O'Reilly & Moore

[hgc]

Oy. Michael Moore was as unfocused, irrelevant and slippery as much of his movie. The truth is devastating enough. Why does he have to distract with nonsense?

They spent most of the interview with O'Reilly pressing Moore to explain how Bush "lied" if he believed he was correct. Moore could only retort "he gave incorrect information." Don't these jokers have anything better to do?

I did think that Moore forcing the question on O'Reilly of would he sacrifice his child for Fallujah was a good one, and O'Reilly repeatedly refused to answer it. Now who's scared?

 

[Ed]

Oy. Michael Moore was as unfocused, irrelevant and slippery as much of his movie. The truth is devastating enough. Why does he have to distract with nonsense?

They spent most of the interview with O'Reilly pressing Moore to explain how Bush "lied" if he believed he was correct. Moore could only retort "he gave incorrect information." Don't these jokers have anything better to do?

I did think that Moore forcing the question on O'Reilly of would he sacrifice his child for Fallujah was a good one, and O'Reilly repeatedly refused to answer it. Now who's scared?

Yeah, saw that. I think that Moore lost on the lieing thing though he started to make a good point as he flailed. In essence he said "Bush should have known". The problem is that he could not bring himself to relpce the word lie with the owrd mistake. I think though that he nailed ORielly right proper with the question of whether he would sacrifice his kid. Mr. O badly bobbled that one.

 

[crimresearch]

"Oy. Michael Moore was as unfocused, irrelevant and slippery as much of his movie. The truth is devastating enough. Why does he have to distract with nonsense?"

I've always wondered exactly that...if someone is digging out the truth in order to expose wrongdoing, why dress it up in a bunch of agit-prop and easily dismissed rhetoric? What would have been so bad about an unvarnished documentary? Not profitable enough? Not 'sexy' enough?
This sort of crap is even poisoning other arenas where evidence used to be enough, such as courtrooms and research labs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" I think though that he nailed ORielly right proper with the question of whether he would sacrifice his kid. "

I've asked this question repeatedly since the movie came out, and so far a total silence from this forum.
Where did anyone get the idea that parents in the US had the ability to sacrifice their children to the military?
Moore keeps waving that piece of paper around, leaving the implication that somehow or another parents can 'sign up' their children, even their adult children, against their will, even if the offspring oppose the war or don't want to be signed up.
And that is totally a crock, there is no such form, and no one is signed up against their will since the draft went away.

And if it was not, as Moore claims 'non-fiction', but was instead a rhetorical device to expose right wing hypocrisy, then what parent *would* specify that they wanted their child to die in combat, instead of serving, and coming home safe and sound?

Would those on Moore's side sign a piece of paper saying that they wanted to see their children forced to die in support of the parent's beliefs?
So what is the point, other than to pump up ticket sales?

Sorry but I don't see those tactics as persuasive.

 

[DaChew]

Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

Yeah, saw that. I think that Moore lost on the lieing thing though he started to make a good point as he flailed. In essence he said "Bush should have known". The problem is that he could not bring himself to relpce the word lie with the owrd mistake. I think though that he nailed ORielly right proper with the question of whether he would sacrifice his kid. Mr. O badly bobbled that one.

I agree but I think he should have just asked "The buck stops where?".

The question of sacrificing a child is a good one for discussion I suppose. The problem I have with it is the way it implies that sacrifice is a given. Nobody sends troops to be sacrificed or to sacrifice themselves (except for the Japanese and perhaps the Soviets.). Our volunteer troops are the most highly trained and equipped in the world, they are not sacrifices. Nobody expects them to sacrifice themselves.

I'll answer the question the only good way I can think of: If I was President and my child volunteered for the military. I would respect his sense of duty to his country. Knowing that he or she would be highly trained and overwhelmingly well equipped, I wouldn't consider that they were being sacrificed in any way.
Now, if you vote for the war and then against funding the training and equipment, then maybe you are sending sacrifices.

 

[c0rbin]

One side is simply mining the other for a month of sound bites...

SAVAGE: "Play Tape #7, oh this one is a jewel that exposes Moore as the communist homosexual athiest that he is. You know, he got so fat eating jewish babies in front of their mothers, the lesbian douche!"

 

[aerocontrols]

I wonder if you could find two people who I would be less interested in watching have a debate.

Maybe if you replaced O'Reilly with Coulter.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

Nobody sends troops to be sacrificed or to sacrifice themselves (except for the Japanese and perhaps the Soviets.). Our volunteer troops are the most highly trained and equipped in the world, they are not sacrifices. Nobody expects them to sacrifice themselves.

.

