Limbaugh, Larson, and Savage

[Ivan Seeking]

I tried listening to Limbaugh a number of times and thought he was loony – the Art Bell of Politics - but I had never heard the Lars Larson or Michael Savage shows: WOW! What a couple of nuts. But of the three Michael Savage takes the cake. To the best of my ability to be precise, here are a few quotes from today’s show:

Liberals are all fascists and perverts

Young people have their minds polluted by college

The raid on the [so called] Mormon complex [they're not really Mormons, but he meant the child abuse case] recently was done to prevent Romney from getting back into the race.

Perhaps the close race between Hillary and Obama is really a conspiracy to overshadow McCain. [at least he only presented this as a theory]

Fear Obama! I think he will, by executive order, legalize gay marriage

Obama will make appointments such as: Al Sharpton as Secretary of Labor, and Jessie Jackson as Supreme Court Judge

Fear Obama! Fear what he will do! [he said this many times, he said this many times, he said this many times]

Al Sharpton was protesting and arrested today because he is jealous of Obama

The white race is dying out and it’s all because of the liberal agenda. Gays, boys who only want sex and don’t want to make babies and become men, and Hollywood whores, are the reason. [As near as I could tell]

Hate crime laws only apply to whites

White people who support Obama are just liberals who feel guilty [about slavery, apparently]

When a caller suggested that if Obama gets elected, the country will be covered with Mosques, Savage agreed.

The Dems and the Reps want to ban talk radio.

It was also one of the most convoluted rants that I've ever heard. Neither Larson or Savage would last a day at PF. They would be banned as crackpots.

Is it any wonder that with people like this bending the ear of working class Americans - hour after hour, day after day, year after year - we get what we have in Washington? But the worst of it is that in spite of the nonsense this guy spreads like horse manure, I defend his right to free speech. At the same time, it makes me sick to see what his brand of bs, and that of his comrades in arms, Larson & Limbaugh, has done to the country. And I have to wonder if there comes a point where his words of hatred are indeed like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[lisab]

That kind of rhetoric puts a knot in my stomach.

There's a guy at my work who listens to this stuff. I get my share of it from time to time.

Since when is "college educated" a derisive term? God forbid that you open your mind to an alternate point of view!

And what is it about this new breed of conservatives and fear? They revel in it.

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere - they seem to see a boogie man around every turn.

And gays...and illegal aliens...and guys who don't wear flags on their lapels...on and on it goes. So much to fear, so little time.

[Evo]

Oy, they sound like a couple of nuts.

[edward]

A bit of Michael Savage (audio). The guy is a total nut case, and apparently some of his listeners are too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Tp93c6aw

[Benzoate]

I tried listening to Limbaugh a number of times and thought he was loony – the Art Bell of Politics - but I had never heard the Lars Larson or Michael Savage shows: WOW! What a couple of nuts. But of the three Michael Savage takes the cake. To the best of my ability to be precise, here are a few quotes from today’s show:



When a caller suggested that if Obama gets elected, the country will be covered with Mosques, Savage agreed.



It was also one of the most convoluted rants that I've ever heard. Neither Larson or Savage would last a day at PF. They would be banned as crackpots.

Is it any wonder that with people like this bending the ear of working class Americans - hour after hour, day after day, year after year - we get what we have in Washington? But the worst of it is that in spite of the nonsense this guy spreads like horse manure, I defend his right to free speech. At the same time, it makes me sick to see what his brand of bs, and that of his comrades in arms, Larson & Limbaugh, has done to the country. And I have to wonder if there comes a point where his words of hatred are indeed like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I have not listened to Larson and Limbaugh, But Michael Savage says some crazy and outrageous things. For instance, he said that people with autism should be seperated from the rest of society. The Guy is delusional sometimes. I have found his show unbearable to listened to for the past couple of days. He calls Obama's preacher un-american because he holds opinions that are not the opinions of a lot of Americans. But his show is definetely hysterical, mostly when he isn't talking about politics.

[Poop-Loops]

I've heard of a bunch of right-wing idiot crackpots like Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, etc. But I've never heard of actual left-wing nuts that are equivalent.

[Gokul43201]

But I've never heard of actual left-wing nuts that are equivalent.There are those too...but they are just nowhere near as popular or well-financed.

[chemisttree]

A bit of Michael Savage (audio). The guy is a total nut case, and apparently some of his listeners are too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Tp93c6aw

What a riot! He appears to hate Starbucks as well. Now THAT's unamerican...
Who listens to this guy? Sounds to me like the angry bitter types do.

[Benzoate]

What a riot! He appears to hate Starbucks as well. Now THAT's unamerican...
Who listens to this guy? Sounds to me like the angry bitter types do.


believe it or not, this guy has the third most listened to radio talk show in the country.

[chemisttree]

I loved the clip. He rants about people in Starbuck's ordering coffee or anything with 'mocha' or 'latte' like it's a crime.

Third most listened to? I'm grabbing my gun and my bible and hunkerin' down...

I thought either NPR's Morning Edition or All Things Considered were the third most listened to radio show. Talk show... Radio show... What's the difference?

Glenn Beck claims to be the third most listened to talk show. (I googled 'third most listened to talk show radio program') Laura Ingraham also claims that title according to Tammy Bruce.

I've got a feeling that Michael Savage is waaayy down the list.

