Oh, lordy, this should be good: Moore visits O'Reilly tonight

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by beagledave

Why would I..I never accused you of mis-representing your position. You represent your position honestly, I don't think Reeder does...(and he was the one praising Afleck's remarks..irony)

Be honest now..you really can't read can you. Praised Affleck? Notice it has two F's..

Show me where I praised him.

[beagledave]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Be honest now..you really can't read can you. Praised Affleck? Notice it has two F's..

Show me where I praised him.

Ben Affleck did very well. He foisted off every thing O'Reilly threw at at him.

Wow...an honest person would say..a'yup that was praise.
You're telling me..let me sit down for this..that "Ben Affleck did very well" is NOT praise?


Wow. It's like bizarro world.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by beagledave

Wow...an honest person would say..a'yup that was praise.
You're telling me..let me sit down for this..that "Ben Affleck did very well" is NOT praise?


Wow. It's like bizarro world.

And you are living in it.

[HPL]

I'm not exactly a Moore fan, but I have to say he took O'Reilly to the Cleaners for the most part. O'Reilly had some good points, but Moore did a lot better, and O'Reilly really shouldn't have tried that "Saddam's Biggest defender" shit.

[beagledave]

Originally Posted by Reeder

And you are living in it.

I'll try this again..

If I say to my daughter "You did very well cleaning up your room" ..am I praising her? Yes

If I say to my wife "You did very well getting that work project done"..am I praising her? Yes

If my wife says to me "You did very well handling that emergency"..is she praising me? Yes

How else would you characterize those statements, but praise?
How are they different from what you said?


I truly am astonished at how obtuse you are.

Amazing.

[Reeder]

Lets go through this.

Ben Affleck did very well. He foisted off every thing O'Reilly threw at at him.

Perhaps I meant he did well at foisting off O'Reilly? Or don't you ever put two parts of a statement together?

Is that to much for you to handle?

Of course it is.

Oh ye of little used mind.

[SPOOFE]

It seems you're avoiding the question.

No, I'm calling it a stupid question.

Why is it stupid? Well, I'm glad you didn't ask!

In order for the comparison to be valid - O'Reilly's or Bush's kids vs. Iraqi dudes - you need to completely ignore the fact that they are in completely different living conditions. To wit:

O'Reilly's/Bush's kids: Not living under a dictator.

Iraqi dudes: Living under a dictator.

Since O'Reilly's or Bush's kids are not living under a dictator, there's nowhere NEAR the amount of gain for the same level of risk, ie - sacrificing the kid's life. In other words, a person that's being oppressed by a fascist has a whole lot more to gain by risking his life.

Or I can simply ask you this: Would you allow your children to be raped and murdered by a sick, psychotic monster and his posse?

[beagledave]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Perhaps I meant he did well at foisting off O'Reilly?

Why is that not praise? You're saying he did a good job at something..isn't that praising his efforts..praising his remarks?

Isn't that what I said you did? WHY YES IT IS!!

...he was the one praising Afleck's remarks

I noticed you didn't answer the other questions I asked. I'll try again

If I say to my daughter "You did very well cleaning up your room" ..am I praising her? Yes

If I say to my wife "You did very well getting that work project done"..am I praising her? Yes

If my wife says to me "You did very well handling that emergency"..is she praising me? Yes

How else would you characterize those statements, but praise?
How are they different from what you said?


Here is your chance to at least be honest about what you yourself said.

[Ninja Pizza Guy]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

What? They put out all the reasons they had before going to war. What would you consider "at the start"? At the start of the war? At the start of the Presidency? At the start of Dubya's life? When?

No, they didn't put all the "reasons" out before going to war.

[Reeder]

Had I said..Ben Affleck did very well..without adding the descriptive. foisting off O'Reilly..You'd be right.

But I didn't.

So you aren't.

[El_Kabong]

Perhaps I meant he did well at foisting off O'Reilly? Or don't you ever put two parts of a statement together?

I have to say I don't think you're making much headway at, dare I say it, foisting your bizarre interpretation of what consitutes praise, or not, on us. But please, continue to argue your by now moth-eaten point awhile longer. It's sure as hell more entertaining than that traveshamockery on FOX earlier tonight.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Out of sheer frustartion with this exchange I'm just going to say that, yes Reeder offered up some compliments- some "praise"- for Ben Affleck, on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with everything Affleck said.

