Here's another link to newsbusters profiling Moore's newfound vendetta against a liberal network that dared to disagree with his point of view. This is the enlightened and reasonable Michael Moore - man of tolerance, compassion and truth - threatening to 'get' CNN - the network that's done more to pimp his propaganda movies than any other network....

http://newsbusters.org/node/14097

If liberals should ever get full control of government - this is what can expect from their vision of 'no one gets free speech unless they agree with me'.

The Cuban hospitals that Moore DIDN'T want you to see....

http://newsbusters.org/node/14029

And one doubter in the above posts (who was much more polite than most here) asked for verification on the cost of Moore's 'free' health care utopia. I suggest reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-HealthCare-Americas-Consumer-Driven/dp/0071487808

It's a little older now, but they put the total cost of health care in the US at about 2 TRILLION dollars. The current Federal budget is 2.7 trillion dollars. Which means that if the government 'takes over' health care, then they're gonna need to effectively double the amount of money they 'need' to take into through taxation. And who's pockets is it going to come out of? And do you really think it'll stay at that amount? When has any program run by the government EVER run at or below it's 'projected' cost? (Short answer: they always go OVER budget. Way overbudget. Because they look on you as a never-ending sponge they can just keep wringing and twisting whenever they feel like it. Whenever government types get together to discuss a tax increase (which is what 'free' medical care will be), do you ever hear them say anything like "Well gee, I wonder if the people can afford this?")

Wikipedia puts the total amount that is currently spent in this country on health care at about 15% of the total GDP - 'more than any other nation'. The true culprits behind the spiralling costs of insurance and medical treatment are the trial lawyers who browbeat people into suing for ridiculous amounts of money. Doctors are flooding to Texas from other states because they put a cap there on the total amount that can be sued out of a doctor for malpractice. Doctors in other states are going out of business because they can't afford the malpractice insurance they need to keep these ambulance chasing lawyers off their backs.

This isn't information that you need a secret decoder ring to get people - it's right out there on the internet for anyone to find - if you've got the courage to look for it.

You kidding? CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, et. al have done little but slam Bush since he was elected - before and after 9/11. They've given screen time to Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, Michael Moore, anyone they can find who will say the words that their 'reporters' are too gutless to say - 'Bush is Hitler', 'worst economy since the great depression', 'Bush lied, people died', 'no evidence of nukes', 'Karl Rove should be imprisoned w/out trial', 'our soliers are like nazis in their death camps', the list goes on and on. Lapdogs to Bush? I guess that's why Olbermann is demanding their impeachment, and why Dan Rather pushed forged documents to try and destroy Bush during the 04 elections, and how come every time liberals lose, they cry 'voter fraud', but every time they win it's 'the voice of the people'.

What it must be like - to be so blinded by hatred to the exclusion of logic and reason. We all saw what happened when Moore ran into an opposing point of view - he started gnashing his teeth and stamping his feet in rage. Because he THOUGHT these reporters were supposed to be on 'his' side and say nothing against him.

Fact is, this movie Moore made is so wrong in so many instances, that even the 'news' network that wrote glowing reviews for it couldn't believe all his distortions and inaccuracies. I guess Moore is still miffed that his movie is getting the tar beat out of it at the box office. 11th place and going down, down, down....
I'm sure he agrees with free speech - but only the free speech that agrees with his point of view. CNN has just seen an example of how 'free' Moore would like speech to be by trying to stomp on them. Facts and stats that refute Moore need not apply in his brave new world...

That is just too rich. Michael Moore - a propaganda movie maker - is complaining about being taken out of context. Surely thou wilt say unto me this proverb, physician heal thyself...

And CNN in 'the pocket' of the health care industry? Shut up, Moore. Don't you realize CNN is a 'mainstream' media organization? They're your closest allies! And after his ranting was done, someone obviously took Wolf and Gupta back into the cloak room to give them their dressing down and get them back on the socialist reservation. Who's in who's pocket now?

What Moore isn't saying, the lie he wants you to buy into - is the notion that if the government takes over health care, then everyone will get medical coverage 'for free' because 'the government will pay for it' - like they do in socialist utopias like Cuba. (Movie makers have gone to Cuba to profile the lives of the average people there - the people Moore didn't want you to see because they're miserable. Ah yes - thousands of refugees are fleeing from Cuba to the US on anything they can keep afloat because they're just so durn HAPPY with the 'free' medical care they get in Cuba that they can't stand it anymore)

The lie is - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somewhere - somehow - someone has to pay. Even conservative estimates say that for the government to pay for this so-called 'free' health coverage that Moore dreams of, your ever-ready goverment is poised to take at least 50% out of each and every one of your paychecks - and that's GROSS, not NET. And your ability, or inability to pay all your other bills with the pittance that's left over will be of no concern to them.

