with appropriate staging, you'd believe it as he put it. Never mind there's a lot of information missing from the statement.

So Roger Ebert is now a dupe, according to W*gs. You have a very inflated opinion of yourself.Hilarious!

Since when is Roger Ebert a particularly relevant person for deciding whether or not Michael Moore is being accurate in his critique of the American health care system? Ebert reviews movies, that's all.

And, like I said, one could like Moore's approach to filmmaking yet utterly reject his films as accurate. I enjoyed watching "JFK", for example, as an example of clever and involving art, but as for its overall truthfulness, it was a joke. "Dramatic license" and all that.

[W*GS]

A review of Sicko in the "New Yorker" - you know, a bastion of "respectable" not-quite-"Nation" left-liberalism.

First sentence:

Michael Moore has teased an bullied his way to some brilliant highs in his career as political entertainer, but he scrapes bottom in his new documentary, “Sicko.”

The entire thing:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/07/02/070702crci_cinema_denby

[Bronco Bob]

I suspect "Sicko" won't make Moore near as many millions as "Fahrenheit 9/11" did.

Once again W*gs forgot to polish his crystal ball:

NEW YORK, July 1 /PRNewswire/ -- SiCKO, Michael Moore's highly acclaimed and entertaining expose of the American health care system, captivated audiences across the country earning $4.5 million on just 441 screens, for the second highest opening weekend of all time for a documentary, next to Moore's previous film Fahrenheit 9/11. The weekend grosses more than doubled the projected box office revenues projected by NRG. The announcement was made today by Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of The Weinstein Company.

SiCKO's record breaking opening and robust per screen average of just over $10,200 placed it among the top 10 films at the box office this weekend alongside the big-budgeted LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD and RATATOUILLE. SiCKO achieved the third highest per screen of the weekend.

93% of moviegoers said they would strongly recommend SiCKO after seeing the film this weekend. To meet the tremendous demand for SiCKO, The Weinstein Company plans to add the film to 200 additional screens on Tuesday and will continue to roll-out the documentary to theaters across the country in the weeks ahead.

SiCKO built off of its success last weekend when it grossed an incredible $70,000 during its exclusive opening in one theater at AMC Loews Lincoln Square in NY and sold-out all 43 sneak previews across the country, bringing its cumulative gross to $4.6 million. SiCKO had an impressive less than 30% drop this weekend at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square, despite expanding into additional runs.

Harvey Weinstein said, "Audiences across the country had an outstanding response to Michael Moore's hilarious and wickedly entertaining film, which takes on George Bush, the politicians and big business. People who saw the movie now understand why the Bush Administration didn't want people to see this movie. We are thrilled that in addition to playing strongly in cities like NY and Los Angeles, SiCKO played to sold out audiences in mainstream commercial theaters in markets like Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; and Atlanta, GA as well as smaller markets such as cities in Vermont, Hartford, CT; Sacramento, CA; Austin, TX; and Madison, WI, showing the breadth of interest among all Americans. We are excited to continue expanding the film so that more and more people will be able to experience the film."

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,132092.shtml

[Bronco Bob]

A review of Sicko in the "New Yorker" - you know, a bastion of "respectable" not-quite-"Nation" left-liberalism.

First sentence:

Michael Moore has teased an bullied his way to some brilliant highs in his career as political entertainer, but he scrapes bottom in his new documentary, “Sicko.”

The entire thing:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/07/02/070702crci_cinema_denby

A few other reviews of SICKO:

Arthur Caplan, Emanuel & Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics, is chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics University of Pennsylvania:

You should not come out of the movie theater smiling. You should leave angry. "Sicko" is right on target about the mess that is American health care.

Moore's critics would like you to believe "Sicko" is slicko. Those with vested interests in preserving the current status quo in health care have already activated their lobbyists, media flacks, think-tank mouthpieces and trade organizations to go after Moore and his movie. (There are nearly $2 trillion worth of vested interests out there in insurance, managed care, hospitals, doctors, advertisers and salespeople looking to keep their share of the health care pot of gold.)

http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/x3827578

__________________________________________________ _________
Clarence Page

Numerous congressional proposals have offered wider, less expensive and more reliable coverage than Americans receive from our current patchwork, employer-based system. But no matter how workable, practical or desirable the proposals may be, the insurance industry reliably shoots them down, armed with billions of dollars for political campaign contributions, spin-doctors and attack ads.

It's hard for the public to make an intelligent choice when only one side's view gets the big megaphone. Moore evens things up a bit. He uses the same big-screen pop culture that brings us Paris Hilton and "American Idol" to summon our eyeballs to something truly valuable: a vision of how much better America's health care system could be.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070701/OPINION03/707010309

Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune. His column is distributed by Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207.
__________________________________________________ ________

By CHRISTOPHER BORRELLI
BLADE STAFF WRITER


Our health care system is a for-profit rat's nest, Moore says, that exists not to make us better but to make more and more money.

And who contests that?

What sane person?

Regardless of your political beliefs, how you voted in the last election, or whether or not the film leads to a weekend of sleepless nights - who hasn't been bewildered by the medical bureaucracy? Asked to go to a different hospital? Or denied payment? And where are the politicians who rush to defend this system? They don't exist. Indeed, brilliantly, Moore is daring anyone to defend it. Then smartly, he establishes right away - after quick visits to those uninsured souls who stitch their own knees and choose a finger to re-attach - that his focus is on the insured who have fallen through cracks.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/ART09/706290305/0/ART03

[Bronco Bob]

Since when is Roger Ebert a particularly relevant person for deciding whether or not Michael Moore is being accurate in his critique of the American health care system? Ebert reviews movies, that's all.

And, like I said, one could like Moore's approach to filmmaking yet utterly reject his films as accurate. I enjoyed watching "JFK", for example, as an example of clever and involving art, but as for its overall truthfulness, it was a joke. "Dramatic license" and all that.



"I saw the movie almost a year to the day after a cartoid artery burst after surgery and I came within a breath of death. I spent the next nine months in Northwestern Memorial Hospital, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, and the Pritikin Longevity Center, and still require the daily care of a nurse. I mention this to indicate I am pretty deeply involved in the health care system."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/REVIEWS/70620003/1023

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Once again W*gs forgot to polish his crystal ball...


It's like he's never heard of Windex, huh? ;)

In any event, it's always entertaining to mention Michael Moore and watch "The NRA" froth at the pie hole.

:D

[W*GS]

Geez, "Bronco Bob". Do you work for Moore or something?

[Spider]

Geez, "Bronco Bob". Do you work for Moore or something?

I think so ,he is wining this debate ......

[cheese1]

I like cheese

[TailgateNut]

Here my daily good deed. I placed W8gs on ignore a long time ago because of his idiotic statements. But I do have a question for THE MODS!

WHY IS W*GS ALLOWED TO BYPASS FILTERS WITH THIS SLIME TALK???
WHY ISN'T HE BANNED???

ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!



Originally Posted by W*GS
Cherry-picking and dropping context are two of Moore's favorite tactics; critics had a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11" on those grounds alone. From what I've read from people who don't suck Moore's flab-encased cock (i.e., people not you), he's up to more of the same in "Sicko

[W*GS]

Here my daily good deed. I placed W8gs on ignore a long time ago because of his idiotic statements. But I do have a question for THE MODS!

WHY IS W*GS ALLOWED TO BYPASS FILTERS WITH THIS SLIME TALK???
WHY ISN'T HE BANNED???

ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!

(You'll never see this because you're a chicken and put people on iggy.)

See Bronco Bob's (self-deleted, I'm assuming) post to which I replied, here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1634107&postcount=47

If I'm to be banned for using "cock", then so should Bronco Bob. And everyone else who uses variations on the taboo four-letter words to get around the asterisk filter, for example, Spider.

In any case, we see how the Left operates - jump on any pretext to eliminate views they don't like to see.

[Spider]

(You'll never see this because you're a chicken and put people on iggy.)

See Bronco Bob's (self-deleted, I'm assuming) post to which I replied, here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1634107&postcount=47

If I'm to be banned for using "cock", then so should Bronco Bob. And everyone else who uses variations on the taboo four-letter words to get around the asterisk filter, for example, Spider.

In any case, we see how the Left operates - jump on any pretext to eliminate views they don't like to see.

Hey , I stopped when Taco asked all of us to ...........

[TailgateNut]

Hey , I stopped when Taco asked all of us to ...........


This is in response to the "invisible one" you quoted. I didn't put you on ignore because I'm a chicken as you so eloquently put it. I ignore you and two others because of your constant nonsense. You are not worth one minute of my time.
I have seen posters banned for less than your posts' content, but for some reason you feel you shouldn't be given a vacation. I do not concur, but I do not have the authority to remove you from the mane.
This isn't a left vs right issue, it's a wrong vs right issue!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush: We got an issue in this country. Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OBGYN's aren't able to practice their, their love with women all across this country.

------------------------------------

Lady: I work three jobs.
Bush: You work three jobs? Uniquely American isn't it, I mean that is fantastic.


LOL



--------------------------------------

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/joaAfBr9tAE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/joaAfBr9tAE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Rigs11]

What I wrote is technically true - and if Moore put it in one of his films, with appropriate staging, you'd believe it as he put it. Never mind there's a lot of information missing from the statement.



Since when is Roger Ebert a particularly relevant person for deciding whether or not Michael Moore is being accurate in his critique of the American health care system? Ebert reviews movies, that's all.

And, like I said, one could like Moore's approach to filmmaking yet utterly reject his films as accurate. I enjoyed watching "JFK", for example, as an example of clever and involving art, but as for its overall truthfulness, it was a joke. "Dramatic license" and all that.

Wait, so Loder is more relevant than Ebert? Give it up Wigs.

[W*GS]

See also

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009873.html

[W*GS]

Another commentary on "Sicko":

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/jul/01/michael-moores-latest-film-a-scam

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Another commentary on "Sicko":
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/jul/01/michael-moores-latest-film-a-scam

I don't trust anyone's opinion named Star but that's just me. What Moore's films do is exactly what he says he wants them to do and that's get people talking about things that need fixed.

[W*GS]

What Moore's films do is exactly what he says he wants them to do and that's get people talking about things that need fixed.

If he left it at that, that would be one thing. However, since he can't be intellectually honest in his films, those who take him as the word of God need to get a clue.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here my daily good deed. I placed W8gs on ignore a long time ago because of his idiotic statements. But I do have a question for THE MODS!

WHY IS W*GS ALLOWED TO BYPASS FILTERS WITH THIS SLIME TALK???
WHY ISN'T HE BANNED???

ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!



Originally Posted by W*GS
Cherry-picking and dropping context are two of Moore's favorite tactics; critics had a field day with "Fahrenheit 9/11" on those grounds alone. From what I've read from people who don't suck Moore's flab-encased cock (i.e., people not you), he's up to more of the same in "Sicko

Good question. :thumbsup:

Did you see the way he was personally attacking Blueflame on the "fairness doctrine" thread?

BTW, does anyone remember how W*GS made the same sort of uninformed comments about Moore's last film - and later acknowledged that he hadn't even seen it? :giggle:

[W*GS]

Of course two of the folks that have me on iggy would like me to be banned. Wadda shocker.

Did you see the way he was personally attacking Blueflame on the "fairness doctrine" thread?

Horrors! Picking on a lady!. She got all upset, and now you're rushing to protect her? Just how sexist are you?