A lot of conservative have said positive things about Bill Clinton's speech last night. They concede that he commanded the room, he was charasmatic, he gave an effective speech to the DNC base. That doesn't mean that they agreed with a word he said, though.

So it may be with Reeder. He thinks Affleck held his own with O'Reilly. That doesn't mean he necessarily concurred with every word.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

I have to say I don't think you're making much headway at, dare I say it, foisting your bizarre interpretation of what consitutes praise, or not, on us. But please, continue to argue your by now moth-eaten point awhile longer. It's sure as hell more entertaining than that traveshamockery on FOX earlier tonight.

I really do praise what Affleck said. He helld his beliefs up well.

Good for him.

Now as for dog boy..I just like playing with idiots.

[beagledave]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Had I said..Ben Affleck did very well..without adding the descriptive. foisting off O'Reilly..You'd be right.

But I didn't.

So you aren't.

Humor me. (Since you STILL didn't answer my comparison question which included the exact same phrasing that you used ..person X "did very well" to do action Y )

Why is saying "Ben Affleck did very well foisting off O'Reilly", NOT praising what he did to "foist off O'Reilly"

Are you criticizing Affleck?
Have you no opinion about his efforts?
Why no..you think he did something well. That's praise....right?

[vanilla]

and to think this thread USED to be about the debate between Moore and O'Reilly.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by vanilla

and to think this thread USED to be about the debate between Moore and O'Reilly.

What debate? It was like two kids arguing on a playground.

[Creative_Munster]

Originally Posted by Reeder

What debate? It was like two kids arguing on a playground.

Maybe, but the kid who won that argument was O'Reilly. Moore didn't seem prepared at all, backtracked and hung on to the "tell me you would send your child to Iraq" line for far too long.

[beagledave]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

So it may be with Reeder. He thinks Affleck held his own with O'Reilly. That doesn't mean he necessarily concurred with every word.

Wow..that might be meaningful if I had actually fucking suggested that,

Of course I didn't.

Someone can say, "I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but he did very well in his speech last night".

Did that person praise Clinton's remarks... yep.
Does that automatically mean she agrees with every thing Clinton stands for, nope.

remember Reeder's first response?

It's a surreal thread where Reeder claims to never demonize Bush in any thread on the SDMB...AND says that "saying someone did very well at something" is NOT offering praise. But hey..if you wanna ride that horse..have fun.

[Jodi]

For cryin' in the night! Never mind the 10 minutes it took to watch O'Reilly/Moore, between DIOGENESE and SPOOFE, and REEDER and BEAGLEDAVE, I'd settle for getting back the ten minutes I just wasted reading this fucking thread.

[vanilla]

And that will be Moore's next movie!
Ben Affleck, worthy of praise?

[SPOOFE]

No, they didn't put all the "reasons" out before going to war.

Okay, I'll bite... what reasons were given out after the war that weren't brought up prior to the war?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well they didn't say that "Saddam is evil" was a sufficient justification until after the WMD thing blew up in their faces.

[Zoe]

{quote]Spoofe: An HONEST question would be "Would you support your child's decision to put his life on the line for something he believed in?"[/quote]

But an even more important question would be "Would you support a President who mistakenly led your child into believing something that that led her or him to sacrifice that precious life for a reason that did not actually exist?

[SPOOFE]

Well they didn't say that "Saddam is evil" was a sufficient justification until after the WMD thing blew up in their faces.

Bullshit. Saddam's past crimes and unreconciled wrongs were thrown about plenty. The WMD thing got the most press because that was the only one that hadn't been conclusively proven.

Don't try to rewrite history.

But an even more important question would be "Would you support a President who mistakenly led your child into believing something that that led her or him to sacrifice that precious life for a reason that did not actually exist?"

You're trying to tell me that Saddam DIDN'T try to shoot down our planes a couple thousand times since the UN imposed sanctions on 'im?

Or are you just talking about the WMD thing again? The, oh, 1/6th of the reason, or so?

