The current vote to override the president's veto of the SCHIP program is good evidence of the partisanship going on in Congress today. Not to mention the logical fallacies and poor judgement. Democratic Representative Pete Starks stated the following during a passionate floor speech; "Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said.
I can understand that he is passionate about health care for children and that he is vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq, but a tirade like this is uncalled for. He could have made his point more eloquently. He may have a point that the money is simply not in the budget for both programs but then he goes on to make the assertion that the United States is blowing up innocent people. He makes this statement as if innocent people are the sole target in Iraq. He then alludes that the war is killing off all of our young people, and if we could somehow find a way to allow our children to grow older, they will be sent off to war to "get their heads blown off" and all this for the "president's amusement". I think we are all smart enough to know that the war in Iraq is not killing off all of our young people. And not everyone who deploys to Iraq will have their "heads blown off". Lastly, I would wager that the president does not find it one bit amusing.
Just in case you would like to see the difference in how this story was covered I have attached articles from a liberal and a conservative source.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303119,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That is awesome. I mean serioulsy, if congress had more stuff like this going on during hearings instead of a bunch of political dancing and PC stuff I think people would follow politics a lot more closely. Do we need some crazy pro wrestling type stuff in congress? Nahh, but if people would express their emotions a little more I think they (as we as a people) would be a LOT better of in the end.
There are a lot of logical fallacies in what Stark said, but some of your responses are also fallacies.
>He makes this statement as if innocent people are the sole target in Iraq.
No he doesn't. He says it's happening, he doesn't say anything like "sole."
>He then alludes that the war is killing off all of our young people,
Again, not what he said. He never said or implied "all."
>And not everyone who deploys to Iraq will have their "heads blown off".
This isn't particularly relevant. His comment could still be appropriate even if things were less than 100%. I'm not saying that it is, but it doesn't have to be 100% for his comment to be valid.
Seth, they talk like this in Congress almost every day.
I believe this guy is getting a solid point across, but by degrading the other side's position. Although, I believe he is right in that he says SCHIP is more important. SCHIP isn't going to cost 528.7 billion dollars anytime soon yet the war is already costing us that much per year. Before even getting to understand the guys reasoning he is attacked by biased views. He may go about it the wrong way but he is definately right.
Well, I guess I'm just as ignorant as I've always believe myself to be then.
Seth, I wouldn't say ignorant as much as I would say that you just don't watch C-Span. You aren't alone in that, most people don't...
>528.7 billion dollars anytime soon yet the war is already costing us that much per year.
Not quite. The overall total for the war is a little under $400 billion so far.
Im glad that someone in congress is openly passionate about a subject that benefits middle class.
Post a Comment