And what of the healthy people? The ones who don't go to the doctor all that much? How is it fair for them to get half their paycheck sucked away for medical coverage they'll never use?

Never forget people - the government never pays for anything. Where does the government get it's money? They don't have two pennies to rub together until they tax it out of YOUR pocket. So when Moore and his cohorts say 'the government should pay for it', always remember - YOU are the one who's gonna take it in the shorts.

But why should Moore worry? He's already got his pile. He's asking for an INCOME tax from the goverment to pay for all this. But change that to a WEALTH tax, and Moore will start shrieking in fury against it. Because then HIS millions would be targeted by the government instead of your paychecks. And he would sooner part with YOUR blood than HIS money.

" Quantum, I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on that particular note? To simply state such an overt opinion and not explain yourself, especially on such an impassioned speech makes it seem as if you did not even fully understand what the speech was about."

This from the same mindset of people who say stuff like "Bush is worse than Hitler", and "Bush lied, people died", "Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen", "Bush stole the election", "Bush did it all to get his oil buddies rich", "Bush is a dumb cowboy"? Pick any 'overt opinion' from the liberal left - they're all the same. Unfounded with no evidence. And then say they don't have to explain themselves because 'everyone knows its true'....?

Idealogues, heal thyselves....

Who got owned by who? O'Rielly called this guy on a quote from this conference where a guy said 'if I had some ecstacy maybe I'd do it with someone'. O'Reilly said 'you' instead of 'someone'. But which is worse? Doing drugs with 'you' or 'someone'? In any event, the guy said this quote did NOT mean the speaker was condoning drug use. What kind of example is that speaker setting if he says 'a friend of mine jumped out a window while under LSD, so don't do drugs', and then in the next breath says 'maybe I'd do some ecstacy with someone'?

You don't elucidate the negative aspects of drug use by suggesting that you'd do drugs with 'someone'.

However - the subject of 'context' was sneered at by one of the posters above. 'Oh, he said you took it out of context, how quaint'. I'll avoid the obvious by pointing out that whoever posted this vid ENDED the clip after this kid got in his one zinger.

What happened after that? Could it be this guy himself got zinged and faced later on - but the one who posted the clip didn't want anyone to see it? Context - anyone? Why not post the entire interview - if you're so confident that O'Reilly was 'owned' from start to finish.....?

Plus, Clinton and Gore had full reign for their 8 years and we saw NONE of this stuff. Good parody - but the fact is all politicians of every persuation exist only to spend other people's money and make sure NO problems are solved so the voters have something to complain about.

Now - on a global scale - wasn't Saddam Hussein guilty of doing the equivilant of this to the Kurds and other ethnic minorities in his own country? And the US was the boxer who gave him his comeuppance?

The liberal left, Democrats, France, the U.N. et. al, would then be the cowardly sheep who stood by watching the bully while he attacked everyone.

Yet most of the folks on this site commenting and cheering the boxer for giving the bully the thrashing he deserved are the same ones whining that the US, Pres. Bush, et. al are 'evil' and should have done nothing.

Think about it.

Ah, so this is the reasoned debate the pro-global warming crowd has at it's disposal - "go away ****head". Try reading another of Crichton's 'stupid' lectures - "Evironmentalism as Religion". To be found here.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/

In which the 'he said it in 2003 so it must not be true' author lectured that the proponents of environmentalism and global warming behave exactly as if their tenants were a religion. Most of their doctrine is faith-based, and hence, they think it's inarguable. Facts and proof to the contrary are ignored, covered up or those who speak it are dismissed as "****heads".

Amazing how the free exchange of ideas just infuriates some people. It's words and ideas that they hate more than anything else. Specifically, words and ideas that they don't agree with. I'll wager Mr. "go away ****head" has probably attended protests, lectures or some such stuff and defended his own loud words as 'protected free speech'. But let someone speak an idea at variance with his own? "Go away". They don't want to hear it.

So - since it was written in 2003 as part of a book tour, it can't be trusted? Does that not prove the point I made about money? How can we trust Al Gore - who used "Inconvenient Truth" to earn millions of dollars, and contributed to global warming by flitting around the globe in private jets to promote it? If Crichton can't be trusted because he was just an author trying to peddle his book - how can Al Gore, the "Noah of Global Warming", be trusted when he's just peddling his movie?

"Oh, we can trust HIM. We believe."

And 'nearly 4 years old'? Trying to hint that it's outdated and not to be trusted as a result? Want something a little more recent? Go to the same link. There's another article backed up with charts, diagrams, facts and stats - dated 2005. "Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management". 2005. The very year of the Al Gore's summer of discontent. The year that he proudly declared that the above-average hurricane season was proof that his movie was gospel. (you guys love conspiracies - was it a coincidence that Al Gore rushed his movie to theaters durring the hurricane season with that movie poster showing a hurricane spewing out of a factory smokestack? Wonder how much cash money he managed to scare up with that little dodge...)

