O'reilly Vs. Moore

[muchspl2]

yea unless he does a 180 he'll be out on his ass
just hope Karry is better

[SuperJude™]

Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.

Just for humor of course.

I must say I found that Mr. Moore's hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.

Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".

None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn't like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.

It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.

The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.

-SJ™

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker+28 July 2004 - 17:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 July 2004 - 17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 16:33
My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.

Boy, I sure hope you get that fixed before the Republican convention, Hank.

Could be your last chance to see Bush in action before he sinks into obscurity. [/b][/quote]
I know that it would thrill you to death but don’t count your chickens before they hatch. We’re a long way from November and a lot can and will happen in the meantime.

[SuperJude™]

Reminds me oddly of 2000 actually. Lot of chickens counted that never hatched, or am I wrong?

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@28 July 2004 - 23:03
Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.

Just for humor of course.

I must say I found that Mr. Moore&#39;s hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.

Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".

None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn&#39;t like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.

It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.

The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.

-SJ™

Perfect SJ, you said what&#39;s in my head better then I could

[hobbes]

Saying something that is not true is NOT a lie. A lie is an intentional act to deceive.

It is called a dictionary, check it out Mikey.

A declaration of the state of affairs, given the best information available, which turns out to be wrong, is an "inaccurate" statement, not a lie, not even close to a lie.

Just as people lambaste Bush for not acting on the nebulous information before 9/11, they roast him for his actions based on information, from 3 different sources that did not pan out.

Oh, we all know that Clinton warned him about "terrorism", that is about as helpful as telling him that the problem with the ocean is the fish. Lots of them out there, care to specify?

Talk about a lose/lose situation. Those retrospective historians are a surly lot.

So again, even if with you agree with Moore&#39;s philosphies, the honest mind must recognize his attempt to misconstrue what Bush stated as not an inaccurate comment but a lie.

So in an attempt to discredit Bush, he becomes the one who attempts to deceive, he is the liar.

How many times have I told people, if they want to appear better than those they criticise, they cannot resort to the same tactics because they feel "that their cause is just" and the means justify the ends.

It really just is another political ploy to cause his sheep to "baaaa&#33;" and for open minded thinkers to turn away from his cause as it is riddled with lies.

Sometimes, I want to vote Republican, just to piss Moore off.

[Busyman]

Not I.

Bottom line:

American lives have been lost over bullshit.

As President, Bush either makes a choice to act on certain intel or not.

Bush pushed for the wrong choice. Period.

There were other ways for America to go about this but war was chosen.

If I am a politician and I make decision that are fucked up, I probably won&#39;t remain in office for long.

That&#39;s the nature of leadership in relation to good decision making.

It&#39;s that I necessarily think Bush is evil or anything.

It&#39;s just that as a supposed leader he shitdirtpoor at good decision-making and pisspoor at speaking on just anything.

What makes him so redeemable?

Nothing.

Make a checklist. You&#39;ll get it.

[j2k4]

B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 12:30
Bill Buckley used to host a program called Firing Line, where various issues and subjects were debated, vigorously and well.

No one even knows how anymore, not least of all Mr. O&#39;Reilly, and certainly not Michael Moore.

agreed. i may not have liked William F. Buckley&#39;s views and --as with most news & political media over the years-- may have thought the range of opinions allowed into the show was a bit vanilla, but at least he and his colleagues had a handle on the art of discourse. and even good old fashioned wit. i&#39;d go so far as to say Buckley&#39;s the wittiest conservative i&#39;ve ever listened to.

Bill O&#39;Reilly&#39;s style descends from the shock radio trend, imho, of screened calls, going ad hominem only 30 seconds into the interview, shouting people down, and cutting them off if they venture too far off from the host&#39;s presumptions about the topic. it may represent the way "real people" talk, but it&#39;s also endlessly vulgar and hostile. as opposed to Buckley&#39;s comparatively rigid formality, though i&#39;d describe it more as a devotion to polite debate since his chronic slouch was as casual as anything. following that link, i see that O&#39;Reilly kept his cool during the Moore interview, though it shouldn&#39;t be too hard to find tape or transcripts of him berating guests and sending &#39;em packing.

as for Moore... i still think he&#39;s a satirist that people have unfortunately bestowed greater relevance to, than is really deserved. he&#39;s done some funny stuff, but i wouldn&#39;t vote for the guy.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 21:52
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?

Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.

Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?

The known protagonists of 9/11 weren&#39;t in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn&#39;t have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.

So why slog into Iraq at all?