[Coldfire]

After reading the transcript, I have to say the thing was pretty much a tie, or perhaps a slight victory for Moore. But not by any significant margin. Moore didn't do a whole lot wrong per se, but he sure could have gotten more (hah) out of it.

O'Reilly scores a point for correctly assessing that the Cold War's arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union, which Moore for some reason seemed unwilling to accept. But then, O'Reilly blows all his credit away with the "You're Saddam's biggest defender in the US" shite. Actually, that's really a disqualification right there, so I should probably amend my assessment.

So, here it is: Moore won, but only because O'Reilly eliminated himself by playing the "You Love Saddam"-card. New Godwinism.

Also, Reeder isn't exactly winning in this thread. My word, what an embarassment to progressive thinking people the world over you are.

[Liberal]

Oh, well. Instead of Klingons beating war drums, the promo should have had fairies tinkling musical triangles. What a letdown. Anyway, here's the transcript...

Moore: I don't know telling a lie from being misinformed.

O'Reilly: At least I don't demonize people, you Saddamite!

[Liberal]

Meant to mention, though, I was pretty impressed with Ben Affleck. A bit misguided about a point or two, but an agreeable fellow overall.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

I guess if someone fires a few thousand shots at you, you're not allowed to defend yourself?

Feel free to explain how throwing up blind shots at our planes in the no fly zone thousands of miles away is a threat to the continental United States.

As far as the show went, I was sort of impressed with Afleck. I was hoping that when BO was rambling about Zarqawi living in Bagdad, Ben would have said "well you know Bill, he was actually living in northern Iraq for years up until the invasion. The Pentagon went to the Bush 3 seperate times to ask if they could take him out, but Bush said no. I think the reasoning is because if they kill him, there isn't a big AQ guy who's technically in Iraq, even though he had nothing to do with SH. What do you think about that BO?"

Also, don't give me this Bush didn't know shit, I never get this lame reasoning. So at best he's an incompetant executive who starts wars without doing some fact checking, and at worst he's....,well, we all know.

[KidCharlemagne]

Bottom line is Moore never addressed what was a fair and unloaded first question about multiple intelligence agencies offering evidence and the possiblity of their being a mistake versus an outright intent to lie. Neither of them know how to debate but Moore is more willing to use loaded questions and logical dodges. O'Reilly should never have brought up the "unseating a brutal dictator" argument because it gave Moore a Straw Man to attack, even though his counter-argument was fallacious. Moore never really answers a question. O'Reilly answers a question by not answering it (sacrificing a kid to die). The problem is, O'Reilly interpreted the "Would you sacrifice your kid" question as "Would you be willing to have your son killed to have peace in Falluja" rather than "Would you be willing to have your son fight for peace in Falluja." If I were judging, I'd give a slight win to O'Reilly because Moore never answered the first question, which was the most fair and unloaded of the bunch. A skilled debator would absolutely destroy Moore. Not because his beliefs are wrong, but because his arguments are poor. Regardless of ideology, I think O'Reilly is much more willing to fight fair, whereas Moore just wants appear to win to the untrained ear by dodging questions and countering.

[KidCharlemagne]

That's right, I've got to take away major points from O'Reilly for the "supporter of Hussein remark." I think it would be a lot of fun and very enlightening to have TV shows with skilled debaters argue, with form, the topics of the day.

[Ninja Pizza Guy]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Okay, I'll bite... what reasons were given out after the war that weren't brought up prior to the war?

I'll have to back down on this one. After doing my best to remember, most of the reasons were given beforehand. The administration just started elaborating and rotating through them as each one was found to be false.

[SPOOFE]

Feel free to explain how throwing up blind shots at our planes in the no fly zone thousands of miles away is a threat to the continental United States.

Shows Saddam was willing to violate the UN rules imposed on him. In my book, a kid that's been grounded and sneaks out at night gets double punishment.

Here it is, Planet Muncher... Step 1: Saddam invades Kuwait. Step 2: Gets his ass thwomped. Step 3: Agrees to abide by certain rules to keep us from fully obliterating him for committing Step 1. Step 4: Almost immediately begins violating those rules. Step 5: WE go back to Step 2.

But I guess it's okay that Saddam tried to invade Kuwait and wouldn't abide by his punishment for doing so, huh?

[ElvisL1ves]

What part of "threat to the continental United States" do you not understand?