BTW, does anyone remember how W*GS made the same sort of uninformed comments about Moore's last film - and later acknowledged that he hadn't even seen it? :giggle:

I do recall you taking Moore's side on F9/11, despite the demonstrated deceptions and lies in it. You've never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, certainly.

[Spider]

I do recall you taking Moore's side on F9/11, despite the demonstrated deceptions and lies in it. You've never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, certainly.

you know I have yet to see a moore film in its entirety, I really didnt know who he was , didnt have a clue about Roger and me , Bowling for Columbine came out , I didnt see it , but I now know who moore was , but I am thinking , if Moore has you this pissed W*GS , he must be doing something right ... perhaps I should see all of Moores flicks ROFL!

[W*GS]

Moore doesn't piss me off. It's disappointing that so many people take his films seriously, when they're nothing more that agitprop. He's rather clumsy at it, too. He's like the Wal-Mart version of Oliver Stone.

[Spider]

Moore doesn't piss me off. It's disappointing that so many people take his films seriously, when they're nothing more that agitprop. He's rather clumsy at it, too. He's like the Wal-Mart version of Oliver Stone.

LOL , well then perhaps I will take you with me , if he doesnt piss you off ...... think of it as a date .........your willingness on putting out determines how much money i spend ;D

[The Lone Bolt]

Thank you W*GS for being the voice of reason on this issue.

I agree completely with Moore's premise: the U.S. healthcare system is in shambles. But Moore is not one to be relied on to give a fair and objective analysis of the current or alternative systems. All we can expect from him is a one-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece.

[W*GS]

I agree with Moore about the state of the health care system. It's a godawful mess. However, his prescription to turn it into yet another State-run program is a huge step in the wrong direction to fix it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

All we can expect from him is a one-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece.

"One-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece" = "any presentation of facts or evidence which exposes the cozy relationship between big pharma, the insurance industry, and the right-wing."

[BroncoInferno]

I agree with Moore about the state of the health care system. It's a godawful mess. However, his prescription to turn it into yet another State-run program is a huge step in the wrong direction to fix it.

If state run health care is intrinsically a bad idea, then why are the systems deemed to be the best, most efficient in the world primarily state run? While I'm sure those systems have problems of their own, it nevertheless seems to be the best solution humanity has come up with so far.

[W*GS]

If state run health care is intrinsically a bad idea, then why are the systems deemed to be the best, most efficient in the world primarily state run? While I'm sure those systems have problems of their own, it nevertheless seems to be the best solution humanity has come up with so far.

Putting the State entirely in charge of the health care system in this country will have the same wonderful effects as the government-run primary and secondary education system has had on our children.

The problems with health care in this country don't come just from greedy doctors/HMOs/insurance companies; a goodly portion comes from lifestyle choices. What's the plan for that?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Thank you W*GS for being the voice of reason on this issue.

I agree completely with Moore's premise: the U.S. healthcare system is in shambles. But Moore is not one to be relied on to give a fair and objective analysis of the current or alternative systems. All we can expect from him is a one-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece.So you seen this film?

[The Lone Bolt]

So you seen this film?


I've seen his other films. That's all he produces. I'm not wasting my time or money this time around.

[The Lone Bolt]

"One-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece" = "any presentation of facts or evidence which exposes the cozy relationship between big pharma, the insurance industry, and the right-wing."


Nope. "One-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece" = half-truths, innuendo, presentations of the evidence that give false impressions, selectively ignoring some facts and exaggerating others, clearly favoring one political ideology, etc. This is what MM is all about.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I've seen his other films. That's all he produces. I'm not wasting my time or money this time around.Ah, so you already know what facts that are stated in this film about healthcare and they are BS, gotcha.

[DBruleU]

Ah, so you already know what facts that are stated in this film about healthcare and they are BS, gotcha.

Oh please BB...as if his other films don't already show what he's all about. I don't think he just decided to gain an ounce of morality, and honesty. Don't be so naive.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Oh please BB...as if his other films don't already show what he's all about. I don't think he just decided to gain an ounce of morality, and honesty. Don't be so naive.Ah, another Karnac who can comment on the accuracy of content without having seen the film.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope. "One-sided ideologically-based propaganda piece" = half-truths, innuendo, presentations of the evidence that give false impressions, selectively ignoring some facts and exaggerating others, clearly favoring one political ideology, etc. This is what MM is all about.

Ah, that would be the same case folks of your ideological stripe tried and failed to make with Moore's "F-9/11."

Next...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh please BB...as if his other films don't already show what he's all about.

This is the sort of blatant ad hominem any college freshman could spot a mile away.

But I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

[W*GS]

Ah, that would be the same case folks of your ideological stripe tried and failed to make with Moore's "F-9/11."

Wrong. You kept blabbing on and on about how the 9/11 Commission Report "substantiated" the major claims Moore made in "Fahrenheit 9/11". I showed otherwise - both that Moore's claims were minor, and that the substance of his agitprop was false.

[DBruleU]

This is the sort of blatant ad hominem any college freshman could spot a mile away.

But I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

Yeah, you've never done that before. ::)

Moore has a track record now, and it's one any college freshman (hopefully) can spot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Moore has a track record now, and it's one any college freshman (hopefully) can spot.

And I'll bet you still think the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth to boot.

Anyway, your post is the same ad hominem, just different wording.

Your "logic" is one of "wrong just because Moore said it" (as opposed to an attempt to judge the merits of any particular argument or to confirm any specific facts.)

[The Lone Bolt]

Ah, that would be the same case folks of your ideological stripe tried and failed to make with Moore's "F-9/11."

Next...

"Failed"? Only in your mind. Moore has been thoroughly exposed:

http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

NEXT . . .

[W*GS]

"Failed"? Only in your mind. Moore has been thoroughly exposed:

http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

NEXT . . .

I've used that list against LABF's contentions that Moore is being truthful in "F9/11". All he did was attack the source as being "right-wing", so obviously (to him) it cannot be evidence against Moore.

[The Lone Bolt]

I've used that list against LABF's contentions that Moore is being truthful in "F9/11". All he did was attack the source as being "right-wing", so obviously (to him) it cannot be evidence against Moore.

That's all he's got? Why am I not surprised.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Failed"? Only in your mind. Moore has been thoroughly exposed:

http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

NEXT . . .

Just like Kerry was "exposed" by the Swift Boat Vets in your mind, I'm sure.

The reason people like you and W*GS hate Moore is because he exposed so many inconvenient facts about the Bush Crime Family.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here Moore compares claims made in F-9/11 with 9/11 Commission findings.

He provides sources and references to support his claims:

9/11 Commission Report Confirms Key Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts

The September 11 Commission's 567-page final report has confirmed key facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 .

Here are passages from the film, followed by the 9/11 Commission's findings:

I. Ashcroft Briefing

Fahrenheit 9/11: “One of [John Ashcroft's] first acts as Attorney General was to tell acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he didn't want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.”

Commission Report, p. 265: Pickard told the Commission that after two briefings on the terror threat situation (in May and early July), “Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore.”

The Report also states that Ashcroft denies this allegation and that Pickard told Ashcroft that “he could not assure Ashcroft that there would be no attacks in the United States, although the reports of threats were related to overseas targets. Ashcroft said he therefore assumed the FBI was doing what it needed to do. He acknowledged that in retrospect, this was a dangerous assumption. He did not ask the FBI what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific action. He also did not direct the INS, then still part of the Department of Justice, to take any specific action. In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.”



II. Bush in Florida Classroom on the morning of September 11, 2001

Fahrenheit 9/11: "As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida. When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just 8 years prior, Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity. When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush the nation is under attack. Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no Secret Service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat with the children. Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything."

Commission Report, p 35: “White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin-engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The President's reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error. At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding ‘that's all we know right now, Mr. President.'”

Commission Report, pp. 38-39: “The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: ‘A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack…' The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.”



III. Bush Failure to Meet with Head of Counterrorism in 2001

Fahrenheit 9/11: “As Bush sat in that Florida classroom, was he wondering if maybe he should have shown up to work more often? Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism [Richard Clarke]?"

Commission Report, p 201: “Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her—and the new President—to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. ‘We urgently need...a Principals level review on the al Qida network,' Clarke wrote. The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf).”



IV. Bush Did Not React to Security Briefing

Fahrenheit 9/11: "Perhaps [President Bush] just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6th, 2001, which said that Osama Bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes. But maybe he wasn't worried about the terrorist threat because the title of the report was too vague.

Commission Report, pp. 260-262: At the time, Bush says he considered the CIA's August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” to be “historical in nature,” although the “two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious ” (emphasis added). Bush “did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so… The following day's SEIB repeated the title of this PDB… Late in the month, a foreign service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States… We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisors of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States… [CIA director] Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat” between August 17 when Tenet visited Bush in Crawford, and September 10.



V. The Timing of the Saudi Flights

Fahrenheit 9/11 : “At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”

Commission Report, p. 556, n. 25: “[A]fter the airspace reopened, nine chartered flights with 160 people, mostly Saudi nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24.”



VI. FBI Interviews of Saudis and Bin Ladens Who Left

Fahrenheit 9/11: The FBI conducted “a little interview, check[ed] the passport.”

Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 557, n. 28: “The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency process…Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI…Two of the passengers on this flight had been the subjects of preliminary investigations by the FBI, but both their cases had been closed, in 1999 and March 2001, respectively, because the FBI had uncovered no derogatory information on either person linking them to terrorist activity.”



VII. White House Approved Flights

Fahrenheit 9/11: “The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.” [The film also shows a copy of the September 3, 2003, New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau, titled “White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says,” which states, “Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today. The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism.”]

Commission Report p. 329: Richard Clarke approved these flights.



Questions Left Unanswered

Saudi Flights: The following information on the Saudi flights, whether the interrogation of these individuals followed normal law enforcement procedure, and other oddities, are not adequately discussed and put to rest in the 9/11 Report and should require a further inquiry, or at least better explanation.

1. New information released the week of the 9/11 Commission Report about possible terrorist links to those who left:

The 9/11 Commission Report says: “Two of the passengers on this flight had been the subjects of preliminary investigations by the FBI, but both their cases had been closed, in 1999 and March 2001, respectively, because the FBI had uncovered no derogatory information on either person linking them to terrorist activity. Their cases remained closed as of 9/11, were not reopened before they departed the country on this flight, and have not been reopened since.” Notes, p. 557, Chapter 10, n. 28).

The dismissive nature of these highly-charged facts buried in a footnote of the 9/11 Commission Report certainly raises new questions in light of the following information, some of which came to light the same week of the Commission Report release:

Washington Post: According to the July 22, 2003, Washington Post, of the 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden who left on these fights, “One passenger, Omar Awad bin Laden, a nephew of the al Qaeda leader, had been investigated by the FBI because he had lived with Abdullah bin Laden, a leader of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which the FBI suspected of being a terrorist organization.” Dana Milbank, “Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens;Manifest of Sept. 19, 2001, Flight From U.S. Is Released, Washington Post, July 22, 2003.

