Difference between revisions of "Talk:SiCKO"
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:::I added it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:23, 8 August 2007 (EDT) | :::I added it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:23, 8 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | It's pretty sad when you call the film biased; when you're review is even more biased. Even if you didn't like, at least '''try''' to seem like you see both | + | It's pretty sad when you call the film biased; when you're review is even more biased. Even if you didn't like, at least '''try''' to seem like you see both sides of the arguement. |
Revision as of 17:56, August 9, 2007
Aschlafly - You have such a strong opinion on this film that is still being shown in previews. Have you even seen it? Guitarplayer 16:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- Michael Moore's films: garbage in, garbage out. How often does Sicko talk about rationing that results from government-controlled medicine???--Aschlafly 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Front page news
I find it amusing that the front page tells people that Sicko was critically panned but the article itself only features a quote from a critic lauding the movie. I'd ask someone to change the front page if I could to reflect the actual article. Anyway, I've seen the movie. It makes a powerful case - not so much that other countries' healthcare systems are better but rather that our system's failings are much worse. The "Let's do something less bad than this" is a good argument, and the case is made well. --TraitortotheCause 15:30, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Embargo Investigation
I've noticed that this article does not cover SiCKO's embargo violation investigation[1]. I've written a section on it:
The production of SiKO has brought about a controversy concerning Moore’s adherence to the United States broad trade embargo imposed against Cuba since 1962. A United States Treasury Department letter implied that Moore did not receive authorization before traveling to Cuba to film his documentary; this would be in direct conflict with the embargo’s rules[1]. Moore is now facing a U.S. government probe on the legality of the Cuba trip[2]. He has hired a Washington attorney, David Boies, to represent him in the matter, and states, "I have broken no laws, and I have nothing to hide.”[3]
Should it be added? --Tash 15:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
- Good idea, and apparently well-supported. Please add. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
It's pretty sad when you call the film biased; when you're review is even more biased. Even if you didn't like, at least try to seem like you see both sides of the arguement.