[fessie]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Here it is, Planet Muncher... Step 1: Saddam invades Kuwait. Step 2: Gets his ass thwomped. Step 3: Agrees to abide by certain rules to keep us from fully obliterating him for committing Step 1. Step 4: Almost immediately begins violating those rules. Step 5: WE go back to Step 2.

But I guess it's okay that Saddam tried to invade Kuwait and wouldn't abide by his punishment for doing so, huh?

Hoo-boy, if only it were that simple. Prior to Step 1 Hussein stuck his toe in Kuwait (wasn't "tried to", he did it) and Bush Sr. specifically said, meh, we don't care, do what you like. Probably because we'd helped arm him some years before.

And re: step 4, my memory of the news at the time is that UN inspectors found that he'd started behaving better. At the very least the UN didn't find WMD (and if we knew where they were, why didn't we send Hans Blix after them?) But we invaded anyway. Under the auspices of the shifting boogeyman - - 9/11!! WMD!! Terrorism!! Scummy Dictator!! He's bad he's bad!!

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by fessie

....(and if we knew where they were, why didn't we send Hans Blix after them?)

Well, we did, sort of. Clever Hans was finding anything, and the Bushiviks were sneering at his "incompetence", along the lines of "Look at that! Iraq is simply awash with vast stockpiles of VX nuclear anthrax, and this dipshit can't even find one warehouse full! So, their either hopelessly inept or corrupt."

Blix came back with a "put up or shut up". You've got intelligence, you tell us where they are, and we'll go there. The Bushiviks tried a little side-step dance, about how they were reluctant to share intelligence of such vital importance with such a bunch of French-infested screwups, but eventually they caved and gave Hans the vital proof (probably from Chalabi by way of "Curveball").

And they weren't there. Further proof of the incompetence and mendacity of those fuzzy-thinking "one-worlders" at the UN. Shit, we told them exactly where they were, and they still couldn't find them!

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

What part of "threat to the continental United States" do you not understand?

I understand that it excludes one state, several territories, and a shitload of embassies.

[ElvisL1ves]

I wasn't asking you. You don't have to stick your beak into everything, you know.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Shows Saddam was willing to violate the UN rules imposed on him. In my book, a kid that's been grounded and sneaks out at night gets double punishment.

Shows he was willing to violate UN rules? That's what you're coming with?

Here it is, Planet Muncher... Step 1: Saddam invades Kuwait. Step 2: Gets his ass thwomped. Step 3: Agrees to abide by certain rules to keep us from fully obliterating him for committing Step 1. Step 4: Almost immediately begins violating those rules. Step 5: WE go back to Step 2.

So fucking what? So we invade his ass and set him straight, oh yeah, good move Bushy boy.

Do you even realize stragically how stupid invading was? From a security of our country standpoint (the only point I really give a shit about), we were a lot safer when he was wildly shooting (how many planes were shot down again?) away, and his ass was still in power.

Now we've pissed off the muslim world even further (if that's possible)
Now we've created a power vacuum in which terrorists can really thrive
Now we've got most of the civilized world pissed at is, (and rightly so, we were wrong about WMD)

We've over extended our military, racked up our national debt, and diverted countless resources from addressing the ACTUAL PROBLEM. Then when a country (Spain) rearranges their resources to go after the real problem, we call them a bunch of punk ass bitches?!?!?!.

Shit man, the BUSH administration has had more contacts with SH then AQ, wake the fuck up. The witchhunt should lead to the front door of the whitehouse.

But I guess it's okay that Saddam tried to invade Kuwait and wouldn't abide by his punishment for doing so, huh?

Yeah, well in teaching him a lesson, we've totally fucked ourselves.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Here it is, Planet Muncher... Step 1: Saddam invades Kuwait. Step 2: Gets his ass thwomped. Step 3: Agrees to abide by certain rules to keep us from fully obliterating him for committing Step 1. Step 4: Almost immediately begins violating those rules. Step 5: WE go back to Step 2.

Yeah, we go back to step 2 by ignoring the same UN that we're kicking Sadddam's ass for ignoring.

How very noble.

[ElvisL1ves]

Moore on points, even without disqualifying O'Reilly for the "Saddam supporter" crack (What the hell was he thinking? that his core viewership thinks so too?).

