Christopher 1988 yapped: Love that you never could live up to your own standards about Sicko and provide that specific, detailed, and supported-by-outside-documentation evidence. You're not even arguing, just enaging in what's sometimes called dick-swinging

Well, at least you recongize who has the bigger machninery.

Anyway, young ignorant turk, the issue was on capitalism, and Stephanie's deficiencies therein- which is what YOU asked about. I provided the answers. Clearly, you are so brain deformed and mentally defective you can't even recall what you wrote- typical of a Gen Y mental defective - such as I have taught at assorted colleges.

Now, to remind you, my retarded young friend, it was YOU that made the slanderous attacks on Moore, not me. Hence, it is your burden to justify your calumny, not mine to be your research monkey and help you out in any way.

If you are too retarded and not up to the task, simply admit it. But using red herring tactics like so many of your cretinous kind do, is unappealing and merely shows the menial state of your mind.

Obviously, you have the whole issue turned on its head, trying desperately to escape your obligations to defend your POV here.

As for me, I know that ALL of Moore's claims in SICKO are essentially spot -on having rsearched the role of HMOs, capitalist health care since those devices originated in the Nixon era.

I have even written (eight years ago) several extensive articles on the deficiencies of capitalist managed care which also appear in SICKO. These also referenced work done by two Harvard health researchers, Devid U. Himmelstein and S. Woolhandler.

Mayhap, if you had half a brain you could find them on the web.

But since you can't even justify your scurrilous attacks on Moore - by naming even FIVE of these "inaccuracies or lied" you impute, it's clear you don't even have that.

So I can only surmise you were one of those rare infant born in 1988 with most of the brain missing.

Since it's clearly missing in action here.

robbul wrote: Am I to infer from this statement that writers like Stephanie exhibit a higher propensity for 'actual thought' than these poor folks? I guess I'll have to read more of her work.

OR, watch some of it on SUNDANCE. Every now and then she's featured as a commentator and reviewer-critic when that network has its "Indie Sex" extravaganza. I think there are about four in all, including 'Teen sex in cinema', 'Extremes' and two others which I can't recall. I only happened to be channel flicking looking for a documentary on LINK-TV when I happened to come upon Stephanie's exuberant face - name beneath- commenting on one of the SUNDANCE documentaries, explaining why 'American Graffiti' didn't qualify as a true teen sex flick, but 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' did (something to do with a masturbation scence or something).

The commentary was so vapid and superficial I had to look for my LINK-TV program more rapidly, dealing with potable water and African droughts.

ABsolut Carnage wrote: Born in 1988 maybe? You're young and Earnest, and like many (not all) your age you think in monaural black and white and cannot see beyond your Almighty Self

You nailed this know-nothing gen-y freak perfectly. About all he probably knows is how to load his I-pod, or twitter his twit pals. He is undoubtedly one of the 54% or so who failed the basic American History quiz put out two years ago.

Young turks who think they know, but don't, but aren't hesitant to opine on just about everything.

I have already called out this young uninformed rascal and will continue to do so until he cites five "inaccuracies" or "lies" in SICKO.

I am betting he punks out.

But then what do you expect from a two bit, I-pod addicted, Gen-Y punk?