Michael Moore offers terrible reasons to vote for Obama

[Richard Masters]

It may well be the case that Moore offers fallacious reasons to vote for Obama -- it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The OP, however, fails to inform me one way or the other.

How is it -- on a skeptical forum no less -- that you're characterizing Moore's words without even bothering to quote him? (Except for the false quotes that is.) Instead you offer the opinion of a blogger who, guess what, also fails to quote Moore. This doesn't even rise to the level of flimsy.

The OP includes a link to Moore's actual words. You are welcome to read them and make up your own mind.

 

[Kestrel]

The OP includes a link to Moore's actual words. You are welcome to read them and make up your own mind.

Actually, the OP includes a link to a page that has a link to a page that has Moore's actual words.

 

[Just thinking]

Funding. They have the power to cut it off, but they don't have the balls.

Yes, they easily could have cut it off, but didn't. Why? In my opinion (and it's just an opinion) the Dems know we can't just up and walk away without a catastrophe. But that won't stop them from saying that's what their man (or woman) will exactly do. Oh, they'll spin it up, down and sideways to try and get every last loyal "stop-the-war-now" voter to believe them to get them in office ... but it won't just end. It can't. And if they do get in office this November, you can bet your bottom dollar that things in Iraq will somehow all of a sudden start looking much better (every news report will confirm it) --- and we will then be in it to win it.

 

[dudalb]

I think the Democrats would like to pull out of Iraq,but dont' want to be blamed if a catastrophe follows.

And I agree that anybody who thinks that Iran and Syria will keep any "non intervention in Iraq'" agreement is living in an fantasy land.
That is my concern, is that we will be replacing one set of misconceptions and fantasies about the Mid East with a different bunch of misconceptions and fantasies,and leading to another disaster.

 

[Richard Masters]

Actually, the OP includes a link to a page that has a link to a page that has Moore's actual words.

This is true as well, but irrelevant.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Basically, his plan to "end the war in Iraq," (note - not win it)

Maybe you can help me out here. What, exactly, is the mission in Iraq? What constitutes a "win"? Every time I think I see a goalpost for an Iraq Win, it turns out to be a mirage.

Petraeus and Whatsizface couldn't come up with anything concrete when Obama questioned them about it.

 

[kallsop]

Michael Moore having dumb ideas? C'mon, fess up, who is surprised?

 

[Policenaut]

Maybe you can help me out here. What, exactly, is the mission in Iraq? What constitutes a "win"? Every time I think I see a goalpost for an Iraq Win, it turns out to be a mirage.

Petraeus and Whatsizface couldn't come up with anything concrete when Obama questioned them about it.

That is one of the most fundamental problems. No one has shown anything coming close to a win besides "national reconciliation" which is mostly in the control of Iraqi's and not us. But for all the unknowns about "winning" it's pretty easy to show us "lose". Anything at all resembling the Vietnam retreat will be a loss and the ultimate recruiting tool for all terrorists around the world. Even if that doesn't happen and we get everyone out there is still the very real possibility that Iran will roll in and try to take over. Then what? Iraq take 3? Every option so far seems to be a lose-lose situation. Something needs to happen to push us towards a real, achievable goal that will allow us to get out gracefully and not leave the country to the vultures.

 

[varwoche]

The OP includes a link to Moore's actual words. You are welcome to read them and make up your own mind.

Not quite, as has been explained to you. Notwithstanding, I followed the links and read what Moore wrote.

Now maybe you can specify which of Moore's words you consider fallacious.

 

[Damien Evans]

Michael Moore having dumb ideas? C'mon, fess up, who is surprised?

Certainly not me.

 

[Richard Masters]

Not quite, as has been explained to you. Notwithstanding, I followed the links and read what Moore wrote.

Now maybe you can specify which of Moore's words you consider fallacious.

Since you read the OP and followed the links, perhaps you can specify which part you didn't understand.

 

[Sefarst]

From Obama's 2007 plan:

"A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists."

I thought Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq. So why does he want to fight a war in Iraq? I thought that was Bush's excuse.

It sounds remarkably similar to McCain's plan actually and his "100 years" remark. McCain has said that we will likely stay in Iraq for a long time to come, keeping a force there as we do in Korea, Germany and so on.

Obama and McCain both plan to keep troops in Iraq. The only difference is that Obama wants to keep fewer troops and McCain wants more. You can weigh the significance of that how you want, but I might remind many of you that one of our biggest problems in securing both Afghanistan and Iraq in the last few years was having too few boots on the ground.

 

[varwoche]

Since you read the OP and followed the links, perhaps you can specify which part you didn't understand.

Here's what I don't understand:

I don't understand why (on a skeptics forum) you would criticize what someone said but not specify the offending words, but instead offer up false quotes.

I don't understand why you won't clarify when asked.

And I don't understand argument via link. As in "here's a link to a whole bunch of text; there's something here that sucks but I'm not going to tell you what part that is". It's lazy, non-communicative and evasive.

 

[Sefarst]

Here's what I don't understand:

I don't understand why (on a skeptics forum) you would criticize what someone said but not specify the offending words, but instead offer up false quotes.