Not recent enough you say? How about the 2006 hurricane season? In which NO major hurricanes stuck? If Al Gore is to be trusted - shouldn't this hurricane season have been even worse than 2005? Yet 2006 has gone down now in history as one of the lamest hurricane seasons ever. So does that mean Global Warming was reversed? You guys are all into 'cause and effect' right? If Global Warming is getting worse every year, and 'killer hurricanes are brewed' by it - where were they all?

It's a mark of the tenants of the gospel of Global Warming that they get all excited for more death and destruction just so they can prove they were right. And yes, once the weather turns nasty again, they'll be back and just as loud as ever, saying the bad weather is 'proof' of their religion. Yet when the weather is good - well, that's proof they were right too.

And even more recent news? Just this week, The UN, your secular apostles, downgraded man's contributions to 'global warming'. It has also been decreed by scientists that cow farts puts more 'greenhouse gasses' into the air than cars.

Consensus? Far from it. Crichton was right - much as it hurts. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

I suggest that all 'consensus-minded' people who think "consensus=man causes global warming" should read Michael Crichton's brillaint lecture, "Aliens cause Global Warming". I should warn you though - it's backed up with FACTS, not the emotional mob-inciting psycho-babble of Oprah's "Noah of Global Warming", Al Gore. So if you aren't prepared to be hit in the face with evidence that consensus is nothing but a load of honk, do NOT follow this link:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Seriously - these scientists of have 'consensualized' that man causes global warming simply can't be trusted. They have a vested FINANCIAL interest in saying that man does cause it. If they can go out and scare enough people into thinking it's true, and come up with some vague hypothesis, they can be in line for literally millions of dollars in Federal grants from American taxpayers. Those are stakes for which men will play a desperate game.

Enviro-nazis constantly say that big oil and big business cannot be trusted because of the profits they earn. So why are those who scare up cash for their 'we can prove global warming' projects not mistrusted because of THEIR lust for cash money? They literally do not look on you 'pro-green' types as believers. You're PRODUCT to them. They count on you to donate money because of their fear speak. It's literally their job. If you aren't donating - they get bupkis. And they know it. Which is why they get louder and louder and their predictions get more and more apocolyptic.

Have you ever asked yourself - how much money do you just GIVE to these people every year? And how many of your hard-earned dollars are they ACTUALLY spending to save the spotted owl? If they're non-profit organizations, I'd love to see some IRS auditors go through their books......

I can pretty much guarantee that at least Penn is probably guilty of violating a number of the 10 commandments he mocks and ridicules in this piece.

It's a typical thing which you see all the time. One-time religious church going people hit a commandment or doctrine they don't agree with becuase they're breaking it. Then they kick themselves out of whatever church they're attending, saying it's wrong. And more often than not, they go completely against religion.

At the root of it all is a deep-seated belief that they are more righteous than God is. Which is why, when questioned or challenged, they nearly always say something like "Look at all the horrible things Christians have done over the centuries". And in the back of their minds they must be thinking, "if there IS a God, he would do something about all this misery in the world. If I had all that power, you can bet I'd sail in like the biggest superhero in the galaxy, wave my hand and put a stop to all the suffering. God has that power, but he's not using it. So that means I'm better than God. Why should I have to obey God's 'commandments' when I'm more righteous than he is?"

I have never met Penn. But I can safely deduce, from this piece alone, that he's probably broken a LOT of God's commandments and he's seeking to justify himself because he knows he's guilty.

Yeah - the Democrats and liberals in general have been WAY too soft on Bush the last few years. (insert sarcasm here)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

More documentation. What a Parkinson's neurologist had to say about the whole thing. And a list of diseases which have treatments on tap with adult stem cell research - vrs. a list of diseases being researched with embryonic stem cells....

Yet MORE evidence that the whole kerfuffle was and is nothing more but liberal spin.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/29/video-fox-admits-he-has-not-reviewed-missouris-stem-cell-amendment/

MJF didn't even review the amendment that he endorsed when he threw his weight behind the Democrat candidate. If he had, he might have learned that the Misourri Democrat candidate he was endorsing voted AGAINST the embryonic stem-cell research that MJF says he wants.

But I'm not at all surprised by the dismissal from other denizens on this board. Like MJF, it is THEY who are displaying 'ignorance'. They don't even research the issues they say they support.

All they hear is what they want to hear: Republicans and right-wingers are heartless monsters who want to keep you sick, and if you vote for them, oooooh, terrible STUFF is gonna happen.

as to farhad's dismissal of the evidence as 'lies':

[quote] 2) MJF says (albiet indirectly) in his commercial that Democrats want to cure the disease, while their Republical opponents want to keep people sick.