[Gokul43201]

Approximate weekly audience (in millions):

Rush Limbaugh - 13.5+
Sean Hannity - 12.5 +
Michael Savage / Dr Laura Schlessinger - 8.0+
Glenn Beck / Laura Ingraham - 5.0+
Neal Boortz / Mark Levin / Dave Ramsey - 4.0+
Mike Gallagher / Michael Medved - 3.75+

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/10652/Personalities/Top+Talk+Radio+Shows.aspx

[seycyrus]

I've heard of a bunch of right-wing idiot crackpots like Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, etc. But I've never heard of actual left-wing nuts that are equivalent.

Why throw in O'reiley with the other two? Clinton. Obama and many many other liberals have appeared on his show. Some do so on a regular basis.

[Ivan Seeking]

In the clip, I was struck by his comment about the liberals from San Francisco coming to Oregon and ruining the place in the 1970s.

In Portland, in the early 70s, there were still public drinking fountains marked as "white only". Also, as I was finishing college at OSU, a retiring physics professor told me that during the 60s, some big shot with the KKK ran the physics department. I think he actually said that the guy was the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

I had a very good Chinese friend who was afraid to come to Oregon because it was generally believed among Chinese immigrants that Oregon is too dangerous for non-whites.

Yep, the liberals have absolutely ruined the place! Bring back the real men and their white sheets!!!

[Ivan Seeking]

I was personally targeted by some of these types when I moved here because I declared myself to be an environmentalist. My life was threatened and I was harrassed for a couple of years - midnight phones calls, threats, and I think someone got into our house once. I ended up having to involve the Dept of Justice because the police were involved as well. The information from a phone tap that I had ordered by the court mysteriously disappeared. One guy told me that I was going to be arrested for jaywalking and that I would commit suicide while I was in jail.

It is nice to have a relative working with the FBI.

Yep, the liberals have absolutely ruined the place.

[Poop-Loops]

Why throw in O'reiley with the other two? Clinton. Obama and many many other liberals have appeared on his show. Some do so on a regular basis.

Clinton (of the BIll variety) appeared on Limbaugh's show recently.

If you listen to O'Reilley you'll notice that he's just as batsh** insane as the others. His War on Chrismas? Please.

[drankin]

LOL, Savage rocks!

[seycyrus]

If you listen to O'Reilley you'll notice that he's just as batsh** insane as the others. His War on Chrismas? Please.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. O'reilley is nowhere near as controversial as those others you mentioned.

I also believe that there an ongoing effort to remove christianity from christmas. How can you not?

You might agree with the effort, but to deny that it exists, cmon.

I'm going to be away for the next few days, but perhaps on one of thse upcoming nights, we can agree to watch an episode of O'reiley and discuss just how crazy it was. On a segment by segment basis.

And then, just to "correct" the intolerable (*shudder*) fact that Fox gained an extra viewer for an hour one night, we can do the same thing with a show of your choice. I already watch CNN every night, so perhaps something on MNBC.

[Poop-Loops]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. O'reilley is nowhere near as controversial as those others you mentioned.

I also believe that there an ongoing effort to remove christianity from christmas. How can you not?

You might agree with the effort, but to deny that it exists, cmon.

I'm going to be away for the next few days, but perhaps on one of thse upcoming nights, we can agree to watch an episode of O'reiley and discuss just how crazy it was. On a segment by segment basis.

And then, just to "correct" the intolerable (*shudder*) fact that Fox gained an extra viewer for an hour one night, we can do the same thing with a show of your choice. I already watch CNN every night, so perhaps something on MNBC.

I don't care about where you percieve bias in other shows. I admit that there is bias in every show. I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann and he makes it clear that he doesn't like Republicans, will want Obama to win, but will settle for Clinton instead of McCain. Do I agree with him? No. But he doesn't make a total ass of himself by saying that Americans slaughtered Germans in Malmedy or to try and shup up his own guest for speaking his mind and going against what O'Reilly is saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly

[seycyrus]

And what is it about this new breed of conservatives and fear? They revel in it.

I missed your commentary earlier, and I have to say, i don't know where to start. You seem to be just as guilty of generating stereotypes as those you accuse.

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere - they seem to see a boogie man around every turn.

Are you referring to the 9-11 conspiracies, or the "vast right wing" conspiracy?

...and illegal aliens...and guys who don't wear flags on their lapels...on and on it goes. So much to fear, so little time.

Some people believe that enforcing the law is a good thing.

The flag on the lapel thing...is that related to clinton campaing's notification that Obama was not properly covering his heart while the anthem was being sung?

If you are referring to the lapel controversy a few years back, the actual problem was that people were being *forced* to remove their lapel pins.

[lisab]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. O'reilley is nowhere near as controversial as those others you mentioned.

I also believe that there an ongoing effort to remove christianity from christmas. How can you not?

You might agree with the effort, but to deny that it exists, cmon.

I'm going to be away for the next few days, but perhaps on one of thse upcoming nights, we can agree to watch an episode of O'reiley and discuss just how crazy it was. On a segment by segment basis.

And then, just to "correct" the intolerable (*shudder*) fact that Fox gained an extra viewer for an hour one night, we can do the same thing with a show of your choice. I already watch CNN every night, so perhaps something on MNBC.

Really? You think there's a war on Christmas? Seriously...? Wow...I'm kind of speechless.

As for O'Reilly, regarding a case where a boy was abducted and held for 4 years: that kidnapped boy *LOVED* being held captive!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009

Ummmm...no, the boy was repeatedly raped by his captor.