They are being sacrificed because you KNOW that some of them will be killed/injured. Its a cost/benefit analysis. Bush thinks its worth the lives and $$$ to remove saddam. Many others do/did not.

 

[Ed]

Yes, it was largely BS. The enjoyment arose from watching two blowhards squirm a bit. There is no distinction that I can see between Moore/Orielly (et al.) and a topless dancer who makes porn occasionally to hype attendance at her shows. This "debate" was the porn.

 

[rikzilla]

Simply stated...if Michael Moore merely stuck with facts instead of flippant misinformation and creative editing he would not have to fear answering a pointed question from O'Reilly or anyone else.

But then again, he'd never have made his $100,000,000 on a movie like that would he? (yawn)

His best point about would O'R sacrifice his kid for Fallujah. Well of course worded like that who would? No one fighting the war expects to die...that they sometimes do is beside the point. Take his silly question and apply it to WWII to see the stupidity of it. "Would you sacrifice your kid to secure a deserted beach in France?" "Would you sacrifice your kid to protect a bridge in Germany?" "Would you sacrifice your kid to hold an alley in Berlin?" Many of our troops fighting an unambiguously just war did all those things and more. They were serving their nation in time of war...they were not sacrifices even though in the end they were killed in action. MM misused the word "sacrifice" in his question, just as he manipulated and misused other words in his film. The man is a modern day Lindbergh,...but without all the daring exploits.

-z

 

[Snide]

I've asked this question repeatedly since the movie came out, and so far a total silence from this forum.
Where did anyone get the idea that parents in the US had the ability to sacrifice their children to the military?

I'll bite. No one has that idea. Moore uses the language to make the point that so many who easily approve the war might think differently if it were their own children fighting.

I didn't realize anyone actually believed that the ability to sacrifice your children to the military is what Moore or anybody thought, or what Moore was trying to make anyone think. It was simply his old style of confrontational humor, that really didn't work that well in the humor department. I also thought he treated Rep. Kennedy unfairly with his use of video, but it made the point he was trying to make.

Have you seen the movie yet (sorry, too lazy to go back through other threads)?

 

[pgwenthold]

His best point about would O'R sacrifice his kid for Fallujah. Well of course worded like that who would? No one fighting the war expects to die...that they sometimes do is beside the point. Take his silly question and apply it to WWII to see the stupidity of it. "Would you sacrifice your kid to secure a deserted beach in France?"

Absolutely (note, the beaches weren't exactly deserted, they were heavily defended)

"Would you sacrifice your kid to protect a bridge in Germany?"

Yes.

"Would you sacrifice your kid to hold an alley in Berlin?"

Yes.


What's your point?

 

[crimresearch]

I'll bite. No one has that idea. Moore uses the language to make the point that so many who easily approve the war might think differently if it were their own children fighting.

I didn't realize anyone actually believed that the ability to sacrifice your children to the military is what Moore or anybody thought, or what Moore was trying to make anyone think. It was simply his old style of confrontational humor, that really didn't work that well in the humor department. I also thought he treated Rep. Kennedy unfairly with his use of video, but it made the point he was trying to make.

Have you seen the movie yet (sorry, too lazy to go back through other threads)?

I described a scene in detail from the movie which I saw, where Moore confronts Democratic Rep. Tanner, an outspoken critic of the war, a Navy veteran himself, and a man with adult children...Moore is trying to get Tanner to 'sign up' his children on a piece of paper to prove that he (Tanner) isn't a hypocritical checken hawk...and your response is that Moore's '100% true', '$10,000 dollars for a single error', 'non-fiction documentary' was just a comedy that I was too dumb to get or hadn't seen?

 

[rikzilla]

Absolutely (note, the beaches weren't exactly deserted, they were heavily defended)



[/b]

Yes.


[/b]

Yes.


What's your point? [/B]

I'm guessing you don't have kids, right? If you carefully and slowly reread the part of my post you quoted you will get the point. Read, Rinse, Repeat....

-z

 

[Sane]

The sacrifice your kid question was BS. Of course I wouldn't want to put either of my sons in a dangerous situation. The thing is, adults are fighting the fight, not kids. When my son turns 18 and wants to enlist because he feels it's his duty, I would tearfully see him off. I would be proud and sad at the same time.

I remember hearing that a large number of men (and women) signed up for the military after 9/11. I just got back from New York last week and visiting ground zero made me want to enlist.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm guessing you don't have kids, right? If you carefully and slowly reread the part of my post you quoted you will get the point. Read, Rinse, Repeat....

-z

Your comparison is only valid if Iraq were in any way comparable to WWII. No matter how much supporters pretend it is, it isn't.