Moreover, according to another article in the Washington Post, this organization is apparently still suspected of terrorist ties. Specifically, in May, 2004, “Federal agents have raided the U.S. branch of a large Saudi-based charity, founded in Northern Virginia by a nephew of Osama bin Laden, in connection with a terrorism-related investigation, law enforcement sources said yesterday. The raid Friday on the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) in Alexandria was carried out by agents of the FBI, U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the sources said. Jerry Markon, U.S. Raids N.Va. Office Of Saudi-Based Charity, Washington Post, June 2, 2004

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): The passenger list was made public by Sen. Lautenberg and can be found here: flight manifest. Lautenberg said, “The first rule of a criminal investigation is that when the suspect is on the run, you must interrogate the family to find out where he is. Osama Bin Laden just killed over 3,000 Americans, and one of the first actions by the Bush administration was to let Bin Laden's relatives leave without intense questioning? The President of the United States needs to explain to the American people why his Administration let this plane leave. The American people are going to be shocked by this manifest, and they deserve an explanation.”

Senator Byron Dorgon (D-N.D.): Senator Dorgan recently put it this way, “Dale Watson, the No. 2 man and former head of counterterrorism at the FBI has said none of them were subjected to ‘serious' interrogation or questions before being allowed to leave. In fact, we now know that at least two and perhaps more of the Saudis who were allowed to leave after Sept. 11 were under investigation by the FBI for alleged terrorist connections.” Grand Forks Herald, July 20, 2004.

2. The Reliability of the FBI databases that cleared these individuals

The 9/11 Commission relies on continuing assurances from the FBI that none of the Saudis who left on these flights matched up with names on the State Department's terrorist watch list database, TIPOFF (Notes, p. 558, Chapter 10, n. 31) (even though there was no evidence that TIPOFF was actually used at the time to clear these names) (See Notes, p. 558, Chapter 10, n. 31).

However, the Commission's reliance on information in TIPOFF should hardly resolve the matter for the 9/11 Commission, as the 9/11 Commission Report has now confirmed that the names of two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, were not in the TIPOFF database either (p. 181-2). Hazmi and Mihdhar hijacked the plane that flew into the Pentagon. In that instance, the 9/11 Commission recognized this as an enormous failure: “[I]t is possible that if, in January 2001, the CIA had resumed its search for [Mihdhar], placed him on the State Department's TIPOFF watchlist, or provided the FBI with the information, he might have been found” prior to September 11 (p. 267).

Yet the Commission raises no question at all about their reliance on TIPOFF to clear every individual who left on those flights.
3. A Strange Connection to the Bush White House

According to the Washington Post article, the bin Ladens flew out of the country on the same airplane that “has been chartered frequently by the White House for the press corps traveling with President Bush.” Dana Milbank, “Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens; Manifest of Sept. 19, 2001, Flight From U.S. Is Released," Washington Post, July 22, 2003. This raises obvious questions which deserved to be address by the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=25

[W*GS]

Just like Kerry was "exposed" by the Swift Boat Vets in your mind, I'm sure.

Instead of a smear, why don't you address Kopel's long list of deceptions and lies and show them to be false, and that Moore was telling the unadulterated straight truth?

Surely someone on your end of the Left has done so, so you can cut-and-paste it, and not actually have to do any research on your own.

The reason people like you and W*GS hate Moore is because he exposed so many inconvenient facts about the Bush Crime Family.

The only thing Moore exposes is the gullibility of the Left, akin to the 30s, when the Left couldn't say enough nice things about Stalin.

[The Lone Bolt]

Instead of a smear, why don't you address Kopel's long list of deceptions and lies and show them to be false, and that Moore was telling the unadulterated straight truth?

Surely someone on your end of the Left has done so, so you can cut-and-paste it, and not actually have to do any research on your own.



The only thing Moore exposes is the gullibility of the Left, akin to the 30s, when the Left couldn't say enough nice things about Stalin.


I agree LABF. Your counterargument is a joke. SHOW US where Kopel is wrong instead of just dismissing everything he says because you don't like criticism of MM.

[W*GS]

An unhealthy burden
Jun 28th 2007
From The Economist print edition

America's health-care market is not as unfettered as it seems

To many outside the United States, America's health-care system might seem an example of capitalism at its rawest. Europeans and Canadians enjoy universal health care and cheap drugs thanks to government-run systems, the argument goes, but the market-based approach taken by the world's richest nation leaves many millions uninsured and leads the rest to pay the highest drugs prices in the world. Such doubts are sure to be reinforced by this week's release of Michael Moore's “Sicko”, a much-trumpeted new film on health care that bashes the free-market Yankee model even as it praises the dirigiste alternative north of the border.

So is America's health system really red in tooth and claw? Hardly, according to a growing body of academic evidence. As a result of interference at the federal and state levels, health care is one of America's most heavily regulated industries. Indeed, its muddled approach to health-care regulation may act as a massive drag on the American economy—what one expert has called “a $169 billion hidden tax”.

Costing an arm and a leg
That figure comes from a path-breaking study* of a few years ago by Christopher Conover of Duke University. It looked at the many ways in which the American legal and regulatory systems affect the provision of health services and lumped them into five categories: medical torts; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); insurance regulation; and the certification of both health professionals and health facilities. His team concluded that the overall benefit to society of $170 billion per year delivered by this system of oversight was far outweighed by the $339 billion in annual costs that it imposed (see chart). Even ignoring the cost of big federal tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance (which Mr Conover left out), his study estimated that the net cost of America's health regulations resulted in perhaps 4,000 extra deaths each year and was responsible for more than 7m Americans' lacking health insurance.

http://www.economist.com/images/20070630/CFN571.gif

Building on this point, a forthcoming paper† by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank in Washington, DC, investigates the biggest federal component of this regulatory burden: the FDA's oversight of pharmaceuticals. It notes that some 20 cents out of every dollar spent by consumers goes on purchases under the purview of the FDA, which it calls “one of the most pervasive federal agencies in the country.”

Citing the best evidence to date on the costs and benefits of FDA regulation, Mr Cannon argues that the agency “is too slow and demands too much testing”, ultimately harming consumers. He points out that drugs regulators can make two broad types of errors. First, they might approve a drug too quickly, only to find out after its launch that it is dangerous or even deadly. Second, they could delay the launch of a highly innovative drug by demanding onerous or unnecessary trials and thereby deny many needy patients a new therapy.

Proper regulation requires balancing these two risks, but the pitch may be queered by bureaucratic self-interest. If the regulator allows even one drug to slip through the approval process that later proves harmful to some people some of the time, a hue and cry is sure to follow. Look no further than the recent public backlash against the FDA after several deaths were linked to Vioxx, a blockbuster pain remedy made by Merck.

And yet the second (and probably bigger) risk of leaving people untreated because of restrictions on drugs rarely gets the regulators into trouble. As Mr Cannon puts it, “no FDA official has ever been fired or faced a congressional inquiry for delaying the approval of a promising new drug, however unjustified the delay.” What is more, he speculates, big drug firms may quietly acquiesce to this burdensome red tape because it acts as a barrier to entry against newcomers without the cash or lobbying power to navigate the FDA.

The FDA's caution may result in the biggest federal “tax” on health care identified by the Conover study but an even bigger component is to be found in America's distorted system of malpractice insurance, which is regulated at the state level. That is the conclusion of John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a think-tank in San Francisco. In a paper†† published this month, Mr Graham has taken Mr Conover's federal analysis and applied it to all 50 states. The idea is to rank which states allow Americans the greatest amount of “health ownership”.

Mr Graham's analysis concludes that because regulation of health insurance and overzealous pursuit of medical torts are both typically handled at the state level, states are to blame for most of that $169 billion annual burden imposed by excessive health-care regulation (as the chart also shows). The heavy-handedness, he notes, includes groups of surgeons being denied permission to open specialist clinics because rival one-size-fits-all hospitals invoke state regulations protecting their patch. Meanwhile, enterprising “nurse-practitioners” are blocked from offering simple treatments at inexpensive clinics by state rules requiring costly supervision by doctors.

New York—a liberal bastion and home to Hillary Clinton, who in the 1990s unsuccessfully advocated a sweeping reform of America's health provision—comes out rock bottom on the PRI ranking of health freedom. That will undoubtedly please conservatives who still deride her earlier proposals for a government-run health system, which they dub “HillaryCare”. But the unstated and awkward inference of these studies will not. If America's health-care regulations are as costly as they claim, the system is merely masquerading as a free-market model and may be no better than others.

* A Review and Synthesis of the Cost and Benefits of Health Services Regulations", Christopher Conover, Duke University, July 2003.

† "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on the Food and Drug Administration?", Michael Cannon, Cato Institute, forthcoming.

†† "US Index of Health Ownership", John Graham, Pacific Research Institute, June 2007.

Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[The Lone Bolt]

This is a perfect exapmle of MM's deceptive practices:

II. Bush in Florida Classroom on the morning of September 11, 2001

Fahrenheit 9/11: "As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida. When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just 8 years prior, Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity. When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush the nation is under attack. Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no Secret Service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat with the children. Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything."

Commission Report, p 35: “White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin-engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The President's reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error. At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding ‘that's all we know right now, Mr. President.'”

Commission Report, pp. 38-39: “The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: ‘A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack…' The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.”

MM selectively omits that fact that bush was at first informed that it was a small plane, suggesting an accident and not a terrorist attack. MM then goes on to imply that when dubya was informed of the second plane he sat there confused and did not know what to do. The mere fact that bush didn't jump up and run out the door does not prove that he was confused and needed someone to tell him what to do in order for him to act. Moore selectively omits facts and exaggerates others in order to paint the most negative possible picture. If bush had jumped up and rushed out of the room Moore would instead have depicted it as an act of PANIC and RECKLESS DESPERATION AND YOU KNOW IT!!

Now I want to make it clear that pointing out Moore's distortions IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DEFENDING BUSH!! I understand that in your mind anyone suggesting that bush is less than PURE EVIL is automatically a "bush supporter". You need to get over your narrow-minded stereotype thinking.

[Spider]

Hilarious! sounds more like Lone bolt and W*GS are trying to convince themselfs, that what they say about Moore, is true .........

[W*GS]

Don't bother telling LABF the truth when it comes to Moore, 9/11, or Bush. He won't hear it.

[The Lone Bolt]

Hilarious! sounds more like Lone bolt and W*GS are trying to convince themselfs, that what they say about Moore, is true .........

It's not what we are saying, it's what the evidence is saying. Try reading Kopel's piece, or are you also afraid of the truth?

[Spider]

It's not what we are saying, it's what the evidence is saying. Try reading Kopel's piece, or are you also afraid of the truth?

LOL you little **** , you want truth ? try paying for my triplets hospital bill .....trying paying for Braces on 2 kids ........you dont have the first clue , neither does Kopel .........

[Spider]

care to try it Lone Bolt ?

[Spider]

Hilarious! there is a world of difference in Real life , and some institute studies .....

[W*GS]

Spider throws a bigtime airball...

[Spider]

Spider throws a bigtime airball...

LOL , yeah I thought so ...... Next

[TailgateNut]

Lonely Bolt quoted “The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: ‘A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack…' The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.”


Herein lies the problem. The president is informed that "America is under attack" and Dumb**** just sits there like a puppet waiting for the puppetmaster to pull his strings.

GET THE **** UP, AND DO YOUR JOB!

If I am managing a project, and someone comes into my office and tells me a ****ing plane just crashed into the building, I damn sure am not sitting on my ass for another 5-7 minutes top allow the dust to settle.

Keep convincing yourself!

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL you little **** , you want truth ? try paying for my triplets hospital bill .....trying paying for Braces on 2 kids ........you dont have the first clue , neither does Kopel .........