If you ever have some time to kill and want to get a look at the sick inner workings of O'Reilly, read through the legal papers that were filed when he was hit by a sexual harassment case:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

The guy's a nutcase.

[Cyrus]

Really? You think there's a war on Christmas? Seriously...? Wow...I'm kind of speechless.

As for O'Reilly, regarding a case where a boy was abducted and held for 4 years: that kidnapped boy *LOVED* being held captive!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009

Ummmm...no, the boy was repeatedly raped by his captor.

If you ever have some time to kill and want to get a look at the sick inner workings of O'Reilly, read through the legal papers that were filed when he was hit by a sexual harassment case:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html


The guy's a nutcase.

:rofl: Damn, what a perv!!!

[Ivan Seeking]

Limbaugh “Releases” Superdelegates to Obama

After months of promoting “Operation Chaos,” in which the conservative talk show host pushed listeners to vote for Clinton to aid McCain, he pulls back on Wednesday and tells them to go for Obama.

Adds: “He will lose. He will lose big and you supers know it….but go ahead. Go ahead and get in the tank for him.” [continued with clip]
http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/07/limbaugh-releases-the-superdelegates-to-obama/

First Limbaugh loved Bush, then he hated him. First he wanted Hillary, now he wants Obama. Perhaps he is taking drugs again.

[seycyrus]

I don't care about where you percieve bias in other shows. I admit that there is bias in every show.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when you type bat*&&^, you were just mispelling the word "bias".

I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann...


Yeah, I watch that too. He makes a total ass of himself in lots of other ways.

As for your cherry picked examples...that's all they are. Selected by people trying to push a point.

So... I guess i got you scheduled for next week for watching the shows? O'reiley on Monday, and Olberman on Tuesday?

[seycyrus]

Really? You think there's a war on Christmas? Seriously...? Wow...I'm kind of speechless.

I'm positive that I phrased my opinion in quite a different way. Why do you feel the need to introduce such erroneous language to represent my point of view?



*cherry picked examples clipped*



So, are we going to watch two different shows on Tuesday and Wednesday then?

[Poop-Loops]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when you type bat*&&^, you were just mispelling the word "bias".

Yeah, I watch that too. He makes a total ass of himself in lots of other ways.

As for your cherry picked examples...that's all they are. Selected by people trying to push a point.

So... I guess i got you scheduled for next week for watching the shows? O'reiley on Monday, and Olberman on Tuesday?

Look, buddy, it's clear that you have a hard-on for O'Reilly, so let's just stop here.

Bill has said numerous stupid things, such as accusing Americans of slaughtering the Germans in Malmedy, claiming that there are no veterans living under bridges (like John Edwards said) and others. The problem is that when he was confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary of his opinions, such as retired generals correcting him on Malmedy during his show, a slew of homeless vets showing up at his doorstep, etc., he just shuts up and ignores it. Not cool.

Hey, what's this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=whYi8sCF5Pg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eOpChXhglGg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qil6hE5qWxo&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w

The man is an idiot and his show is a waste of time. His stories are ridiculous. He decided not to cover the Iraq War, the one he had a boner for, because it brought the US in a negative light. Great journalism, there.

[G01]

(Talking about Countdown with Keith Olbermann)

Yeah, I watch that too. He makes a total ass of himself in lots of other ways.

As for your cherry picked examples...that's all they are. Selected by people trying to push a point.

So... I guess i got you scheduled for next week for watching the shows? O'reiley on Monday, and Olberman on Tuesday?

Olbermann is no where near as ridiculous as O'Reilly. They are not even in the same ball park. Olbermann indeed says things that are biased, but when he makes a claim, he backs up his arguments with facts.

Can you give an undisputable fact that there is an organized conspiratorial effort to remove Christianity from Christmas? Neither can Bill O'Reilly.

Can you give an undisputable fact that the kidnapped boy "loved" being kidnapped and raped? Neither can Bill O'Reilly.

Can you provide evidence that the Americans were the war criminals at Malmady? Neither can Bill O'Reilly. Yet, Keith Olbermann can provide counter evidence to this point, present that evidence and then draw a reasonable conclusion from that evidence. That conclusion was the exact opposite of Bill's.

Keith Olbermann engages in what is called "deductive reasoning." Bill O'Reilly engages in what is called "making things up."

[G01]

In regards to Savage:

Michael Savage is insane.

I think a scarier thing is though that there are people like him, everyday people, who think the same way.

I personally have met a few. Here's is an example:

My friend's mother is disgusted by Obama because she hates Muslims because Muslims are terrorists. This woman is a college graduate. Strange she has so many facts wrong.

When I told her I supported Obama, she came to the conclusion that I was "corrupted by liberals at my university and couldn't think for myself." Of course, by "think for myself" she actually meant "think the way she wants me to think."

I have been told by other people that I will not be able to get a job if Obama gets elected because affirmative action will get so bad that whites will not be able to get jobs.

There are good number of people, with a good number of votes, who are engaged in this type of ridiculous, unfounded, fear mongering and conspiratorial thinking. I do not even consider myself a liberal!!! I like to think of myself as a moderate, yet apparently that's to far left for these people... It is kind of scary that Michael Savage's message gets out there to everyday people.

Yet, Michael Savage has every right to be able to think whatever he wants, which is a right he doesn't think the people who don't think the way he does deserve to have.

