I saw him on Real Time the other day. He turned to whoever that Congressman was and said, “Would you send your kid to die in Iraq?”
That’s a stupid fucking question. No sane person would send their kid to die anywhere. But if their kid is an adult and wants to join the U.S. military, they have to be aware of the risks involved. If we go to war, they have to fight. This whole emotional argument about sending your kid off to die is a red herring.
Since I’m self-employed because I believe job security starts with one’s self, I guess you’ll have to forcibly remove me from my job (and my wife too since we work together), let alone remove 65 of my employees of all political affiliations, race, creed and orientation. Maybe I can determine who the non-Republicans are in my workforce, and have them (if they are even qualified - which none of them are) do rotating shifts running my business while I’m off hunting scwuwy wabbits, and showing my newly enlisted sons (ages 16, 8, and 2, who none of them declared any political affliation) “the ropes” out in some distant land. I guess my wife can fill Lindy England’s shoes and run some guys around on a leash in some jail out there…
Stop me when this is beginning to sound too stupid…:wally
But please put down the blunt, dude…you’re giving the Democrats a black eye…or a red eye or whatever color eye.
Would you send your kid to die in a burning building? (If your kid is a fireman.)
Would you send your kid to die in a shootout with bank robbers? (if your kid is a policeman.)
Moore’s question is asked on the premise that the kid will certainly die when he is sent to Iraq, which has never been the case. Possibly die (odds about 1/125)…yes; Certainly die (125/125)…no. “Bullshit, Moron.”, should have been the congressman’s answer, but alas, there are idiots on both sides of the fence.
If you’re 18 and you enlisted for any job, you are legally allowed to make the decision to take on any job that is dangerous, regardless who the boss is, a relative or non-relative.
Statistically speaking, even without accounting for the fact that many congresspeople are 60 or over (and thus their children are in their 30s and 40s), Congress is very much overrepresented. Do the math.
Of course why I bother to refute an OP this lame is another question.
Yes, if we go to war, they have to fight. I’m not arguing that, of course. The point Moore is trying in his own special way to make is that people would be less likely to approve of an immoral war if they knew that their loved ones were going to be in harm’s way.
And that’s the issue I see. Yes, there are risks to being in the military. You seem to be saying that one of those risks is being ordered to fight an immoral war.
Hey, that’s a great idea. I can continue being in the Guard and when I’m not off fighting wars I’m collecting welfare, Social Security, whatever the Democrat entitlement of the week is, and while I’m sitting at home living the good life the richest Democrats can gouge themselves out of half of their money to subsidize my living.
Woohoo! Conservatives of the world unite! We never have to work again! Jinx and his ilk can just roll up their sleeves for us and work twice as hard while we sit on a beach drinking our rum-and-Cokes, knowing full well that since all of our income is welfare we don’t have to pay any income taxes!
Good plan, dude. I want you to get right on it for me.
No he’s not, all he’s showing is that most members of congress don’t have kids in Iraq. He didn’t ask how many had loved ones in the war. He didn’t ask how many had kids. He didn’t ask how many have children of age to serve in the military. Trying to guess what people would do is rediculous. They might have also sucked it up and realize they represent their consituants and vote the way they thought their people wanted, not their personal wishes.
Y’know, I’d prefer the people in power to NOT be emotionally close to an issue they’re deciding on. Would you want to be operated on by a doctor in the middle of spasming sobs because he just broke up with his girlfriend?
Would you want the tax laws to be made by people who don’t pay any taxes?
Would you want decisions on abortion-rights to be made by males only, so they’re not “emotionally close”?
Would you want the Democratic candidate chosen by the Republican party, and the Republican candidate chosen by the Democratic party, so that they’re not “emotionally involved”?
Of course, we have some of that now. The decisions on public transportation are made by people who never use public transportation. Decisions on welfare are made by people who have never been in need. And, as I think on it, I guess that in the past most abortion/pregnancy decisions HAVE been made by males only.