Ummm . . . Kopel's piece is on Moore's distortions in Farenheight 9/11. It has nothing to do with Sicko or the U.S. healthcare system.

And nobody here, W*GS and myself included, is denying that the U.S. healthcare system needs fixing.

Try to keep up.;)

[The Lone Bolt]

Lone Boly qouted “The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: ‘A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack…' The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.”


Herein lies the problem. The president is informed that "America is under attack" and Dumb**** just sits there like a puppet waiting for the puppetmaster to pull his strings.

GET THE **** UP, AND DO YOUR JOB!

If I am managing a project, and someone comes into my office and tells me a ****ing plane just crashed into the building, I damn sure am not sitting on my ass for another 5-7 minutes top allow the dust to settle.

Keep convincing yourself!



All I'm saying is that Moore presents this incident with political spin and offers no evidence that bush was lost, confused, or clueless without handlers.

I'm not denying that possibility, just pointing out that Moore's interpretation is not the only one and that Moore does nothing to prove his spin.

[Spider]

Ummm . . . Kopel's piece is on Moore's distortions in Farenheight 9/11. It has nothing to do with Sicko or the U.S. healthcare system.

And nobody here, W*GS and myself included, is denying that the U.S. healthcare system needs fixing.

Try to keep up.;)

Oh I am keeping up , I never once mentioned going to see F 9-11 , I just mentioned sicko ......... Now care to take me up on my challenge ?

[Spider]

Lone Boly qouted “The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: ‘A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack…' The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.”


Herein lies the problem. The president is informed that "America is under attack" and Dumb**** just sits there like a puppet waiting for the puppetmaster to pull his strings.

GET THE **** UP, AND DO YOUR JOB!

If I am managing a project, and someone comes into my office and tells me a ****ing plane just crashed into the building, I damn sure am not sitting on my ass for another 5-7 minutes top allow the dust to settle.

Keep convincing yourself!

LOL , thats the real world , some guys on this thread are in LA LA Land ..... Some people will say or do anything for their heroes .......

[TailgateNut]

All I'm saying is that Moore presents this incident with political spin and offers no evidence that bush was lost, confused, or clueless without handlers.

I'm not denying that possibility, just pointing out that Moore's interpretation is not the only one and that Moore does nothing to prove his spin.


He didn't have to do anything to prove his "spin", as you put it. Just look at the video of the "clueless one", and you "might" understand.

He looks like a "new hire" at the "widget factory"!

Just admit that you guys voted for a dimwit, and now the world is paying the piper.

[The Lone Bolt]

Oh I am keeping up , I never once mentioned going to see F 9-11 , I just mentioned sicko ......... Now care to take me up on my challenge ?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your challenge. I never said that the U.S. healthcare system isn't a mess. My point was that Moore is not an honest or objective reporter. He is a propagandist. Your challenge is completely unrelated to my point.

I agree that the U.S. healthcare system is broken. On that issue Moore is correct.

[The Lone Bolt]

He didn't have to do anything to prove his "spin", as you put it.

Really? So Moore can say anything and you'll believe it? He can make claims based on appearances and if things look a certain way to you and him it's as good as a proven fact?


Yeah, that's fair and rational.:oyvey:

[W*GS]

Kopel's piece is on the deceptions in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". Spider's retort about paying medical bills for his triplets don't got nothing to do with Kopel's work.

That's why your post was an airball, Spider.

[Spider]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your challenge. I never said that the U.S. healthcare system isn't a mess. My point was that Moore is not an honest or objective reporter. He is a propagandist. Your challenge is completely unrelated to my point.

I agree that the U.S. healthcare system is broken. On that issue Moore is correct.

LOL , the Health care is a mess , but Moore is a propagandist ......... tell you what Lone Bolt , I make a thread stating I might go see F 9-11 , by all means Bring your Kopel talking points .......... this was about Sicko ........
My wife was on the pill , she cut her finger off , the Doc sewed it back on , the medication turned the pill into a fertility drug , we wasnt aware of it , the medical answer was abort the 2 girls , save the boy , I dont know why you brought Kopel into my post , he doesnt have a ****ing Clue about the Medical conditions ........
Now if the Medical is a mess , then why not look to other health care systems ........ I eagerly await you and Kopels response ......... or not

[Spider]

Kopel's piece is on the deceptions in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". Spider's retort about paying medical bills for his triplets don't got nothing to do with Kopel's work.

That's why your post was an airball, Spider.

Hello Genius , when did I bring up F 911 ?
Kopel on Sicko was the airball ......Hilarious! ..... Sit Back W*GS

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL , the Health care is a mess , but Moore is a propagandist ......... tell you what Lone Bolt , I make a thread stating I might go see F 9-11 , by all means Bring your Kopel talking points .......... this was about Sicko ........
My wife was on the pill , she cut her finger off , the Doc sewed it back on , the medication turned the pill into a fertility drug , we wasnt aware of it , the medical answer was abort the 2 girls , save the boy , I dont know why you brought Kopel into my post , he doesnt have a ****ing Clue about the Medical conditions ........
Now if the Medical is a mess , then why not look to other health care systems ........ I eagerly await you and Kopels response ......... or not

Once again we are addressing Moore's lack of honesty, objectivity, and fairness on all issues, strongly suggesting that his take on the U.S. healthcare system is likely to be extremely biased, unhelpful, and essentially worthless, so Moore's track record is relevant.

[TailgateNut]

Really? So Moore can say anything and you'll believe it? He can make claims based on appearances and if things look a certain way to you and him it's as good as a proven fact?


Yeah, that's fair and rational.:oyvey:


**** fair and rational. I, for one am beyond fair and rational. You don't continue giving the benefit of a doubt to people who abuse the system for personal and political gain. This "scum of the earth" is supposed to represent us as a nation, but he has abused his position from day one.

I realize he is "actually" the VP who wears the "crown of the kingdom", but IMO the buck stops with him.

[Spider]

Once again we are addressing Moore's lack of honesty, objectivity, and fairness on all issues, strongly suggesting that his take on the U.S. healthcare system is likely to be extremely biased, unhelpful, and essentially worthless, so Moore's track record is relevant.

no you are addressing it , I could care less ......... But I do know Healthcare in America sucks the Big one , mainly cause of Insurance companies ....... I would like to see different options ........ Meanwhile you are on some crusade , that I really dont give s **** about .......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Once again we are addressing Moore's lack of honesty, objectivity, and fairness on all issues, strongly suggesting that his take on the U.S. healthcare system is likely to be extremely biased, unhelpful, and essentially worthless, so Moore's track record is relevant.What a croc of crap. You haven't seen the film and continue to comment on it. Watch it or shutup about it.

[The Lone Bolt]

**** fair and rational. I, for one am beyond fair and rational. You don't continue giving the benefit of a doubt to people who abuse the system for personal and political gain. This "scum of the earth" is supposed to represent us as a nation, but he has abused his position from day one.

I realize he is "actually" the VP who wears the "crown of the kingdom", but IMO the buck stops with him.


I'm sorry to hear that you are letting your anger overwhelm your reason. You are starting with an assumption and then making the facts fit that assumption. Can't say that I agree with your thinking.

[The Lone Bolt]

What a croc of crap. You haven't seen the film and continue to comment on it. Watch it or shutup about it.

Moore has a proven track record of bias, deceit, and dishonesty. I would have to see evidence that he has completely changed his behavior before I throw away $8 to watch another one-sided propaganda piece that muddles the debate rather than contributing to a solution.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Moore has a proven track record of bias, deceit, and dishonesty. I would have to see evidence that he has completely changed his behavior before I throw away $8 to watch another one-sided propaganda piece that muddles the debate rather than contributing to a solution.You have a "proven track record" as a Bush groupie but that doesn't mean you can't state facts and truth from time to time.

Anyone commenting on a movie's accuracy that they haven't seen is pretty much posting useless tripe (though the movie may or may not ultimately prove them right or wrong).

I haven't seen any of his films and that is why I never post to the accuracy of them one way or the other.

[The Lone Bolt]

You have a "proven track record" as a Bush groupie but that doesn't mean you can't state facts and truth from time to time.

Anyone commenting on a movie's accuracy that they haven't seen is pretty much posting useless tripe (though the movie may or may not ultimately prove them right or wrong).

I haven't seen any of his films and that is why I never post to the accuracy of them one way or the other.

I think bush is hopelessly incompetent and a complete idiot and I have said so time and time again. But because I'm not completely conviced he's a liar too that makes me a bush "groupie"?

I see you've been drinking from the same extremist, black-and-white, narrow-minded, ideological fountain as LABF.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think bush is hopelessly incompetent and a complete idiot and I have said so time and time again. But because I'm not completely conviced he's a liar too that makes me a bush "groupie"?

I see you've been drinking from the same extremist, black-and-white, narrow-minded, ideological fountain as LABF.
You have a short memory. Look up your Bush adulation posts when you first got here.

[The Lone Bolt]

You have a short memory. Look up your Bush adulation posts when you first got here.


You must have me confused with someone else. I have never admired that dipstick. Show me one post in which I glorify him.

[TailgateNut]

You must have me confused with someone else. I have never admired that dipstick. Show me one post in which I glorify him.


Did you vote for him? (I know the answer (from Pre-Bush arguments);D

[Spider]

I'm sorry to hear that you are letting your anger overwhelm your reason. You are starting with an assumption and then making the facts fit that assumption. Can't say that I agree with your thinking.

LOL you ass , you are doing the same thing , only difference is you are using Moores past history and I doubt you saw any of the movies .........

[The Lone Bolt]

Did you vote for him? (I know the answer (from Pre-Bush arguments);D

Nope. Neither time.

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL you ass , you are doing the same thing , only difference is you are using Moores past history and I doubt you saw any of the movies .........

I've seen F 9/11 and Roger and Me. I've also read the criticisms of both as well as seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 so I've gotten both sides.

[Spider]

I've seen F 9/11 and Roger and Me. I've also read the criticisms of both as well as seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 so I've gotten both sides.

LOL sure you have ........ :rofl:

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL sure you have ........ :rofl:

Have you seen any of his films? If so, have you also read the criticisms of his work?

[Spider]

Have you seen any of his films? If so, have you also read the criticisms of his work?

LOL No I havent , thats why I am not spouting off on whats right or wrong , the reasons I dont believe you seen a film of his is , you refuse to acknowledge , anything he got right , or was right on the facts .... just the negative, and petty stuff that really dont matter too much, you might convince some here, but not me ......you claim he is biased , but to most posters here , you are just looking in a mirror ..........

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL No I havent , thats why I am not spouting off on whats right or wrong , the reasons I dont believe you seen a film of his is , you refuse to acknowledge , anything he got right , or was right on the facts .... just the negative, and petty stuff that really dont matter too much, you might convince some here, but not me ......you claim he is biased , but to most posters here , you are just looking in a mirror ..........

I have seen those films, you just don't want to believe it because I'm not kissing Moore's fat @ss like you are.

Go watch a MM film, read a credible criticism of it, and get back to me. Until then you don't know what you're talking about.

[Spider]

I have seen those films, you just don't want to believe it because I'm not kissing Moore's fat @ss like you are.