[chemisttree]

I was personally targeted by some of these types when I moved here because I declared myself to be an environmentalist. My life was threatened and I was harrassed for a couple of years - midnight phones calls, threats, and I think someone got into our house once. I ended up having to involve the Dept of Justice because the police were involved as well. The information from a phone tap that I had ordered by the court mysteriously disappeared. One guy told me that I was going to be arrested for jaywalking and that I would commit suicide while I was in jail.

It is nice to have a relative working with the FBI.

Yep, the liberals have absolutely ruined the place.

I was thinking of you when I heard the part about the SF'ers ruining the place. :rofl: Perhaps you should have stuck to "fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings" rather than environmentalist.

[chemisttree]

There are those too...but they are just nowhere near as popular or well-financed.

Some of them are just too busy with other things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ward)

[drankin]

In regards to Savage:

Michael Savage is insane.

I think a scarier thing is though that there are people like him, everyday people, who think the same way.

I personally have met a few. Here's is an example:

My friend's mother is disgusted by Obama because she hates Muslims because Muslims are terrorists. This woman is a college graduate. Strange she has so many facts wrong.

When I told her I supported Obama, she came to the conclusion that I was "corrupted by liberals at my university and couldn't think for myself." Of course, by "think for myself" she actually meant "think the way she wants me to think."

I have been told by other people that I will not be able to get a job if Obama gets elected because affirmative action will get so bad that whites will not be able to get jobs.

There are good number of people, with a good number of votes, who are engaged in this type of ridiculous, unfounded, fear mongering and conspiratorial thinking. I do not even consider myself a liberal!!! I like to think of myself as a moderate, yet apparently that's to far left for these people... It is kind of scary that Michael Savage's message gets out there to everyday people.

Yet, Michael Savage has every right to be able to think whatever he wants, which is a right he doesn't think the people who don't think the way he does deserve to have.

Dr Savage is a genius and borderline insane. I like to listen to him because he can say some outrageous stuff and back it up with intelligent reasoning. He is one of those classic individuals that are completely set in their way of thinking, which is refreshing by itself in a world of the wishy-washy. You can't blame people from calling him nuts but he makes some deep points that really get you thinking.

The one thing I agree with him completely on is his philosophy of language, culture, and borders as being an essential distinction to maintain in the US. Everything else is thought provoking entertainment that can be really inspiring at times.

And of course he can think whatever he wants and be confident that he is right!

[Gokul43201]

The O'Reilly Saga, Part 1 of many:
O'REILLY: Have you been in combat Colonel?
CROWLEY: Yes.
PUCKETT: Me? No, sir, I have not.
O'REILLY: How 'bout you, Colonel?
CROWLEY: Yes.
O'REILLY: So you know what we're talkin' about. "Cause I was in combat and when you are there your adrenalin is flying through your ears. And you know you've got the gun and I just couldn't understand ...

And from another show:
"I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first."
O'Reilly had never served in the military or reported from a combat zone, ever. Later in the same show.
O'Reilly: We've got a caller. Roger. Roger from Portland, Oregon. What say you Roger?

Roger: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?

O'Reilly: No I have not.

Roger: Then why do you say you've been in combat?

O'Reilly: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Roger: But you were a media guy.

O'Reilly: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

Roger: People might think that you actually were in the military.

O'Reilly: Oh... We don't want to mislead anybody. But I made it quite clear... quite clear in many, many circumstances --

Roger: [mumbles something about being, or not being, "fair and balanced"]

O'Reilly: [quietly disconnects Roger] Yeah. Hey listen, Roger. You can take your little "fair and balanced" uh... snip remark and shove it, okay? You're not getting on this air. Um... You, mister macho man, have never come close to anything I've done, down where I've been. So take a walk and... uh... 'nuff said.

Not surprisingly, O'Reilly wasn't anywhere near the action during the El Salvador or Falkland Island conflicts. He reported on both stories from the CBS office in Buenos Aires.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/04/bill_oreilly_decorated_war_vet_murtha_afraid_to_come_on_the_factor.php
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/11/133950.shtml

[Poop-Loops]

Dr Savage is a genius and borderline insane. I like to listen to him because he can say some outrageous stuff and back it up with intelligent reasoning. He is one of those classic individuals that are completely set in their way of thinking, which is refreshing by itself in a world of the wishy-washy. You can't blame people from calling him nuts but he makes some deep points that really get you thinking.

Name one.

The one thing I agree with him completely on is his philosophy of language, culture, and borders as being an essential distinction to maintain in the US. Everything else is thought provoking entertainment that can be really inspiring at times.

Nationalism? You're into that garbage? Watch this over and over until you get that stuff out of your head:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[Poop-Loops]

Some of them are just too busy with other things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ward)

Ouch! Those right-wing nutters are well... nuts, but they're not that disgusting. Maybe O'Reilly, but even not that far.

[drankin]

Name one.



Nationalism? You're into that garbage? Watch this over and over until you get that stuff out of your head:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Help me out here, I just read the definition to make sure I'm not missing anything. What's wrong with Nationalism?

I won't be watching any youtube for a few hours, I'm at work.

[Poop-Loops]

You live on a tiny planet and you want to make "your land" even smaller by placing arbitrary borders around it and keeping out "other people" as if they were somehow different. The very idea of nationalism is stupid.

Have you ever been outside the US?

