Fun Read, O'Reily vs. Moore

[Jice Virago]

Bill is not balanced, not by a longshot. He does, however, have moderate stances on a number of issues that make him seem centrist to far righties. He is definitely the least right leaning of most of the conservative talk circut. I don't like how he handles most arguments, since they always seem staged when he cuts the guest's mike. In this particular instance, he was descent in how he handled it. He knew he had to argue a difficult, if not outright weak, position and he did a reasonable job of it without comming off like the right wing nutjob he often seems like.

[Chidoro]

Character bashing doesn't win elections. I'd be all over the Stem Cell research ban, pushing some sort of environmental issues, making clear the differences between the radical right and left, pushing for civil unions and equal rights for gays if I was a democrat/kerry supporter.

Well the stem cell ban would help the democratic cause at least. I'm not even sure democrats give a crap about gay rights and civil unions.

Just listen tonight. My guess is that Kerry will speak about the true problem ailing this country right now, the fact that jobs are scarce. That jobs to advance white collar positions are continuing to become more scarce. That relief isn't going to occur under the current admin because they only, truly, care about the folks that earn shitloads of money just by staring at it. And the rubes too stupid to understand that they will remain perma poverty folks under such policies think nothing but hey, "He's got my back..out here...in no man's land where no terrorist would even waste the fuse on".

I just really find it entertaining that a good portion of the people that like this Bush agenda neither, benefit it from a financial standpoint, nor, benefit it from a security standpoint (since noone gives a shit about your little fucking hovel of dirt w/ a pop density of 1.341 per mile).

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yes Chidoro, you are right. Kerry will paint that picture. You say truth, but it's only the truth to you and those who share your flawed, negative, brain washed thinking.

[Chmee]

I don't agree with Gillespe about "Moore's rhetoric fall[ing] flat when you're talking about an all-volunteer army that's made up of legal adults." That they are volunteering adults is wholly irrelevant when military service is advertised as a fun and enriching way to earn money for college, when a large number of those serving are reservists who never expected to see any real duty, and when the war they are fighting is entirely unnecessary and unjust.

That they are volunteering adults is completely relevant. Yes the military advertises to try to show itself in a good light. So what? We face huge amounts of advertising every day. It doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to make our own decisions and be responsible for them.

Moore's question is entirely valid. If people like George Bush are willing to send other's children to die, they should be willing to send their own. Personally, I applaud O'Reilly for, at least, having the decency as a human being to answer the question honestly. His attempt to spin it and say that he would go is laughable, and disgusting given the name of the show.

Moore keeps asking if people are willing to sacrifice their children. To be in military service you are considered old enough to be an adult. Unless you are talking about lowering the age you can enter the military or reinstituting the draft the parent can't decide what his child does, because they are an adult and have a right to make their own decisions. Also the proposition that because their parent is an elected official, they should be punished isn't exactly a strong moral point.

The president and congress should always consider those that serve in the military will be paying the price in military endeavors. If people think that the Iraq war was a wrong decision and the cause of unnecessary deaths in the military that is certainly a valid criticism to make. But trying to frame it in the terms of elected officials being willing to sacrifice their children is a poor argument.

[Forthe]

The president and congress should always consider those that serve in the military will be paying the price in military endeavors. If people think that the Iraq war was a wrong decision and the cause of unnecessary deaths in the military that is certainly a valid criticism to make. But trying to frame it in the terms of elected officials being willing to sacrifice their children is a poor argument.

I disagree. The argument is meant to emphasize that if you are willing to send these young people off to die then your motivations should be strong enough that you would consider putting your own child in harms way, because you are in fact sending someone else's child. A reasonable if overly moralistic argument.

[Chmee]

Here's one thing that has been bothering me for a while now.

Isn't the point of a leader, someone to take charge AND take the blame. no passing the buck and shit. I know thats how it works in businesses and the military (from what I've been told) isnt it also supposed to be true of government?

It depends. A President should certainly be responsible for his actions. There is a tendency though to try to assign blame (and credit) to them for everything that goes on during their administration, and that is going overboard in my opinion. To try to say if anything goes wrong (or right) that they are automatically responsible is a standard nobody is going to meet.

Certainly if something actually can be shown to be caused by them, they can and should be held accountable. But you can't say it happened on their watch so its their responsibilty.

[Wiever]

The president and congress should always consider those that serve in the military will be paying the price in military endeavors. If people think that the Iraq war was a wrong decision and the cause of unnecessary deaths in the military that is certainly a valid criticism to make. But trying to frame it in the terms of elected officials being willing to sacrifice their children is a poor argument.

I disagree. The argument is meant to emphasize that if you are willing to send these young people off to die then your motivations should be strong enough that you would consider putting your own child in harms way, because you are in fact sending someone else's child. A reasonable if overly moralistic argument.

With this logic, the arguement that the president is willing to send his parents to war, should arise. While it is true that these are some peoples' children, it is also true that some are parents. The basis of using "children" as the explative is to create an emotional response for there arguement against the war. This in itself is a weak spin on emotions, and therefore a pretty lame arguement (forgive any awkward spelling, or grammar, cause 1, i don't care; 2, I am very innibreated).

[Forthe]

The president and congress should always consider those that serve in the military will be paying the price in military endeavors. If people think that the Iraq war was a wrong decision and the cause of unnecessary deaths in the military that is certainly a valid criticism to make. But trying to frame it in the terms of elected officials being willing to sacrifice their children is a poor argument.

I disagree. The argument is meant to emphasize that if you are willing to send these young people off to die then your motivations should be strong enough that you would consider putting your own child in harms way, because you are in fact sending someone else's child. A reasonable if overly moralistic argument.

With this logic, the arguement that the president is willing to send his parents to war, should arise. While it is true that these are some peoples' children, it is also true that some are parents. The basis of using "children" as the explative is to create an emotional response for there arguement against the war. This in itself is a weak spin on emotions, and therefore a pretty lame arguement (forgive any awkward spelling, or grammar, cause 1, i don't care; 2, I am very innibreated).

Yes it is meant to create an emotional response, why does that make it a pretty lame argument?

[Wiever]

...because it is not "children" we are sacraficing. I believe he is in some sense stripping the honor of those who sacrifced themselves. Deaths from wars are never going to sit well in anyones stomach, but in reality the casualties so far in Iraq pale in comparison to many of the U.S's militaries past campaigns. Moore's arguement would hold a lot more ground if he focused on why these people died, rather than would you sacrifice your child. I believe his spin on this would be much more accurate if we were using a draft to recruit these soldiers.