Go watch a MM film, read a credible criticism of it, and get back to me. Until then you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL ....care to point out where the ass kissing happened ? ........yeah thought so , Now why should I go see his film read the critic of it , when i am damn near facing 1.5 million dollar medical bills ? what in the **** will I learn by doing this ?
you little punk , you dont have a clue ......... I know damn well what I am talking about , Sicko shows other countries medical system ........It is you that doesnt have a clue , and you better hope and pray you never get sick ..... I just been diagnosed , with Diabetes , out of the blue ...... you just stay in LA LA Land goof

[W*GS]

So move to Canada, Spider. All your problems will be solved.

[Spider]

So move to Canada, Spider. All your problems will be solved.

you move to Canada ..........better yet , why dont you try to move me ............
Man enough ?

[W*GS]

Why would I move to Canada?

Everything's perfect there, health-care-wise. Sounds ideal for you and your family.

[Rigs11]

Why would I move to Canada?

Everything's perfect there, health-care-wise. Sounds ideal for you and your family.

Screw that. Isn't celine dion from there? I shudder at the thought..

[Spider]

Why would I move to Canada?

Everything's perfect there, health-care-wise. Sounds ideal for you and your family.

LOL , I said other countries healthcare systems , not just Canada ........ so why go to the extreme ? Dont have anything else to fight back with so you went to the extreme ?
why dont you move to mexico ? no entitlements ..... ummmmm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL , I said other countries healthcare systems , not just Canada ........ so why go to the extreme ? Dont have anything else to fight back with so you went to the extreme ?
why dont you move to mexico ? no entitlements ..... ummmmm
LOL

Sounds like W*GS kind of place.

[Spider]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8NDs4YuLXE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v8NDs4YuLXE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You must have me confused with someone else. I have never admired that dipstick. Show me one post in which I glorify him.

Glorify? Perhaps not.

Defend? You bet your ass.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have a "proven track record" as a Bush groupie but that doesn't mean you can't state facts and truth from time to time.


:D :thumbsup:

That's a concept right-wingers like Bolt and W*GS can't seem to get their heads around, huh?

[The Lone Bolt]

Glorify? Perhaps not.

Defend? You bet your ass.

You'd lose your ass on that one. I was defending the objective truth, not bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You'd lose your ass on that one. I was defending the objective truth, not bush.

You're really going to sit there and deny that you have defended Bush's justifications for his invasion and occupation of Iraq?

tsk tsk

[The Lone Bolt]

You're really going to sit there and deny that you have defended Bush's justifications for his invasion and occupation of Iraq?

tsk tsk

I have defended the reasons, not the man. Once again I think bush is an idiot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have defended the reasons, not the man. Once again I think bush is an idiot.

Hilarious!

What difference does this make when it comes to the net effect?

You're saying you don't approve of the man, but you defend his thinking, his rationalizations for taking the country to war, his policies, etc.

[The Lone Bolt]

Hilarious!

What difference does this make when it comes to the net effect?

You're saying you don't approve of the man, but you defend his thinking, his rationalizations for taking the country to war, his policies, etc.


Err . . no. I'm saying that one of the few good decisions he has made was to remove Saddam from power. Unfortunately he's f-cked that up every way possible. Under COMPETENT leadership the war wouldn't be half the issue it is today.

You are overgeneralizing and assuming that just because I have agreed with ONE of his decisions that I approve of ALL of his decisions, policies, etc. Once again a perfect demonstration of your black-and-white, narrrow-minded, rigid ideological thinking: if you agree with one bush decision you agree with ALL of them and you are a bush "supporter".

Some of his decisions have been correct. MOST of them have been wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Once again I think bush is an idiot.

You think he's an "idiot" but you spend enormous amounts of time and energy defending his thinking re: Iraq?

How does that work?

[The Lone Bolt]

You think he's an "idiot" but you spend enormous amounts of time and energy defending his thinking re: Iraq?

How does that work?


It works like this: even an idiot can make a good decision every now and then. Unfortunately he's made mostly bad ones since then re: Iraq. The decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but bush wasn't the right leader to do it. I will concede that I underestimated what a moron he is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are overgeneralizing and assuming that just because I have agreed with ONE of his desicions that I approve of ALL of his decisions, policies, etc. Once again a perfect demonstration of your black-and-white, narrrow-minded, rigid ideological thinking: if you agree with one bush decision you agree with ALL of them and you are a bush "supporter".


That's BS.

You speak as though you have no history on this board.

Your track record here is one of siding with Bush the overwhelming majority of the time. Your move to distance yourself from Bush happened relatively recently (like so many other Bush supporters on this forum.)

So, no, I don't think I'm "overgeneralizing."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It works like this: even an idiot can make a good decision every now and then. Unfortunately he's made mostly bad ones since then re: Iraq. The decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but bush wasn't the right leader to do it. I will concede that I underestimated what a moron he is.

OK, but I wasn't referring simply to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

You have vigorously defended the means by which Team Bush sold the war to the American people.

[W*GS]

LOL , I said other countries healthcare systems , not just Canada ........ so why go to the extreme ?

A move to Canada is hardly "extreme", compared to a move overseas.

[The Lone Bolt]

OK, but I wasn't referring simply to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

You have vigorously defended the means by which Team Bush sold the war to the American people.

:notthissh Do you try intentionally to not get it?

You are assuming a "means" here in your argument, that is that the innacuracy of the prewar intel was an intentional plot by the bush admin to "trick" the country into war. I have only defended the facts: the evidence supports the position that the prewar intel was not intentionally fixed by bush or his administration, i.e. that there were no "means."

I was not defending his "means" but rather arguing that there weren't any.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I was not defending his "means" but rather arguing that there weren't any.

No means?

Are you kidding me?

Are you really trying to claim that this administration didn't have to jump through hoops to sell this war to the American people?

Are you really trying to claim that you haven't defended the validity of the various claims BushCo used to make this sale?

[Spider]

A move to Canada is hardly "extreme", compared to a move overseas.

so why dont you move to Mexico ? no entitlements , No stadium tax..............Should be a bastion of paradise for you

[baja]

so why dont you move to Mexico ? no entitlements , No stadium tax..............Should be a bastion of paradise for you

Hey!

[W*GS]

so why dont you move to Mexico ? no entitlements , No stadium tax..............Should be a bastion of paradise for you

Deflection isn't your strong suit.

[Garcia Bronco]

Are you really trying to claim that this administration didn't have to jump through hoops to sell this war to the American people?



Not to me LA. We should have lit up the whole region on 9/12. But where we ****ed up is electing him to a second term, of course the other choice was John "the ringer" Kerry...a.k.a. no choice at all.

[Spider]

Hey!

LOL W*GS will make you a wonderful neighbor

[Spider]

Deflection isn't your strong suit.

Nor should it be , you suggested I move instead of trying to make things better here , so now I want to know why you dont follow your own advice .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not to me LA. We should have lit up the whole region on 9/12.

The whole region? Including those countries that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on our country? Are you insane?

But where we ****ed up is electing him to a second term...

No argument there - although we didn't elect him.

of course the other choice was John "the ringer" Kerry...a.k.a. no choice at all.

You honestly think Kerry would have been as bad or worse than four more years of Team Smirk & Sneer?

That settles it - you are nuts. Ha!

[Spider]

see W*GS suggested I move to Canada , but W*GS bitched and moaned for 5 years over the stadium tax for the new Stadium for the mighty Pat Bowlen and the Broncos .......Question is W*GS why didnt you move ? afraid to lose your government supported Job ?

[W*GS]

Nor should it be , you suggested I move instead of trying to make things better here

Things are already perfect for you in Canada - they even drive on the right. Why go to all the bother of "fixing" the US when Utopia is right next door? Heck, from Wyoming, you can get there in less than a day!

[Spider]

Things are already perfect for you in Canada - they even drive on the right. Why go to all the bother of "fixing" the US when Utopia is right next door? Heck, from Wyoming, you can get there in less than a day!

why are you dodging the question W*GS ? We already know you have a job that pays you off of the tax payers money , but when the stadium tax passed why didnt you move ?

[W*GS]

I think it's about time for a new thread with "W*GS" in the name, or some sort of silly poll with one choice having "W*GS" in it.

That's often what happens when Spider gets all mad at me for making too much sense for him to handle.

[Spider]

I think it's about time for a new thread with "W*GS" in the name, or some sort of silly poll with one choice having "W*GS" in it.

That's often what happens when Spider gets all mad at me for making too much sense for him to handle.

why didnt you move W*GS ?

[Spider]

I wonder why W*GS is afraid to answer ?

[W*GS]

Like I said, deflection isn't your strong suit, Spider.

The subject, as I'm forced to remind you, is your problem with the US health care system as it pertains to your personal situation. A move to Canada would solve your problem.

The subject isn't me, it's you and your problem.

[Spider]

Like I said, deflection isn't your strong suit, Spider.

The subject, as I'm forced to remind you, is your problem with the US health care system as it pertains to your personal situation. A move to Canada would solve your problem.

The subject isn't me, it's you and your problem.

you went on and on for 5 years over the Stadium tax and never moved ....... But you suggest someone else move .... hmmmmmm that dependent on the government wages W*GS ?

[W*GS]

The subject isn't me, it's you and your problem.

[The Lone Bolt]

No means?

Are you kidding me?

Are you really trying to claim that this administration didn't have to jump through hoops to sell this war to the American people?

Are you really trying to claim that you haven't defended the validity of the various claims BushCo used to make this sale?

Read here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

And here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack


Or are you just going to insist on keeping yourself in ignorance like §Pide® ?

[Spider]

Still like to know why you bitched and moaned for 5 years over a stadium tax , instead of moving W*GS

[Spider]

The subject isn't me, it's you and your problem.

why didnt you move W*GS ?

[W*GS]

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1638178&postcount=177

[Spider]

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1638178&postcount=177

5 years of bitching about a tax and you never moved ...why ?

[W*GS]

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1638182&postcount=181

[Spider]

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1638182&postcount=181

5 years and you never moved why ?

[Spider]

Read here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.htmlhttp://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

And here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack


Or are you just going to insist on keeping yourself in ignorance like §Pide® ?

LOL Ignorance was going off on a rant about F 9-11 when I was talking about Sicko ........ Hilarious!

[Spider]

or Lonebolt was this another example of your Genius like , I defend Bush and his policys but not him Hilarious!

[The Lone Bolt]

or Lonebolt was this another example of your Genius like , I defend Bush and his policys but not him Hilarious!


I hate calling names but you really can't be that dumb. I just got through saying that only some of his decisions were good. Mostly he's a screw-up. Can you read?

[Spider]

I hate calling names but you really can't be that dumb. I just got through saying that only some of his decisions were good. Mostly he's a screw-up. Can you read?

LOL with your track record ......... Flip Floppin bastard Hilarious! you are not alone , alot of your ilk are jumping ship and trying to join my side ....... just so you know we have a policy about stupid people ........

[Spider]

I did happen to notice , alot of people that supported Invading Iraq , were stateside ......... could be a connection there

[Spider]

P.S. we still have the issue of you bringing up F9-11 when the talk was Sicko ...... Then telling me to read Kopel when I am only interested in Healthcare ..... Ignorance indeed ROFL!

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL with your track record ......... Flip Floppin bastard Hilarious! you are not alone , alot of your ilk are jumping ship and trying to join my side ....... just so you know we have a policy about stupid people ........

Your policy is to be one?

No flip-flops here, only in your imagination. First you and LABF make up BS about how I support everything dubya does and says, then when I point out your BS you accuse me of flip-flopping.:rofl: Funny!