[drankin]

You live on a tiny planet and you want to make "your land" even smaller by placing arbitrary borders around it and keeping out "other people" as if they were somehow different. The very idea of nationalism is stupid.

Have you ever been outside the US?

Yes, I've spent some time in China. Canada probably doesn't count so much but I've been up there a few times.

Are you suggesting that countries should not have borders?

[Poop-Loops]

Yes, I've spent some time in China. Canada probably doesn't count so much but I've been up there a few times.

Are you suggesting that countries should not have borders?

I'm suggesting that the idea of "other countries" is completely baseless. The only thing nationalism does is distances two groups of people who otherwise are completely identical in their goals and even most of their culture.

The sooner we get rid of these arbitrary borders the better.

[seycyrus]

Look, buddy, it's clear that you have a hard-on for O'Reilly, so let's just stop here.

Ok buddy. How about a bit of intellectual integrity on your part? Instead of just chowing down on regurgitated bits and pieces, why not just accept the invitation?

Am I asking you to do some incredibly difficult task?



Hey, what's this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=whYi8sCF5Pg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eOpChXhglGg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qil6hE5qWxo&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w



Those look to be some regurgitated pieces of matter that your media masters choose to throw at you.

The man is an idiot and his show is a waste of time. His stories are ridiculous. He decided not to cover the Iraq War, the one he had a boner for, because it brought the US in a negative light. Great journalism, there.

Not that you would know from firsthand knowledge.

Pfft.

[drankin]

I'm suggesting that the idea of "other countries" is completely baseless. The only thing nationalism does is distances two groups of people who otherwise are completely identical in their goals and even most of their culture.

The sooner we get rid of these arbitrary borders the better.

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you refer to these guys as wackos. Of course countries have to have borders. It's necessary for governments to have jurisdiction. A world without national borders is just wacko idealology.

[seycyrus]

Olbermann is no where near as ridiculous as O'Reilly. They are not even in the same ball park. Olbermann indeed says things that are biased, but when he makes a claim, he backs up his arguments with facts.

[QUOTE=G01;1722552]Can you give an undisputable fact that there is an organized conspiratorial effort to remove Christianity from Christmas? Neither can Bill O'Reilly.

Can you give me a cite where I claimed there was an ORGANIZED effort? No you can't

Can you give an undisputable fact that the kidnapped boy "loved" being kidnapped and raped? Neither can Bill O'Reilly.

I'm not here to defend the stupid things O'reiley might have said. Just liek I'm not here to defend the stupid things you have said.

Keith Olbermann engages in what is called "deductive reasoning." Bill O'Reilly engages in what is called "making things up."

So, let's watch Olberman's show one time next week. Talk about it and then watch O'reiley the next and do the same.

Evidently my Monday and Tuesday are now open again.

[seycyrus]

So, out of *all* the supporters of independent thought and intellectual freedom, is there ONE person who will step forward and accept the invitation for a discussion of an actual show?

This is PF, right? There ARE political threads allowed here right?

If O'reilley is half the idiot some of you say, then on any given night he should say about 100 stupid things. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.

On the next night we can then go on and discuss the hundreds of amazing, insightful, brilliant comments that Olberman offers.

[G01]

I'm not here to defend the stupid things O'reiley might have said.

Then what are we doing here?

Honestly I have offered specific examples from real shows as to why I hold the opinion of Bill that I do. (You have not done the same with Olbermann) I do not have time to waste more time watching Bill (especially since I don't enjoy his show), and then debating the two shows. I don't care enough about it.

With that I'm done with this thread.

[seycyrus]

If you ever have some time to kill and want to get a look at the sick inner workings of O'Reilly, read through the legal papers that were filed when he was hit by a sexual harassment case:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

The guy's a nutcase.

Uhm, yeah...

Just took the time to go through your little expose.

I'd like to hear some of the recordings of these numerous phone conversations. Supposedly, he called her like 10 times, and got off. She felt repulsed and upset each time. And STAYED on the line each time!! Without recording a single call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Riiiiiight.

[seycyrus]

Then what are we doing here?

OK, let me rephrase. I'm not here to defend *every* stupid thing he might have said.

Honestly I have offered specific examples from real shows as to why I hold the opinion of Bill that I do. (You have not done the same with Olbermann)

Have I denigrated Olbermann? No, I offered to watch Olbermann and discuss his show (I watch it all the time, as I've stated before), as a sort of recompense.

I do not have time to waste more time watching Bill (especially since I don't enjoy his show), and then debating the two shows. I don't care enough about it.

Everyone seems to have plenty of time to find little tidbits from sites dedicated to attack O'reiley, but no one has time to time to get some firsthand knowledge?

And another challenger goes down!

[Gokul43201]

I'd like to hear some of the recordings of these numerous phone conversations. Supposedly, he called her like 10 times, and got off. She felt repulsed and upset each time. And STAYED on the line each time!! Without recording a single call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Riiiiiight.How do you know that none of the calls were recorded?

[seycyrus]

How do you know that none of the calls were recorded?

I guess I don't. I didn't come up with any links that offered what I would consider to be anything other that hear say.

Do you have any links of the recordings?

Am I supposed to believe that none of the anti-Oreiley sites have the actual tapes?

[lisab]

Uhm, yeah...

Just took the time to go through your little expose.

I'd like to hear some of the recordings of these numerous phone conversations. Supposedly, he called her like 10 times, and got off. She felt repulsed and upset each time. And STAYED on the line each time!! Without recording a single call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Riiiiiight.

