Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[Fandango 1,439]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

Maybe the Dems shoulda thought about that before they wanted to exploit the ol 'here's a 12 year old boy' angle.....oh the conservatives attacked....BUT THE DEMS 'INVITED' THE KID TO MAKE THEIR POINT.

love the spin.

[Fandango 1,439]

Don't you think it was a mistake to 'wheel' out this kid in the first place? I do, I don't think it's a good idea to use kids to send political messages end of story.

Yes! I do!

Wow, I think that's twice that we've agreed this week.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

Everybody responds differently...just like with advertising. It doesn't bother me if there is substance to the message. I would agree that if it's solely relying on emotional appeal, then I'm turned off by it...so actually it has the opposite affect. Both parties are sophisticated on knowing that, so it's always a careful balance of substance and emotional appeal. Unless you're advocating making it illegal, both parties will continue to do it. If you react to it negatively then so be it...they're privy to that consequence as well.

[Peikko 1,575]

Make it illegal? Not intersted in going there. However, the more people who recognise that it's manipulative and to my mind actually takes away from proper political discourse, the better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Make it illegal? Not intersted in going there. However, the more people who recognise that it's manipulative and to my mind actually takes away from proper political discourse, the better.

You must not like most country music. Emotional appeal honestly doesn't bother me and like I've said, advertisers have found it to be an effective way to sell a product. Politicians have adopted a lot of the marketing tactics used in advertising...for better or worse. I think they were trying to put a face on the issue (health insurance for children who need it). Like I said, some people (like you) will respond negatively, and some people will take the message in for what it is. If there's no substance to the claim, then they've just turned off a whole lot of Americans to their argument. I read the boy's radio address and thought it made a strong argument.

[GaryC 7]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a dem or rep does it.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's my point really, politics is going down a treacherous road and I don't want to see policies marketed by the self same companies that try to sell me dodgy pharmeceutical products.

Appealing to emotional responses is a big cop out. If politicians want to be taken seriously then they really need to adress the issues on the merits of those issues and not produce some emotive sound bite in the hopes that joe public will lap it up. It's cynical and as I said, it undermines the legitimate political process. If you happen to think it's ok to continue down this road, to put 'faces on issues' whatever that's meant to mean really, then fine, but personally I just think it's insulting on every level.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

That's my point really, politics is going down a treacherous road and I don't want to see policies marketed by the self same companies that try to sell me dodgy pharmeceutical products.

oh great, now i can expect to see this in my spam folder too

[Peikko 1,575]

Ya never know

[Zarathustra 0]

That's my point really, politics is going down a treacherous road and I don't want to see policies marketed by the self same companies that try to sell me dodgy pharmeceutical products.

..

Edited October 9, 2007 by Zarathustra

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a dem or rep does it.

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

[Fandango 1,439]

Make it illegal? Not intersted in going there. However, the more people who recognise that it's manipulative and to my mind actually takes away from proper political discourse, the better.

You must not like most country music. Emotional appeal honestly doesn't bother me and like I've said, advertisers have found it to be an effective way to sell a product.

Steven...exactly....and that's what the Dems were sellin and ya bought it hook, line, n sinker!

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

If the boy puts himself on the front line, then more fool him and everyone who put him there.

The bottom line is, I don't support giving free health care to kids in half million dollar homes. And neither should you, for that matter.

Regardless of what they bought it for.....take out some equity and protect your kids, for fock's sake.

Edited October 10, 2007 by LisaD

[GaryC 7]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a dem or rep does it.

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

Examples? That has always been the dems favorite tactic, although the reps are not without a few bad apples.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just because it's done, doesn't mean I think it's acceptable. Just because the Republicans have done it in the past really doesn't mean the Democrats should do it now.

As stated, use your wit and intelligence to argue the merits of a policy/idea. Any attempt to appeal to my emotional response would be a total turn off, a waste of time and I would definitely be wondering if there was some spin going on, regardless of which political party was pulling the strings.

I think it's worse to use kids in this way too. I can't imagine what the parents of this kid were thinking, but it certainly wasn't the most responsible decision they ever made. The kid was being used and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

It seems that we have found a topic to agree on! I see what the dems did on this was exploit the kid. If the dems wanted to put out their response to the veto that is their right, but they should have used facts rather than emotion. Then to compound that with the shameless exploitation of a 12 year old just makes it worse. And to clarify, I don't like using emotion and exploitation to further political ends. IMO it's just wrong whether a dem or rep does it.

Gary, it's laughable that any Republican would even try to make that argument because the Republican Party has been notorious for using emotional appeal over political issues. PH wanted to argue on the merits of whether any emotional appeal should ever be used in politics, so I responded. However, the OP was over the smearing of the boy and his family - painting them as living high on the hog and that they didn't really need to use the CHIP program. Like I said before, it was tactless.

Examples? That has always been the dems favorite tactic, although the reps are not without a few bad apples.

Well for one - all that post-9/11 "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.