So I can accuse you of some complete horsesh-t and when you deny it I can say "well, now you're FLIP-FLOPPING!!"Ha! Ha!

[The Lone Bolt]

P.S. we still have the issue of you bringing up F9-11 when the talk was Sicko ...... Then telling me to read Kopel when I am only interested in Healthcare ..... Ignorance indeed ROFL!

So Moore's record of deception is irrelevant to a Michael Moore film in theaters now?

[Spider]

well Spider , I always say , if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle em with Bull**** !
basically what you are saying ...........

[Spider]

So Moore's record of deception is irrelevant to a Michael Moore film in theaters now?

Yeah pretty much ........

[The Lone Bolt]

basically what you are saying ...........

You haven't answered my question.

Is Moore's track record of deceptions and distortions relevant to the credibility of his current film?

Edit: OK you answered. Fair enough but I disagree. That's why I was bringing up Kopel's criticism of MM's past work. If Moore has mislead us before then it's likely he's still doing it. How does that not make sense to you?

[Spider]

You haven't answered my question.

Is Moore's track record of deceptions and distortions relevant to the credibility of his current film?

Edit: OK you answered. Fair enough but I disagree. That's why I was bringing up Kopel's criticism of MM's past work. If Moore has mislead us before then it's likely he's still doing it.
...... But each one of mores work needs to stand on its own .....

[The Lone Bolt]

...... But each one of mores work needs to stand on its own .....

Well let me ask you a question. You think bush is a liar, right? Setting aside whether he really is or not, if dubya came up with some evidence tomorrow that Iran was about to nuke us would you consider his record when judging the credibility of this new claim or would you say "each one of bush's claims needs to stand on it's own"?

[Bronco Bob]

Well let me ask you a question. You think bush is a liar, right? Setting aside whether he really is or not, if dubya came up with some evidence tomorrow that Iran was about to nuke us would you consider his record when judging the credibility of this new claim or would you say "each one of bush's claims needs to stand on it's own"?

Damn right I would. Because by every test and measurement Iran has
just started processing Uranium and it is going to take them several
years to get to the point of them having enough processed Uranium
to make a bomb. Anybody that would believe Iran could nuke us
tomorrow would have to chuck their brain out the door first.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Read here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

And here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack


Or are you just going to insist on keeping yourself in ignorance like §Pide® ?

There you go covering for Bush again.

I knew it wouldn't take long for you to return to form.

Ha!

[Bronco Bob]

Read here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

And here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack


Or are you just going to insist on keeping yourself in ignorance like §Pide® ?

You have to go back 3 1/2 years to find an article that supports your position?
A lot has changed since January of 2004.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have to go back 3 1/2 years to find an article that supports your position?
A lot has changed since January of 2004.

Yep.

He ignores the mountain of evidence that has accumulated over the past three years that Bush lied the country into war and cherry picks some dated material he believes will absolve Bush.

And he says he's not a Bush supporter?

:~ohyah!: :giggle:

[Spider]

Well let me ask you a question. You think bush is a liar, right? Setting aside whether he really is or not, if dubya came up with some evidence tomorrow that Iran was about to nuke us would you consider his record when judging the credibility of this new claim or would you say "each one of bush's claims needs to stand on it's own"?

I would have to .............But if he is wrong he better pray to what ever god motivates him , cause the American people wont take another Iraq in stride

[Spider]

Lonebolt , now that I have answered your questions , answer this ......how does Michale Moores lies lead to a war ?

[W*GS]

How do Bush's lies excuse Moore's lies?

Be sure to try the same idea next time you get in trouble with your wife - "Bush lied and started a war, so you can't be that mad at me for getting drunk and puking all over the carpet"...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How do you excuse W*GS' lies about Moore?

[The Lone Bolt]

Yep.

He ignores the mountain of evidence that has accumulated over the past three years that Bush lied the country into war and cherry picks some dated material he believes will absolve Bush.

And he says he's not a Bush supporter?


So tell me what evidence completely invalidates the Senate Select Commitee report? Are you suggesting all the committee members were in on the conspiracy?

Do you have more than just one single ambiguously worded sentence in an obscure British memo to overrule the 400+ page detailed committee report which was a result of the examination of thousands of pages of documentation and the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses?


Is that your "mountains of evidence"?

I'm sticking up for the real evidence, not your paper-thin fantasies. You are a sad, blind, narrow-minded ideologue

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So tell me what evidence completely invalidates the Senate Select Commitee report? Are you suggesting all the committee members were in on the conspiracy?


You mean the Senate Select Whitewash/Cover Bush's Ass Commitee?


Corrupted Intelligence
Ray McGovern
July 12, 2004

McGovern and other veteran intelligence officers spent the weekend digesting the Senate Intelligence Committee report and ended up sick to their stomachs. Not only did the report confirm what they already knew—that the CIA skewed intelligence—but corruption ran much deeper, with analysts cooking up outright lies. In the wake of the report, McGovern worries media across the political spectrum aren't doing their job. They are buying without question the administration spin about the Senate report: that the White House led the nation to war because of bad intelligence, rather than ill-conceived policy.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/corrupted_intelligence.php

Uranium from Africa and the Senate (SSCI) Report:

With the continued limelight on Treasongate, I am starting a new series focusing on the findings on the "uranium from Africa" issue in the whitewash Senate Report - the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) - that was used to attack former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and excuse the unacceptable behavior of the Bush cabinet in the context of the Iraq war. This is the next logical step in my overall examination of the credibility and accuracy of the Bush administration claim in Jan 2003 that Saddam Hussein was recently seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa. In previous installments I showed how the claim was false, based on the very words uttered by numerous senior Bush administration officials in public (especially after the Joseph Wilson op-ed), based on the findings of the ISG-Iraq Survey Group, and based on a careful review of the Butler Report. With the analysis of the Senate Report I hope to complete the picture and provide some additional insight on what really happened.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004969.php

Do you have more than just one single ambiguously worded sentence in an obscure British memo to overrule the 400+ page detailed committee report which was a result of the examination of thousands of pages of documentation and the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses?

If you would sincerely have us believe that all there is to the Downing Street Memo and its ramifications is "just one single ambiguously worded sentence" then you are far more uninformed and/or misinformed by the Bill O'Lielys of the world than I previously thought.


I'm sticking up for the real evidence, not your paper-thin fantasies. You are a sad, blind, narrow-minded ideologue

No.

You are sticking up for a small, fringe minority who cherry pick 'evidence' in an effort to protect the criminals who lied America into this war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Are you suggesting all the committee members were in on the conspiracy?


Conspiracy or no, the Senate Intelligence Report whitewashes White House failures. Its 521 pages lack any mention of the Office of Special Plans. That's the Neo-con Chicken Hawk Pentagon panel set up to cherry pick through rumors and lies from suspected spy Chalabi to find bits and pieces that could bolster the bogus Bush/Cheney's case for war. Search for the word "special." You get zero hits. How can any report on intelligence failures omit the OSP? After thousands of Americans died, 1000s more wounded and billions of tax dollars spent, the Senate, Colin Powell, Bush's weapons inspector David Kay and so many others admit we went to war based on "bad intelligence." Everyone admits this was a botch job. Who should take the blame? The CIA? No, they - unlike the OSP - reported the lack of certainty Bush and Cheney ignored, so doesn't the buck stop with Bush/Cheney? They blew it leading up to 9/11 and leading us into war.

[Spider]

How do Bush's lies excuse Moore's lies?

Be sure to try the same idea next time you get in trouble with your wife - "Bush lied and started a war, so you can't be that mad at me for getting drunk and puking all over the carpet"...

Simple , I can choose to ignore Moore , his lies dont have an outcome on my life ..........The President on the other hand ......... See W*GS , I already know you dont think alot of things out , this is just another example ...........

[Spider]

LOL I will give you another example ......... Fuel Prices .... you want them even higher ... lets think about that for a second shall we ?
In your world W*GS , Gas prices are 5.00 per gallon , everyone is driving less , you are happy , but all of the sudden your computer goes out , so you walk to Circut city , to buy a new one ... But the Machine is over 3,700 , the exact same Machine used to be 1,200 back when fuel was under 2.00 per gallon ... So what happened ?
I will tell you , See Circut City doesnt make the computer , the computer is assembled , then shipped to circut city , for sale .... same way with your clothes , Medicines , food , etc ........
enjoy indoor pluming ? kiss that good by , the pipes used to get you your water are shipped by truck , sewage , same way .....Just like when you compared your Car insurance to my rig insurance ........ you just dont think things out W*GS ....

[W*GS]

How do you excuse W*GS' lies about Moore?

Provide an example of one of my lies about Moore, and how it's a lie.

[W*GS]

Simple , I can choose to ignore Moore , his lies dont have an outcome on my life ..........

Are you sure about that?

[Spider]

Are you sure about that?

um yeah , I dont have to go to see Moores movies , but I am subjected to Bush's policys ...........

[W*GS]

LOL I will give you another example ......... Fuel Prices .... you want them even higher ... lets think about that for a second shall we ?

What follows is mostly fantasy and pulled out of your ass, with no real supporting evidence or proof. But let's indulge you, shall we?

In your world W*GS , Gas prices are 5.00 per gallon , everyone is driving less , you are happy , but all of the sudden your computer goes out , so you walk to Circut city , to buy a new one ... But the Machine is over 3,700 , the exact same Machine used to be 1,200 back when fuel was under 2.00 per gallon ... So what happened ?

You're just guessing at these numbers. A change in gas prices will not cause a ~300% increase in the price of a computer. Gas prices today are about 50% more than they were when "fuel was under 2.00 per gallon". Have prices on all shipped items increased by 50%, or more, since that time? Not that I've seen - perhaps where you live, but then perhaps the folks you buy your stuff from tack on a special Spider tax just for you.

Note that many other countries have much more expensive gasoline than we do, yet they're not reduced to subhuman living standards. How do you figure that?

enjoy indoor pluming ? kiss that good by , the pipes used to get you your water are shipped by truck , sewage , same way

Gas is now about $3.00/gallon; sometime in the 1950s/1960s it was 30 cents/gallon - 10 times more now than then. Do we still have indoor plumbing compared to the 50s/60s?

An increase in gas prices alone will not cause the death of our entire society. My point was that to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil (remember, even Bush agrees with me on that one), we ought to have more expensive gasoline. When something costs more, you either find a substitute or use it more wisely. I understand that you want gas to be super cheap, preferably well under $1/gallon, but that's not the way we want to go to get the Middle East and all its problems, and the problems those problems cause us, out of our hair. Do you understand that? Not likely.

.....Just like when you compared your Car insurance to my rig insurance ........ you just dont think things out W*GS ....

That whole insurance thing was not the slam-dunk you think it was.

In any case, I've amply illustrated that you're full of crap. Next question.

[Spider]

You're just guessing at these numbers. A change in gas prices will not cause a ~300% increase in the price of a computer. Gas prices today are about 50% more than they were when "fuel was under 2.00 per gallon". Have prices on all shipped items increased by 50%, or more, since that time? Not that I've seen - perhaps where you live, but then perhaps the folks you buy your stuff from tack on a special Spider tax just for you.

Note that many other countries have much more expensive gasoline than we do, yet they're not reduced to subhuman living standards. How do you figure that?
Bull take a look at prices now , thats just @ 3.00 PER gallon , up to 5 , you would see 1 hellva jump in prices , as for other countries , alot of them dont have the millage we do , 3,000 Miles in America , is alot different then racking up 3,00 miles in Britton , France , Spain etc ......