You don't understand sexual harassment; she stayed on the line because he was her boss.

In many states, it's illegal to make recordings of a person's voice without them knowing. Perhaps she did make one; it's not admissable in many courts, though.

He settled the case for big $$. He's a jackass.

When I was in college, I had a roommate (who was, frankly, kind of dumb) who kept coming up with ideas of perpetual motion machines. I would take the time to listen to him, and then explain to him why it wouldn't work. He loved playing "try to stump the scientist." Eventually I got tired of the game, and I wouldn't listen to him anymore. I knew that a perpetual motion machine wasn't possible; no need to go over it again and again, and he clearly wasn't learning anything.

That's where I am with O'Reilly; the data are in and I'm convinced he's a complete idiot. There's plenty of evidence of that right here on this thread, but I came to my decision a long time ago.

No need to waste any more of my time on him, period.

[drankin]

Let's move on to Dr Savage. Now, he's a much more interesting personality. Savage doesn't think much of O'Reilly either.

[Poop-Loops]

You mean Dr. Weiner? Honestly, why would you change your name to something like that? He must have low self-esteem.

Or a really funny name. Hahahah!

Anyway, you can make him the definition of "Right Wing Lunatic" because he has gems such as:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210302318&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Within-America-Churches-Military/dp/1595550135/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210302276&sr=8-7

This goes with the topic of Nationalism like I was saying. Someone so desperate to have an "in" and an "out" group is not alright in the head.

[seycyrus]

You don't understand sexual harassment; she stayed on the line because he was her boss.

Oh please. I understand victimization quite well thank you. I also understand a story that sounds more than a bit fishy.

That's where I am with O'Reilly; the data are in and I'm convinced he's a complete idiot. There's plenty of evidence of that right here on this thread, but I came to my decision a long time ago.

No need to waste any more of my time on him, period.

In your story about your old roommate, you listened to him yourself. You didn't listen to other stories about him.

But this is *ridiculous*. No one. I mean no one! is willing to step up to just watch one frickin show??!! and discuss it? They'd rather just sit and watch and see what little spoofs someone throws up on thew internet. Let me guess, it's time for comedy central!

LET'S HEAR IT FOR INDEPENDENT THOUGHT! Hoorah!

[Poop-Loops]

INDEPENDENT THOUGHT!

I don't think you're allowed to utter those words if you watch Fox at all. I'm pretty sure it's in their contract.

[seycyrus]

I don't think you're allowed to utter those words if you watch Fox at all. I'm pretty sure it's in their contract.

Says the guy who is afraid to watch one show and talk about it.

[Ivan Seeking]

Alright, lets stop the nonsense and stay focused on the subject - nonsense.

[seycyrus]

Alright, lets stop the nonsense and stay focused on the subject - nonsense.

I'm sorry, I was too busy watching my taped episode of Olbermann to notice the topic change!

He just got done talking about Barbara Walters interview and how she said bad things about Rosie. He then proceeded to make fun of O'reiley for talking about Barbara and Rosie.

[drankin]

You mean Dr. Weiner? Honestly, why would you change your name to something like that? He must have low self-esteem.

Or a really funny name. Hahahah!

Anyway, you can make him the definition of "Right Wing Lunatic" because he has gems such as:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210302318&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Within-America-Churches-Military/dp/1595550135/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210302276&sr=8-7

This goes with the topic of Nationalism like I was saying. Someone so desperate to have an "in" and an "out" group is not alright in the head.

Of course he changed his name, he's in radio. I wouldn't put on a show called "The Weiner Nation" either. Duh.

He considers himself a conservative. He's a bit over-the-top but... he rocks. LOL

What do you mean about "in" and "out"? And what is your contention against nationalism? A world without nations, now THAT'S lunacy.

[Poop-Loops]

Says the guy who is afraid to watch one show and talk about it.

Yes, I'm afraid. Boy, you got me there. :rolleyes:

Of course he changed his name, he's in radio. I wouldn't put on a show called "The Weiner Nation" either. Duh.

If he was the conservative he says he is, he wouldn't feel the need to change his name.

Plus, the Weiner nation has a much better ring to it than the Savage nation. He went from a name that is a euphemism for the penis to a name that compensates for his penis.

What do you mean about "in" and "out"? And what is your contention against nationalism? A world without nations, now THAT'S lunacy.

Yes, Heaven forbid we all realize that we live in a tiny rock and stop fighting over small clumps of land. Heaven forbid we realize that our neighbors have the exact same goals as we do and that we could get more done by helping each other out than fighting or competing.

Ingroup and outgroup? You've never heard of those terms. You poor thing. It's cute that you're still trying to debate politics, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_(sociology)

Desperately trying to create an ingroup that you belong to is a sign of sever insecurity and longing to be accepted. What better way to be a part of a group than to proclaim some common enemy and declare that only you can defeat that enemy, so everybody should rally with you?

[drankin]

If he was the conservative he says he is, he wouldn't feel the need to change his name.

Plus, the Weiner nation has a much better ring to it than the Savage nation. He went from a name that is a euphemism for the penis to a name that compensates for his penis.

Sooo, if one is conservative they can't change there surname? It's against the conservative rules? Interesting. Your insinuation of penile compensation is childish. I think he changed it to Savage because the term savage certainly depicts his passionate personality. Regardless of the reasons why one changes their surname (I actually have myself) doesn't disqualify a persons point of view.