I don't understand why you won't clarify when asked.

And I don't understand argument via link. As in "here's a link to a whole bunch of text; there's something here that sucks but I'm not going to tell you what part that is". It's lazy, non-communicative and evasive.

I'll quote a little from Moore's original article:

I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

First Moore says:

But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

Then later in the article he says:

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

He also goes on to say:

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?'

An issue that has all ready been explained several times. Obama doesn't use it because he all ready knows how easy it would be for Clinton to throw it back at him.

Basically, Moore's argument for Obama boils down to the belief that Clinton was unnecessarily mean.

 

[Richard Masters]

Here's what I don't understand:

I don't understand why (on a skeptics forum) you would criticize what someone said but not specify the offending words, but instead offer up false quotes.

I simplified Moore's words for brevity. I thought that since I offered a direct link, there was no deception involved.

I don't understand why you won't clarify when asked.

Same reason as above.

And I don't understand argument via link. As in "here's a link to a whole bunch of text; there's something here that sucks but I'm not going to tell you what part that is". It's lazy, non-communicative and evasive.

Thank you for clarifying, in the interest of credibility and invisibility I should have posted the following. Moore (1) implores PA voters to vote for Obama because he didn't get a chance. It's a nice appeal to emotion. (2) Moore asks PA to vote for Obama because he can't stand the current administration. It's a false dichotomy - the current administration is gone whether or not you vote for Obama, or whether Obama gets elected. Thus, voting for Obama makes no difference in this regard. (3) Hillary takes cheap shots at Obama, but Obama won't take cheap shots at Hillary. Vote for Obama. While this may a good argument for rejecting Hillary, it's a very weak argument for voting for Obama.

(1)

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

(2)

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

(3)

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

 

[moon1969]

Hillary would be a terrible president. John P. O'Neill was a great man. Frontline documentary named "The Man Who Knew" tells everybody why Hillary would be a bad president. Bill Clinton didn"t do anything to stop Osama Bin Laden. Mullah Omar was the Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan during 27 September 1996 – 13 November 2001. Mullah Omar gaved Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda a save haven in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton claimed that he had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban. So where are these "battle plans"? Bill Clinton is the same man who said this:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky".

Latter Billy boy changed and said:

"Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong."

Bill Clinton didn"t listen to John P. O'Neill. Bill Clinton didn"t do enough to stop 9/11. Bill Clinton didn"t catch Ramzi Yousef. John P. O'Neill and the FBI caught Ramzi Yousef. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. And McBush seems to be interested in attacking Iran. Obama is the only one who knows where the real terrorists are. Lets check the facts:

"Karzai escapes deadly Taliban attack"

http://edition.cnn.hu/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/27/afghan.president/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

"18 die as Taliban target opium initiative"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/29/afghan.attacks/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

"Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

 

[Richard Masters]

Why should ayone give a **** what Michael Moore thinks?

Sadly some people do -

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Michael_Moore_asks_PA_voters_to_vote_Obama

But more importantly, this is the quality of discussion that you get at debates. It's not just Michael Moore (who can surely do better than that); but the presidential candidates themselves, who have little to offer in the way of strong arguments based on facts, or even consistency.

For example, Obama snorted cocaine and smoked marijuana, but thinks people should be punished for their drug use (Recently softened on marijuana). He also loves civil rights, but opposes gay marriage.

Hillary criticizes Bush on Iraq, then she pursues a similar foreign policy. She consistently makes provocative statements about Iran and would even nuke Iran if Iran nuked Israel.

McCain says that we must stay in Iraq in order to validate the lives of lost soldiers. He wants to change the past by repeating it.

Last but not least, Paul fails to explain the logistics of excising our troops from Iraq, and the logic behind some of his interpretations of the Constitution.

 

[Kestrel]

Hillary would be a terrible president. John P. O'Neill was a great man. Frontline documentary named "The Man Who Knew" tells everybody why Hillary would be a bad president. Bill Clinton didn"t do anything to stop Osama Bin Laden. Mullah Omar was the Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan during 27 September 1996 – 13 November 2001. Mullah Omar gaved Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda a save haven in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton claimed that he had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban. So where are these "battle plans"?

You saw them in action.

The plans developed during the Clinton Administration for invading Afghanistan were followed by the Bush administration after 9/11.

 

[varwoche]

I simplified Moore's words for brevity.

Wrong. You posted false quotations.

since I offered a direct link...

Wrong again. You linked to a blog which linked somewhere else that contained the Moore piece.

Moore asks PA to vote for Obama because he can't stand the current administration. It's a false dichotomy - the current administration is gone whether or not you vote for Obama, or whether Obama gets elected.

Nonsense of a high order. You should know as well as I do that in many key policy areas (such as Iraq) that McCain favors a continuation of Bush policy.

 

[corplinx]

Nonsense of a high order. You should know as well as I do that in many key policy areas (such as Iraq) that McCain favors a continuation of Bush policy.

Which is nonsense of a high order since all candidates will continue the Bush policy in some way according to the statements they've made. The post you were correcting had errors, but this was not one of them.