Gas is now about $3.00/gallon; sometime in the 1950s/1960s it was 30 cents/gallon - 10 times more now than then. Do we still have indoor plumbing compared to the 50s/60s? alot of Rual places didnt ......

An increase in gas prices alone will not cause the death of our entire society. My point was that to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil (remember, even Bush agrees with me on that one), we ought to have more expensive gasoline. When something costs more, you either find a substitute or use it more wisely. I understand that you want gas to be super cheap, preferably well under $1/gallon, but that's not the way we want to go to get the Middle East and all its problems, and the problems those problems cause us, out of our hair. Do you understand that? Not likely.
LOL what a line of Bull , we could be off of oil in 10 years if we wanted to be .... the oil companies have a very powerful lobby , raising prices just make them more powerful .... most of our Oil comes from Canada and Mexico by the way .......


That whole insurance thing was not the slam-dunk you think it was.

In any case, I've amply illustrated that you're full of crap. Next question.

LOL the hell it wasnt goof ....... you actually read your car insurance policy and compared ot that of a commercial vehicle . then tried to tell me what was covered what wasnt Hilarious!

[W*GS]

um yeah , I dont have to go to see Moores movies , but I am subjected to Bush's policys ...........

Ahhh, but Moore has an influence on government policy, which does affect you.

[Spider]

Ahhh, but Moore has an influence on government policy, which does affect you.

rofl! .... More so then Lobbist ?

[W*GS]

Bull take a look at prices now , thats just @ 3.00 PER gallon , up to 5 , you would see 1 hellva jump in prices

We've seen gas at 30 cents/gallon and now at about $3.00/gallon. Are prices on everything 10 times more now than then? You're assuming a simple straight relationship (what's called a "linear relationship") between gas prices and the prices of goods (and services). It's not that simple.

For example, consider air travel - very sensitive to the price of aviation fuel. How is it that more people are flying now than ever before?

, as for other countries , alot of them dont have the millage we do , 3,000 Miles in America , is alot different then racking up 3,00 miles in Britton , France , Spain etc ......

Shows what you know about Europe. They do ship goods across the continent, you know. Their truckers can even handle shifting from driving on the right to driving on the left, too.

Consider Australia, then. What do you say about them? Are they living in caves with animal hides, huddled around fires?

You're forgetting the element of human knowledge - we can adapt. We're not all as stupid as you are.

alot of Rual places didnt ......

I assume you mean "rural". Like I said, the increase in gas prices from 40-50 years ago to today hasn't led to the loss of things like indoor plumbing. Can you show me that it has?

LOL what a line of Bull , we could be off of oil in 10 years if we wanted to be .... the oil companies have a very powerful lobby , raising prices just make them more powerful .... most of our Oil comes from Canada and Mexico by the way .......

A big chunk of that $5/gallon gas would be in the form of taxes, dope, not profit to the oil majors. Wouldn't you say that the costs of our involvement in the Middle East, including little things like 9/11 and al-Qaeda, should inform us as to our addiction to oil, and how we should change things?

LOL the hell it wasnt goof ....... you actually read your car insurance policy and compared ot that of a commercial vehicle . then tried to tell me what was covered what wasnt Hilarious!

No. IIRC, you asserted that you were personally liable for the value of the contents of your shipment - you implied that if thieves took millions of dollars of goods from your trailer, you'd have to pay for every single last penny. I asserted that you carry insurance for such things, just as car drivers have insurance. You were never clear as to whether or not you carry insurance for such losses - I can't imagine truckers being in business for very long if they were personally liable for the value of the loads they carry.

Is that clearer to you?

[W*GS]

rofl! .... More so then Lobbist ?

Moore is essentially a lobbyist. Is he making his films for his own entertainment, or to influence policy?

[Spider]

We've seen gas at 30 cents/gallon and now at about $3.00/gallon. Are prices on everything 10 times more now than then? You're assuming a simple straight relationship (what's called a "linear relationship") between gas prices and the prices of goods (and services). It's not that simple. LOL simple enough ....

For example, consider air travel - very sensitive to the price of aviation fuel. How is it that more people are flying now than ever before?
and we are paying the price of it ........ I didnt say it would restrict travel , I am saying it drives the prices up ......



Shows what you know about Europe. They do ship goods across the continent, you know. Their truckers can even handle shifting from driving on the right to driving on the left, too.

Consider Australia, then. What do you say about them? Are they living in caves with animal hides, huddled around fires?

You're forgetting the element of human knowledge - we can adapt. We're not all as stupid as you are.
LOL you are so full of **** ,alot of Australia isnt even paved and you have the native tribes there .....
as for the rest of your post , shows what you know Europe runs smaller trucks , they dont need the monsters we have here ........As I said 3,000 miles in the US is alot different ......


I assume you mean "rural". Like I said, the increase in gas prices from 40-50 years ago to today hasn't led to the loss of things like indoor plumbing. Can you show me that it has?
speeling police ..... pretty deperate hey W*GS ?


A big chunk of that $5/gallon gas would be in the form of taxes, dope, not profit to the oil majors. Wouldn't you say that the costs of our involvement in the Middle East, including little things like 9/11 and al-Qaeda, should inform us as to our addiction to oil, and how we should change things?
LOL sure thing dope ....... By the way have you seen the oil compnaies bottom line ?



No. IIRC, you asserted that you were personally liable for the value of the contents of your shipment - you implied that if thieves took millions of dollars of goods from your trailer, you'd have to pay for every single last penny. I asserted that you carry insurance for such things, just as car drivers have insurance. You were never clear as to whether or not you carry insurance for such losses - I can't imagine truckers being in business for very long if they were personally liable for the value of the loads they carry.

Is that clearer to you?
LOL it started out as vandalism , to mischief , I showed I was covered under both , then it turned to Cargo , I was damn clear I carried that insurance, Mandatory I do , and see here you go again , for the last time , When they put the load on your trailer , you are responsible, theft , Damage ...... carry insurance ..... I guess you hate to be proved wrong by a trucker , that you are willing to say anything hey

[Spider]

Let me put it like this W*GS .. I put on a load of tomatoes , My truck breaks down , the tomatoes rot ......... who pays ? the farmer ? the Grocer ? The Shipper ?
save you the trouble of spending hours to figure it out , the Shipper ie me ..... Now wouldnt it make sense for me to have Cargo insurance to pay for that ?
put your thinking cap on W*GS before answering ......

[The Lone Bolt]

LABF, those articles you present make a lot of accusations but offer no supporting evidence of a "whitewash".

And yes, my description of the Downing Street Memos was hyperbole to some extent. But even you cannot deny that the "intelligence fixed around the policy" description was based on:

No research

No interviews

No examination of documentation

No analysis of evidence

It was an observation resulting from what appeared to be true at the time, but had not been investigated at all by the Brits.

The SSC report on the other hand is the result of thorough research of the evidence, and the articles you present do nothing to disprove that. Your articles are all accusations and no substance.

[W*GS]

LOL simple enough ....

An increase in in the price of fuel doesn't directly lead to the exact same increase in prices. I've made my point, and it demolishes your nonsense.

and we are paying the price of it ........ I didnt say it would restrict travel , I am saying it drives the prices up ......

So how is it that many more people are flying for much less cost? According to you, since fuel prices have increased so much compared to 40-50 years ago, we should all be suffering with 1/10th (or whatever number you guess) of the goods and services. Why isn't that the case?

Reality doesn't fit your thinking. As usual.

LOL you are so full of **** ,alot of Australia isnt even paved and you have the native tribes there .....

I'll have to forward the above comment to my Australian friends. They'll get a good laugh at your expense. It will just show them how ignorant Americans are.

as for the rest of your post , shows what you know Europe runs smaller trucks , they dont need the monsters we have here ........As I said 3,000 miles in the US is alot different ......

I've been to Europe - have you? They have big rigs there. Believe it or not. Yet somehow Europeans enjoy a standard of living very comparable to ours. According to you, with the price of gasoline that they pay, that's impossible. How do you figure?

speeling police ..... pretty deperate hey W*GS ?

Well, no, not desperate. Just pointing out that your point was baloney.

LOL sure thing dope ....... By the way have you seen the oil compnaies bottom line ?

Their current profits have to do with supply and demand, not the level of taxation. If gas is taxed at (say) an additional $2/gallon, that will likely hurt their profits, as people will use gas more wisely and seek alternatives that will reduce their costs.

LOL it started out as vandalism , to mischief , I showed I was covered under both , then it turned to Cargo , I was damn clear I carried that insurance, Mandatory I do , and see here you go again , for the last time , When they put the load on your trailer , you are responsible, theft , Damage ...... carry insurance ..... I guess you hate to be proved wrong by a trucker , that you are willing to say anything hey

You didn't prove me wrong - you were implying that you were personally responsible for the value of your load. Of course you carry insurance, so in fact, you're not directly responsible. If $2 million of goods are lost via some means or another, they're not going to try to get that $2 million from you personally. Yes, you have to buy insurance - but that's not the same thing as having to compensate the entire cost out of your own pocket.

In any case, your original assertions that increases in gas prices lead directly to the same increases (or even far greater) in the prices of goods is wrong. Period. I've shown that, amply.

[The Lone Bolt]

Conspiracy or no, the Senate Intelligence Report whitewashes White House failures. Its 521 pages lack any mention of the Office of Special Plans.

I belive the SSC report was not meant to be a comprehensive overview of the failures of all gov't branches, just a focus on the NIE. Pollack's article takes a much broader view.

[Spider]

An increase in in the price of fuel doesn't directly lead to the exact same increase in prices. I've made my point, and it demolishes your nonsense. Sure it doesnt W*GS
People just eat the higher cost of fuel and pass the savings on to you Hilarious!


So how is it that many more people are flying for much less cost? According to you, since fuel prices have increased so much compared to 40-50 years ago, we should all be suffering with 1/10th (or whatever number you guess) of the goods and services. Why isn't that the case?

Reality doesn't fit your thinking. As usual.
are they ? or has the price of maintaining a vehicle gone up so high it is cheaper to fly ?


I'll have to forward the above comment to my Australian friends. They'll get a good laugh at your expense. It will just show them how ignorant Americans are. do that , and while you are at it , tell them their truckers put on as many miles as An American trucker .......



I've been to Europe - have you? They have big rigs there. Believe it or not. Yet somehow Europeans enjoy a standard of living very comparable to ours. According to you, with the price of gasoline that they pay, that's impossible. How do you figure?
LOL you goofball , whats Bigger a refer or a Drop Deck ? Hint the Drop Deck out weights the Refer , therefore the Drop Deck is Bigger , while you were in Europe How many caterpillar engines did you see ? or did you rememer seeing a combination vehicle and say , they have Big trucks ? ROFL!
we both know you dont have a clue about weight , and what it takes to get across country in a rig ........ Thanks for playing though



Well, no, not desperate. Just pointing out that your point was baloney. yo uwere desperate



Their current profits have to do with supply and demand, not the level of taxation. If gas is taxed at (say) an additional $2/gallon, that will likely hurt their profits, as people will use gas more wisely and seek alternatives that will reduce their costs. no their recent profits have more to do with the cost ......



