W/o commenting on MM's question to O'really?, rem, I'd love to see you deconstruct your own comments above. You could trash your own post far better than I could, lol.
Michael Moore--Bill O'Reilly finally, on Foxnews tonight
by sf 123 Replies latest social current
-
-
rem
>>sorry, REM, I believe that 18, 19 and 20 year olds are children. It doesn't matter if they are 25, they are still the children of their parents.
Sorry, but their parents aren't "sacrificing" them. These adults are making their own decisions in life, just like some chose to take risky jobs as firefighters.
>>Regardless of the age of the "professionals", they were put into that war because of a lie. There were no WMD in Iraq and Sadam was not a threat to the American way of life.
The argument can be made that Bush overemphasized WMD. Many people like myself, though, never believed that existing WMD's were the only reason for the war. Sadam effectively broke the cease-fire agreement with the United States by continually firing upon US aircraft in the no-fly zone, failing to provide required documentation, and failing to allow the weapons inspectors to do their job for the past 12 years.
Unfortunately, I believe Bush's error was to link Iraq with the war on terror. To me they are completely separate things. I would have agreed with the war even without 9/11. The global powers need to mean what they say. When they say there will be serious consequences there must be serious consequences.
>>What has beating your mate got to do with this topic? Your argument is merely an attempt to mislead from the real issues.
Perhaps you misunderstood. It had to do with Moore's logical fallacy - his appeal to emotion. Of course, I'm not saying that O'Reilly's tactics are usually any better.
rem -
Robdar
I must agree with your statement on the previous page. Anybody who was paying attention should have known that we would go back into Iraq.
Still, calling 18, 19 and 20 year olds adult does not make them so. Perhaps when you have children of your own who are that age you will understand what I am talking about.
As far as parents sacrificing their children, I agree, it is a bit extreme to say that they are doing so (even though many parents do encourage their children to go into the armed services in order to get an education). I think that MM was trying to bring attention to the fact that our children are dying for a cause that did not exist. He is trying to remind us that young people (sometimes our best and our brightest) are dying for a lie. Perhaps he thinks he has to speak in an extreme manner to get people to pay attention.
Robyn
-
frenchbabyface
I think that MM was trying to bring attention to the fact that our children are dying for a cause that did not exist. He is trying to remind us that young people (sometimes our best and our brightest) are dying for a lie. Perhaps he thinks he has to speak in an extreme manner to get people to pay attention.
Robyn
Basically ...
-
dubla
rob-
I doubt seriously if MM hates Bush. Probably dislikes him quite a bit though.
hate:
1. to feel hostility or animosity toward.
2. to detest.
3. to feel dislike or distaste for.
under usage, you find the following (bold/italic mine):
Hate is the generic word, and implies that one is inflamed with extreme dislike. We abhor what is deeply repugnant to our sensibilities or feelings. We detest what contradicts so utterly our principles and moral sentiments that we feel bound to lift up our voice against it.
that sounds about right to me.....and i doubt moore would disagree with the above descriptions of his feelings toward bush.
aa
-
L_A_Big_Dawg
Still, calling 18, 19 and 20 year olds adult does not make them so. Perhaps when you have children of your own who are that age you will understand what I am talking about.
Sorry robdar, at 18 they are considered adults by legal status. Whether they are truly "adult" depends on them and the parents they have.
This is said by a father of two (one of which is 14).
Secondly, REM is correct. The MM question abot sacrificing "children in Fallujah" is a no win question, and is designed to enflame the audience. It opens the door to being slammed by MM regardless of the answer. If O'Reilly says "Yes" then he is a bad parent. Willing to sacrifice his child for war. If he says "no" then, O'Reilly does not have the courage of his convictions.
Moore also uses an ambiguous term "children." As I have stated above, 18-20 year olds are legal adults. Simple as that. Robdar's emotive response, while touching, is immaterial, since it is not her, but the legal systems that determines the legal age.
I did not see the show. However I read the transcript, and I thought that they both handled themselves well. As to who won: a toss up.
LABD
Edited to add: Moore speaks in an exreme manner for one reason only. Lining his wallet. If he was so concerned about this whay not just show it for free as a "public service."
-
frenchbabyface
the hate is not about the man, it is about WHAT HE IS DOING (or NOT)
(Now I'm not in MM heart to know exactly what it is all about - very personnal matter and feeling)
-
ApagaLaLuz
I watched it last night. Well I missed the first airing so I had to stay up till nearly 2 am to watch it. I gotta say I was really disappointed with Moore. Here's the thing, Bill O'Reilly had watched F-9/11, he was prepared for everything Moore would discuss. Moore did not seem very prepared at all. He brought nothing new to the table. All he did was repeat things he had already said in the movie. I did not like the way he skirted issues and changed subjects, like when he got backed in to a corner regarding WWII.
And it's funny to watch 2 grown men talk in circles and repeat themselves over and over again for 8 minutes. Even though I liked F-9/11 and support Moore and many of his views, he certainly did not come out as vindicated. If I had to call it, I'd most certainly say Bill won that one.
On a side note, during his Afleck interview, it irritated me that Bill when on and on about Bush bashers and name calling, and then at the end told Afleck to share an idea with his "Pin Head Democrat Friends". Kinda reminded me of watching a JWD discussion :)
-
Crazy151drinker
A better question:
Would MM sacrifice his child to defeat Bush?
Better yet,
Would MM sacrifice his child to protect the rights of Americans which he claims are being destroyed?
MM would rather have Stalin as the leader of the US.
I bet the the only thing MM would sacrifice his kid for would be a Big Mac Combo Meal.
Either way, its a misleading question. Just because your 'child' is serving doesnt mean they are going to die. Also, they volunteer, Bush is not going around kidnapping people and forcing them to serve. Typical MM spin.
-
Farkel
Moore dictated that FOX would not edit any of their conversation. O'Reilly complied. Moore dictated that they would each take turns asking each other a single question. O'Reilly complied.
Moore was as slippery as they come, and O'Reilly had to keep directing him back to the point of discussion.
There were only two issues that Moore kept hammering on:
Bush lied when he said there were weapons of mass destruction. O'Reilly countered with the FACT that Bill Clinton, the British Intelligence AND the Russian Intelligence (who did a fat business with Iraq) ALL stated that Iraq had WMDs. As did our own CIA. O'Reilly then admitted that to-date we haven't found anything significant to prove that claim. He asked Moore if it was a lie to state something that one actually believed.
Moore said it was. They both debated this issue for a while, and finally O'Reilly stated they were going nowhere with it. Even a kid knows that one is not considered a liar unless one says something that one knows is not true. To me, Moore looked the fool on that one.
The other issue was Moore's repetitive question to O'Reilly: "Would you send your child save Fallujah?" O'Reilly said he had no children, but that he himself would die to do it. That wasn't good enough for Moore, and he kept hammering on that question.
O'Reilly missed several opportunities to squash Moore here. He could have counter-asked, "Would you send you child to die to save Berlin in WWII?" Likely, Moore would have pointed out that Berlin was a "different matter." To which O'Reilly could have then asked, "Oh, so you're saying that the people of Fallujah are of less worth than those in Berlin?"
Point is, BOTH Afghanistan AND Germany in WWII posed serious threats to the USA and the world.
I recall O'Reilly asking him if he hated George Bush. I thought he said yes, but even so, I don't remember him saying no.
Moore did not come across as being balanced or well-prepared. He certainly could not be held to give simple answer to simple questions.
O'Reilly was not as his best, either. I think he held back more than usual so the rabid Moore supporters wouldn't accuse him of being a bully.
All in all, it was a waste of time. Nothing new was revealed.
Farkel