Yes, Heaven forbid we all realize that we live in a tiny rock and stop fighting over small clumps of land. Heaven forbid we realize that our neighbors have the exact same goals as we do and that we could get more done by helping each other out than fighting or competing.

This is liberal extremism. As Dr Savage points out, that mindset is a mental disorder. English want to be English, Irish want to be Irish, French want to continue being French, Americans want to be Americans, Iranians want to be Iranians... take away their borders and they lose their culture, their identity, their government and their langauge. Your idea, though ideal in a strange sort of way, is not even close to reality.

Ingroup and outgroup? You've never heard of those terms. You poor thing. It's cute that you're still trying to debate politics, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_(sociology)

Desperately trying to create an ingroup that you belong to is a sign of sever insecurity and longing to be accepted. What better way to be a part of a group than to proclaim some common enemy and declare that only you can defeat that enemy, so everybody should rally with you?

Of course I've heard of those terms. So you claim the Dr Savage is trying to create these groups because he is severely insecure and needs people to rally around him? Interesting psychological eval. I take it your a doctor too?

Keep it coming, this is great stuff!

[Hurkyl]

Heaven forbid we realize that our neighbors have the exact same goals as we do
Heaven forbid we acknowledge diversity. :tongue:

[drankin]

Heaven forbid we acknowledge diversity. :tongue:

Good point, and what is this "exact same goals" nonsense? I thought we were talking about this planet?

[Ivan Seeking]

There are those too...but they are just nowhere near as popular or well-financed.

Yes, liberal talk radio was a total flop. I find it notable that hate-talk doesn't sell among liberals nearly as well as it sells to conservatives - neo-conservatives, that is. That is rather ironic when one considers that the neo-cons see themselves as being more Christian - a philosophy of love, at the least - than liberals. And even more ironic is the fact that nutjobs like LL&S rant about the "liberal media".

[drankin]

Yes, liberal talk radio was a total flop. I find it notable that hate-talk doesn't sell among liberals nearly as well as it sells to conservatives - neo-conservatives, that is. That is rather ironic when one considers that the neo-cons see themselves as being more Christian - a philosophy of love, at the least - than liberals. And even more ironic is the fact that nutjobs like LL&S rant about the "liberal media".

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".

[seycyrus]

Yes, I'm afraid. Boy, you got me there. :rolleyes:

Yeah, keep talking.

I think Osama Bin Laden is a piece of crap, but I still went and read his manifesto. read it *myself*.

You're worried about something or another. You can rationalize it to yourself however you want, but I guarantee you that if it was a youtube video of O'reileys stupidest sayings, you'd find the time to watch it.

You've had time to watch a bunch of snippets. Post them, and participate in a thread about them, but not watch an actual show.

In the meantime, somehow I watched both CNN and Olbermann. You know, so I would have a clue about what I was talking about.

The fact is, your "treasure trove" of material wouldn't manifest. Oreiley would say just as many stupid things as Olbermann or any CNN pundit.

One of the points that was brought up in an early post in this thread was an "Open mind to an alternate point of view."

Well looks like that idea was just shot to pieces and replaced by ..."Err let me log on the web and see what my favorite blogger who supports my own point of view tells me I'm supposed to believe."

[seycyrus]

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".

Hate talk is the term used when conservatives succeed in markets in which liberals fail.

The failure of liberal radio *couldn't* be due to poor talent, inefficient marketing or an uncommitted audience.

Meanwhile, comedy central is doing quite well.

[Gokul43201]

I guess I don't. I didn't come up with any links that offered what I would consider to be anything other that hear say.

Do you have any links of the recordings?

Am I supposed to believe that none of the anti-Oreiley sites have the actual tapes?Didn't he actually settle the suit and pay her off because the plaintiff's case included word-to-word quotations of the phone conversations?

PS: Quotes such as these (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html)?

[Gokul43201]

The O'Reilly Saga, Part 2 of many:

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

What's the problem with this?

There is no such thing as the "Paris Business Review" - O'Reilly just made it up, as we've come to expect from him. Not just that, The US Census Bureau reported increased imports from France during the time of the "O'Reilly Boycott" compared to a year earlier.

Just the usual self-aggrandizing nonsense that shows nothing but wanton disrespect for any kind of journalistic ethics.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

[chemisttree]

Is it any wonder that with people like this bending the ear of working class Americans - hour after hour, day after day, year after year - we get what we have in Washington? But the worst of it is that in spite of the nonsense this guy spreads like horse manure, I defend his right to free speech. At the same time, it makes me sick to see what his brand of bs, and that of his comrades in arms, Larson & Limbaugh, has done to the country. And I have to wonder if there comes a point where his words of hatred are indeed like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Getting back to the topic of the thread... Are the likes of Larson, Limbaugh and Savage having an effect? Did Rush's "Operation Chaos" really have an effect? Do really believe that Limbaugh is responsible for two Bush terms? Do you believe that the Limbaugh dittoheads swayed the election in Indiania to give Hillary a slim victory?