You didn't prove me wrong - you were implying that you were personally responsible for the value of your load. Of course you carry insurance, so in fact, you're not directly responsible. If $2 million of goods are lost via some means or another, they're not going to try to get that $2 million from you personally. Yes, you have to buy insurance - but that's not the same thing as having to compensate the entire cost out of your own pocket.

In any case, your original assertions that increases in gas prices lead directly to the same increases (or even far greater) in the prices of goods is wrong. Period. I've shown that, amply.

LOL now you are singing a different tune , I guess you dont remember telling me , I read my car insurance policy and none of that was covered so I doubt your rig is ..... Hilarious! enough of proving you wrong , you now understand that you are full of **** , and trying to save face now ....... Just remember how a trucker educated you and move on

[W*GS]

Sure it doesnt W*GS
People just eat the higher cost of fuel and pass the savings on to you

Something other than what you're claiming must be happening, because gas prices now are ten times what they were 40-50 years ago, yet our lives are incredibly better than they were then. How do you explain that?

are they ? or has the price of maintaining a vehicle gone up so high it is cheaper to fly ?

Look up how many people flew in say, 1960, compared to today, and what they paid. As for your other comment, why don't you do the research to prove your point. Dig up some statistics and make an argument, instead of a bald assertion.

do that , and while you are at it , tell them their truckers put on as many miles as An American trucker .......

As if every American trucker drives from NY to LA regularly. Are you familiar with Australian geography? How far is it from Sydney to Perth? From Melbourne to Darwin?

LOL you goofball , whats Bigger a refer or a Drop Deck ? Hint the Drop Deck out weights the Refer , therefore the Drop Deck is Bigger , while you were in Europe How many caterpillar engines did you see ? or did you rememer seeing a combination vehicle and say , they have Big trucks ? ROFL!

My point is that your belief that trucks in Europe are hardly bigger than a minivan is false.

For example, from http://www.interliner-agencies.com/tranroad.html:

http://www.interliner-agencies.com/pic-road2.jpg

yo uwere desperate

You brought up "rual", as if that had to do anything with anything. Your argument is wandering all over the place, and you're getting yourself lost.

no their recent profits have more to do with the cost ......

The cost of what?

LOL now you are singing a different tune , I guess you dont remember telling me , I read my car insurance policy and none of that was covered so I doubt your rig is .....

I never said that. As usual, the years of drinking and bar fights is shown to have taken its toll on your memory.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, those articles you present make a lot of accusations but offer no supporting evidence of a "whitewash".

And yes, my description of the Downing Street Memos was hyperbole to some extent. But even you cannot deny that the "intelligence fixed around the policy" description was based on:

No research

No interviews

No examination of documentation

No analysis of evidence

You gotta be sh*ttin' me.

Have you even bothered to read the memo?

Your homework for this weekend:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

The SSC report on the other hand is the result of thorough research of the evidence, and the articles you present do nothing to disprove that. Your articles are all accusations and no substance.

Wrong again.

The articles I posted (just two of many) show how the SSC report omits important information - information that is damaging to the Bush WH.

Just another whitewash job.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I belive the SSC report was not meant to be a comprehensive overview of the failures of all gov't branches, just a focus on the NIE.

Nice spin.

No matter how you slice it, the report omits those facts that could damage BushCo.

[The Lone Bolt]

You gotta be sh*ttin' me.

Have you even bothered to read the memo?

Your homework for this weekend:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/



Wrong again.

The articles I posted (just two of many) show how the SSC report omits important information - information that is damaging to the Bush WH.

Just another whitewash job.



I've read the memos. Show me where they outline who was interviewed in the IC, what documents the Brits reviewed, what data they gathered and how. There is no indication in those memos of any research done to suport the "fixed around the policy" claim, much less the thousands of pages of documentation and hundreds of eyewitnesses reviewed by the SSC.

The articles you posted were just a bunch of accusations and no supporting evidence.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've read the memos. Show me where they outline who was interviewed in the IC, what documents the Brits reviewed, what data they gathered and how. There is no indication in those memos of any research done to suport the "fixed around the policy" claim, much less the thousands of pages of documentation and hundreds of eyewitnesses reviewed by the SSC.

The articles you posted were just a bunch of accusations and no supporting evidence.

The memos are official minutes from secret meetings attended by Bush. Blair did not dispute their accuracy or their authenticity.

And it doesn't matter if the SCC report is a million pages long - it still omits information that could be damaging to the Bush WH.

Speaking of omissions, here's the part you missed:


May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.

Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

* Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
* Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
* The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
* The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
* The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I've read the memos. Show me where they outline who was interviewed in the IC, what documents the Brits reviewed, what data they gathered and how. There is no indication in those memos of any research done to suport the "fixed around the policy" claim, much less the thousands of pages of documentation and hundreds of eyewitnesses reviewed by the SSC.

The articles you posted were just a bunch of accusations and no supporting evidence.Geeeesus! And you wonder why I classify you with the rest of the Bush groupies?

[The Lone Bolt]

The memos are official minutes from secret meetings attended by Bush. Blair did not dispute their accuracy or their authenticity.

And it doesn't matter if the SCC report is a million pages long - it still omits information that could be damaging to the Bush WH.

So in other words you admit that the author of the DSMs did no research whatsoever to back up their claims, and the SSC report by contrast is very well researched with thousands of documents studied and hundreds of eyewitnesses interviewed.

Therefore logically the SSC report > the DSMs.

Case closed! NEXT!

[The Lone Bolt]

Geeeesus! And you wonder why I classify you with the rest of the Bush groupies?


You want to show me all the "evidence" presented in LABF's articles?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So in other words you admit that the author of the DSMs did no research whatsoever to back up their claims, and the SSC report by contrast is very well researched with thousands of documents studies and hundreds of eyewitnesses interviewed.

Therefore logically the SSC report > the DSMs.

Case closed! NEXT!

???

How you concluded that I 'admitted' any such thing is beyond me.

The memos are the official minutes from a meeting attended by Bush, and Blair does not dispute their authenticity.

And, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter how many pages the SSC report contains or how many people were interviewed - the report still omits facts that are damning to the bush WH.

[Spider]

Something other than what you're claiming must be happening, because gas prices now are ten times what they were 40-50 years ago, yet our lives are incredibly better than they were then. How do you explain that? Who says we live better ? more diseases , more pollution ..........



Look up how many people flew in say, 1960, compared to today, and what they paid. As for your other comment, why don't you do the research to prove your point. Dig up some statistics and make an argument, instead of a bald assertion. ...... Cheaper to fly across country then drive .......



As if every American trucker drives from NY to LA regularly. Are you familiar with Australian geography? How far is it from Sydney to Perth? From Melbourne to Darwin? you dumb ass you dont have to drive from LA to Ny every week to rack up 3,000 miles ........



My point is that your belief that trucks in Europe are hardly bigger than a minivan is false. LOL you dumb ass never said they was the size of a mini van , show me where I said that ... or admit you are lying your ass off


.







I never said that. As usual, the years of drinking and bar fights is shown to have taken its toll on your memory.

you lying **** .........
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1462464&postcount=75[/quote]
Not what I asked - if your truck is damaged or destroyed during a "civil disturbance", is your loss covered? None of our auto insurances cover that specific instance - and I suspect your truck insurance doesn't cover it either, nor would the insurance of those who took up arms to protect their property and livelihoods during the LA riots.

So, your argument is gone.

[Spider]

you lying bastard W*GS .........

[W*GS]

Who says we live better ? more diseases , more pollution ..........

Less disease, less pollution. Would you rather be alive today, 50 years ago, 100 years ago?

...... Cheaper to fly across country then drive .......

Yet fuel prices for the airlines have gone up just like gas prices have for us. How is it that so many more people are flying now than 30-40 years ago? According to you, every increase in fuel prices leads to a reduction in the provision of goods and services - sometimes amazingly so (gas under $2/gal equals $1200 computer, gas at $5/gal equals $3700 computer), so how do you explain away the increase?

you dumb ass you dont have to drive from LA to Ny every week to rack up 3,000 miles ........

How far are those distances in Australia that I mentioned?

Not only does Australia have lots of roads, they have shelter, fire, and the wheel!

LOL you dumb ass never said they was the size of a mini van , show me where I said that ... or admit you are lying your ass off

Re-read what I wrote. There are big trucks in Europe, too, BTW.


you lying **** .........
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1462464&postcount=75

Sigh.

Does your cargo insurance cover its value if it gets destroyed during a "civil disturbance" (i.e., a riot/uprising/rebellion/etc.)? I'm not talking vandalism or theft.

I didn't lie, no matter how pissed you are at me.

[Spider]

W*GS you lied your ass off ....... you know damn well you said my rig wasnt covered .........I get so many messages asking why I even bother with you , one thing is clear , when you are caught , you lie your ass off ........and I never said their trucks wernt much bigger then Mini vans ........... you got problems w*gs with being honest

[W*GS]

W*GS you lied your ass off ....... you know damn well you said my rig wasnt covered .........

I don't know of any kind of insurance that will pay out in the event of a "civil disturbance" (riot/rebellion/uprising/etc) unless one buys special insurance for just such an event. Neither of our cars nor our house are covered for such events. Does your cargo insurance pay out if it's lost during such an event?

In any case, you do have insurance for your cargo - so you personally aren't liable for its value in case of loss.

I get so many messages asking why I even bother with you , one thing is clear , when you are caught , you lie your ass off ........

I do not lie.

and I never said their trucks wernt much bigger then Mini vans ........... you got problems w*gs with being honest

You want to make it sound like the US, in comparison with Europe, has much bigger trucks. It does not.

[Spider]

for now on I will call you W*GS the liar .......

[W*GS]

Call me whatever you want, Spider. The fact of the matter is that I didn't lie, no matter how desperately you try to show that I did.

[Spider]

Call me whatever you want, Spider. The fact of the matter is that I didn't lie, no matter how desperately you try to show that I did.

ok .then it is settled ..W*GS the Liar ......

[W*GS]

We all know better, Spider.

[Spider]

We all know better, Spider.

Uh huh .....just another little fib

[W*GS]

You never answered the question in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1639353&postcount=239

[Spider]

You never answered the question in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1639353&postcount=239

hmmmmm , what good is it to debate a liar ?

[W*GS]

Your decision to call me a "liar" is directly based on the question I asked. If you're unwilling to answer the question, then it's obvious to all that calling me a "liar" is just you being a dork. But what else is new?

[Spider]

Your decision to call me a "liar" is directly based on the question I asked. If you're unwilling to answer the question, then it's obvious to all that calling me a "liar" is just you being a dork. But what else is new?

you just said I can call you whatever I want ......... another fib ?

[The Lone Bolt]

???

How you concluded that I 'admitted' any such thing is beyond me.

The memos are the official minutes from a meeting attended by Bush, and Blair does not dispute their authenticity.

And, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter how many pages the SSC report contains or how many people were interviewed - the report still omits facts that are damning to the bush WH.

I think you're a little confused here. Blair did not authenticate the conclusion that the intel was "fixed around the policy." He only authenticated that such a conclusion was reached. How that conclusion was reached is still a mystery.

Can you tell me exactly how the DSM author reached that conclusion? What evidence is it based on? If it was merely an impression based on nothing more than the author's own opinion or bias then it proves nothing.

Tell me what EVIDENCE the DSM commments are based on.

[W*GS]

You can still call me whatever you want - whether or not such an appellation is valid is up to the rest of the OM to decide. So far, you're not doing so well.