I actually got into an argument with my dad this weekend on this topic, and he backed himself into a huge corner. He first told me that he had talked to someone who had just got back from Iraq who said, don't believe the media. I asked, in what way? Does that mean that the Iraqi people have welcomed American soldiers? Yep, he says.

Then he says, if we had acted in WWII the way the anti-war people want to act now, we would all be speaking german.

Now aside from the fact that we did hold out from WWII as long as we could, there is a huge difference. The German people supported Hitler. They fought with everything they had. That's why Germany was a threat, because Hitler had the force of the country behind him. But dad had just got done telling me that Iraq were glad to be rid of Saddam. Hell, even in GWI, most of the military pretty much chickened out. The Vermacht they weren't.

It is possible to differentiate between those who are real world threats and those who aren't. I support action against those who are, but am unhappy sacrificing people I don't know, much less a loved one, for a charade.

 

[c0rbin]

Your comparison is only valid if Iraq were in any way comparable to WWII. No matter how much supporters pretend it is, it isn't.

Stop right there, dude.

The issue is serving your country in a military capacity--you know, ours is not to question why, it is but to do or/and die.

Unless you are being obstinate, you can surely see that is the point being made here.

 

[pgwenthold]

Stop right there, dude.

The issue is serving your country in a military capacity--you know, ours is not to question why, it is but to do or/and die.

Unless you are being obstinate, you can surely see that is the point being made here.

No, the issue is whether "Would you sacrifice your kid for Falujiah?" is a leading question, akin to "Would you sacrifice your kid for an alley in Berlin?"

rik implied that such a question would obviously be answered in the negative, because no one would want to sacrifice their kid for an apparently trivial part of the conflict (alley in berlin, deserted beach, random bridge). On the other hand, because of the difference in their significance, I can see that saving a bridge in WWII is much more important to world and american safety than securing Falujiah, and therefore I am willing to pay more for it.`

Falujiah, and Iraq in general, just ain't worth the cost.

 

[rikzilla]

Your comparison is only valid if Iraq were in any way comparable to WWII. No matter how much supporters pretend it is, it isn't.

I actually got into an argument with my dad this weekend on this topic, and he backed himself into a huge corner. He first told me that he had talked to someone who had just got back from Iraq who said, don't believe the media. I asked, in what way? Does that mean that the Iraqi people have welcomed American soldiers? Yep, he says.

Then he says, if we had acted in WWII the way the anti-war people want to act now, we would all be speaking german.

Now aside from the fact that we did hold out from WWII as long as we could, there is a huge difference. The German people supported Hitler. They fought with everything they had. That's why Germany was a threat, because Hitler had the force of the country behind him. But dad had just got done telling me that Iraq were glad to be rid of Saddam. Hell, even in GWI, most of the military pretty much chickened out. The Vermacht they weren't.

It is possible to differentiate between those who are real world threats and those who aren't. I support action against those who are, but am unhappy sacrificing people I don't know, much less a loved one, for a charade.

There is no difference in service. War is war. Military objectives when stated specifically have no real bearing on our national security. So to "secure Fallujah" or "hold hill #10" in some unnamed action are meaningless to average civilians. Yet serving the nation in uniform often comes down to securing Fallujah, or holding a specific hill. It's where the rubber meets the road.

Soldiers aren't politicians. They aren't sacrifices. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic....they promise to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. That's the real question MM was asking. Would you support your son or daughter taking that oath. I would. Even if one of those lawful orders is dangerous. It's why we respect our troops, and support them.

-z

 

[c0rbin]

I think that is a case of hind-sight being 20/20.

Is the alley in Berlin worth it for an American soldier with the knowledge that "coalition forces" (read: the Russians) were going to--without doubt--over run the final German stronghold?

These are not the descisions that arm-chair generals and grunts make.

These people signed up for a job that they knew might take them to some alley in some corner of the world where peopleare trying to kill them.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: O'Reilly & Moore

I'll answer the question the only good way I can think of: If I was President and my child volunteered for the military. I would respect his sense of duty to his country. Knowing that he or she would be highly trained and overwhelmingly well equipped, I wouldn't consider that they were being sacrificed in any way.
Now, if you vote for the war and then against funding the training and equipment, then maybe you are sending sacrifices.

Moore's questions is really of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety.

Another possible answer: "Nobody, Mr. Moore, wants to see his son killed in combat, and nobody would happily offer his son up as a sacrifice. Are you saying that it therefore follows that no cause is worth fighting for, that no war is just, that white men shouldn't have died in the Civil War to free black men, that Americans shouldn't have died in WW II to stop Hitler's mass exterminations?"

I wonder if anyone gave that kind of answer to Moore when he was shooting his movie, and if so, why those answers ended up on the cutting room floor.