Moore nailed O'Reilly's pouty defense of Bush as not lying, just misinformed, as "that works for a seven-year old", but should have gotten into why Bush was so misinformed and incurious, not just stopped at "he said something untrue". He also needed to list all the other bullshit reasons Bush offered, and their utter lack of follow-through.

The question about sending one's children to die to secure Fallujah was right on target. That's exactly what Bush has done.

But give Moore the most credit, and more than one can give Affleck btw, for not respecting O'Reilly's standard tactic of framing the question to make the range of possible answers favorable to him. His replies, on the line of "The real question is ..." need to be used far more often.

But then O'Reilly only opened up 15 minutes for this - knowing he couldn't hold up his end any longer than that?

[Liberal]

Not only that, but once the interview was over, O'Reilly started making a speech. Who needs to edit an interview if you can command the camera after it's over and say anything you want? If there's any one single worst thing I can't stand about him, it's his deliberately disingenuous pretense at giving others "the last word".

[lieu]

I thought both of them could have made better points had they spent some time here on the SDMB. Seriously, after being exposed to some of the thoughtful and informed discussions I've read here, those two lightweights came off looking like rank amatuers. Not all of the discussions mind you (see above), but more than a few.

I gave the first half to O'Reilly and the second half to Moore. Still, both of them missed numerous opportunities to make valid, opponent crippling points.

I kept turning to my wife when one of those two would offer up a real boner and ask her "Why doesn't he mention this" or "That's bullshit because...". She'd say "Honey, you're so smart" and I'd just reply "No, I read the Dope."

[lissener]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Shows Saddam was willing to violate the UN rules imposed on him. In my book, a kid that's been grounded and sneaks out at night gets double punishment. . . .

I think you typoed, Spoofe; you meant to say Bush, not Saddam.

[lieu]

Sorry Lib, what I meant was (see way above). BTW, thanks for the heads up this was coming.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by lieu

I thought both of them could have made better points had they spent some time here on the SDMB. Seriously, after being exposed to some of the thoughtful and informed discussions I've read here, those two lightweights came off looking like rank amatuers. Not all of the discussions mind you (see above), but more than a few.

I totally agree. We'd turn those two losers into shark chum if they ever stepped foot into here.

[lissener]

The point Moore was trying to make with the misinforme/lying part of the "debate" was, I think, that Bush may have successfully maintained deniability--O'Reilly certainly bought the denial--but that the deniability was a sham. Bush sent his cronies to CIA to explain exactly the kind of intelligence they wanted, and they got what they ordered. Then they blamed the chef.

No doubt the CIA should've refused to bend the truth to suit Bush's agenda.

But Bush was gonna bomb the fuck out of Iraq by hook or by crook, and spinning all the intelligence out there to excuse a preemptive strike based ENTIRELY on weapons of mass destruction was 100% dishonest.

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Moore nailed O'Reilly's pouty defense of Bush as not lying, just misinformed, as "that works for a seven-year old", but should have gotten into why Bush was so misinformed and incurious, not just stopped at "he said something untrue".

This wasn't O'Reilly's defense; it was his point. He was asking Moore, given that many independent analysts from different countries ( including those opposed to the war) agreed that Saddam had WMDs, why is Bush necessarily a liar? Calling someone a liar is quite different than calling them a poor judge of information quality and/or a poor manager of information gatherers.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Lissener

Bush sent his cronies to CIA to explain exactly the kind of intelligence they wanted, and they got what they ordered.

Ludicrous assumption based on prejudice.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by lieu

Sorry Lib, what I meant was (see way above). BTW, thanks for the heads up this was coming.

You're welcome. I caught it by sheer luck. I reached to turn down the volume, and hit last channel instead.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

This wasn't O'Reilly's defense; it was his point. He was asking Moore, given that many independent analysts from different countries ( including those opposed to the war) agreed that Saddam had WMDs, why is Bush necessarily a liar? Calling someone a liar is quite different than calling them a poor judge of information quality and/or a poor manager of information gatherers.

Frankly, Congress, which is charged with overseeing the CIA and whatnot, has gotten away with gross irresponsibility. Keeping them honest is their job.