MJF says in the interview that he has backed Republican candidates and done commercials for Republicans. So 2 is just a lie. MJF said it's not about red state vs blue state and D's and R's.[/quote]

View the commercial itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo

MJF endorses McCaskill "You can elect.. McCaskill - who shares my hope for cures". He then says of the Repbulican opponent, "Unfortunately Sen Jim Talent opposes research" and "Sentator Talent even wants to criminalize the research that gives us a chance for hope".

You can call MJF's own words a 'lie' if you want to - but you can't escape them. He makes it clear, that the Democrat candidate is the white knight on the silver stallion riding to the rescue of those who suffer from Parkinson's - while the evil Republican Talent wants to stop them.

MJF said in all his subsequent interviews, when confronted with the facts, that he's non-partisan. Why then is he lying about Democratic candidates who are voting against the research that he claims is so desperately needed?

http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/redlightgrnlight/2006/oct/22/michael_j_fox_is_wrong_jim_talent_supports_stem_cell_research

Rush documented the whole thing with web links, data, facts and a clear timetable of events. He provided proof of exactly who DID vote against the measures that are supposedly at the heart of the whole issue - and it wasn't the Republican. Leftwingers are always demanding evidence, proof and documentation. But when they get it, "oh, it's just spin".

I saw no evidence from all the drive-by media types who decry Rush as an insensitive jerk. In fact, when you remove all their rhetoric and emotion from their 'interviews', that's really all they have - "Rush is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to respond to this ad." Ask them why. They'll sputter and hiss and say again, "he's an insensitive jerk". Ask them about the facts. They'll retreat into the safe cloak of "he's a jerk".

Which is what the denizens of videosift seem to do more often than not.

I suppose it's much more comfortable for them to hide behind these threads and comfort themselves by agreeing with their pre-formed opinions of "Rush is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to speak". Yet he's the only one who provides the evidence, documentation and facts that the left keeps saying they want, and then flee when confronted with it.

It takes a lot of work and thought to study out the issues. It takes no effort at all to make faces on the internet.

Rush's whole point was not to make fun of MJF, and he said so many times over the course of the week. His whole point was, and still is, that it's contemptible of people (be they movie stars or no) to promise cures for diseases of only they vote for (or against) a specific political party.

The commercial that MJF appeared in made the tone unmistakable with the implication: "If you vote for the Democrat in X election, then we'll find a cure for Parkinson's. If you vote Republican, then no cure for you."

The left keeps accusing the right of 'fear-mongering' in the War on Terror. Does fear-mongering get any worse than saying "don't vote for this party, they want to keep everyone sick"?

And as always, Rush was right. It was, and is, contemptible for MJF to imply that only one political party wants to help cure diseases. And once again, all the left has is emotional rhetoric. Even the headline of this video "rush limbaugh's lies" is meant to grab those emotions by the nether regions and twist them. Here's the 'cliff notes' version of the whole situation.

1) MJF appeared in this commercial - which endorses Democrats.

2) MJF says (albiet indirectly) in his commercial that Democrats want to cure the disease, while their Republical opponents want to keep people sick.

3) Rush doesn't believe MJF, and responds to him, at first saying, "he's either acting, or off his meds". http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.guest.html

4) The media cries foul, saying that as a sufferer of the disease, MJF is off limites. (And in so doing, they prove Rush's point that the left takes morally indefensible positions and then props up victims to promote them - victims who they say cannot be refuted or argued with because it's 'mean' to do so.)

5) Over the week, Rush continually clarified that he was NOT making fun of MJF.

6) Rush cites evidence from MJF's own book that he DID once deliberately go off his meds while appearing before congress so he could appear shaky and suffering and thus gain thier attention (and money). To which Rush said, he could understand why.

7) MJF admits during an interview that he was not OFF his meds - he says he took TOO MUCH meds before doing the commercial - which doctors have said - makes the symptoms of Parkinson's appear worse.

Rush cites numerous instances of appearances of MJF, on TV, interview, appearances, in which he is neither shaky nor twitchy.

9) Rush cites many instances of left-leaning politicos, celebrities and media types who routinely say cruel, mean and utterly vulgar things about right-leaning persons - and they never apologize.

The long and short of it is that MJF could have appeared cogent and normal in that commercial - if he wanted to. But he wanted to prove a point to viewers by illustrating the symptoms of his illness. So he over-medicated to accomplish this. He, and the commercial producers, could have done re-takes or re-shoots so that MJF would have appeared as normal as he usually does. But they wanted poeple to see his symptoms, and hear the message: "Democats will cure you - Republicans will keep you sick".

The fact is that Embryonic stem cell research is already legal and ongoing in the states in which these ads are running. And no one is stopping it. Fact is, it's just not yeilding as good results as ADULT stem cell research and the new virus research.

Once again - Rush was right. And once again, the media is desperate to hide it.

All the facts are here -
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.guest.html

If you have the courage to face them.....