Do you believe what Obama's campaign has said about it... namely that, "...7 percent of the Indiana electorate could be attributed to the "Limbaugh effect" -- 41 percent of the 17 percent who said they'd vote for McCain over Clinton but still supported Clinton." (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Exit_polls_indicate_Limbaughs_minions_turning_0506.html)

Or do you believe that there was no effect whatsoever, that, "...Republicans, who account for 11% of the entire Indiana electorate, have voted for Hillary by the same margin that the entire state has." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-confirm-operation-chaos-abject-failure/)

I think Operation Chaos' real goal is just to get the left's panties in a wad. That appears to be working. :rofl::rofl:

[Poop-Loops]

Good point, and what is this "exact same goals" nonsense? I thought we were talking about this planet?

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

[edward]

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".


What exactly is hare talk? Below is hat talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Tp93c6aw

As Ivan mentioned the neocons are vicious. They try to defend their actions by accusing the liberals of doing it too. That is about as far as the two way accusations go.

[edward]

To be fair, here is a list of liberal hate radio talk show hosts as presented in the Free Republic.

Google the names, or bring them up on youtube. You will not see the angry vicious attacks against conservatives as a whole, and very little about individuals.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Liberal Hate Radio Guide



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thom Hartmann -

Anti-Corporation, thinks the "evil" coporations are out to screw the middle class.
Invokes Ronald Reagan's name in a negative way every single show, thinks Reagan destroyed the country forever.

Thinks Jimmy Carter was a great President.......no, really.

Has Liberterian or "conservative" guests on, then spends the rest of the show, with his callers, making fun of them.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News


Ed Shultz - Big on improving gas milage and using additives in your vehicle.

Makes fun of "Slanthead" every show..........aka, Sean Hannity.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.


Stephanie Miller - Has the worst amateurish radio show ever, including sound effects from your old high school radio show.

Like to laugh at her own comments........constantly.

Has the entire 1st hour about "Right Wing World"

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.


Bill Press - Thinks Dennis Kucinich is a very viable candidate.

Makes fun of CNN and Fox News, all the while wondering why he's never on these networks.

Thinks Karl Rove runs the government.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.

[drankin]

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

Yes, it's impossible to even suppose that "everyone" wants that. Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization. That takes peace and freedom out of it right there. Not counting N. Korea and a handful of other nations on the planet and what their ideals are. I'll believe that everyone wants prosperity but that's about as close assuming what everyone wants that I can swallow.

[Poop-Loops]

Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization.

LOL

Not counting N. Korea and a handful of other nations on the planet and what their ideals are.

Their ideals? You think the N. Korean people want what Kim Jong Il wants?

[Ivan Seeking]

Getting back to the topic of the thread...

You are quoting the op. That is the topic.

Are the likes of Larson, Limbaugh and Savage having an effect?

There is no way to know precisely how much effect they have, but I have heard the same nonsense coming from Bush supporters for years. There is no doubt that it has an effect. In fact an old friend of mine had his mind warped by this nonsense to the point where he no longer welcome in my home. And I'm not even a liberal.

[BobG]

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

Yes, it's impossible to even suppose that "everyone" wants that. Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization. That takes peace and freedom out of it right there. Not counting N. Korea and a handful of other nations on the planet and what their ideals are. I'll believe that everyone wants prosperity but that's about as close assuming what everyone wants that I can swallow.

Are you taking "peace" out of the things every nation that has ever fought a war wants?

It seems to me you're confusing the "ends" with the "means" used to get there. The Allies in World War II wanted peace - just not a peace under Hitler.

Still, I see your point.

I think it's safe to say everyone wants food and shelter and maybe even love (at least initially as a child). Beyond that, you're getting to a point where goals are a matter of priorities. For example, people in the US are a lot more concerned with security than their personal freedoms. That doesn't mean Americans don't like freedom - it means most Americans don't think it's worth dying for. There's other, less prosperous nations, where people couldn't care less about freedom - they're just worried about where their next meal is going to come from and where they're going to live. Freedom is so far down the list of priorities that it doesn't even show up on the scope.

[Gokul43201]

Or do you believe that there was no effect whatsoever, that, "...Republicans, who account for 11% of the entire Indiana electorate, have voted for Hillary by the same margin that the entire state has." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-confirm-operation-chaos-abject-failure/)That is one of the most brainless arguments I've seen on the news lately, if it even is an argument.

Just because the republicans voted for Hillary in about the same proportion as democrats did does not, in any sensible way, point to the absence of a Limbaugh effect. If anything, it points to a strong influence of Limbaugh once you consider that lots of Republicans will be hard pressed to name even a handful of people that they hate more than Hillary. What would the Republican vote for Hillary have looked like, were there no Operation Chaos?

To make any argument about the effect of a particular influence, you must compare data with and without the influence (the reference). Look for the answer in the early primaries, before Operation Chaos began. What fraction of Republicans favored Hillary in Missouri (both demographically, and results-wise, closest to Indiana among the early races)? The answer is 21%, while 74% voted for Obama. Iowa, another demographically similar early state saw 10% of the Republican vote go for Hillary as opposed to 44% for Obama. Both fractions are significantly smaller than the 54% in Indiana. Another telling sign is that while Republicans made up 3% and 6% of the electorates in IA and MO, they made up 10% of the electorate in IN.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#MODEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#INDEM

PS: My own experience in Indiana involved 1 person admitting to be a part of Op. Chaos. That's about 2% of all the people I spoke to, in a very liberal part of the state. So, I know it's not a myth!

[Poop-Loops]

I think it's safe to say everyone wants food and shelter and maybe even love (at least initially as a child). Beyond that, you're getting to a point where goals are a matter of priorities. For example, people in the US are a lot more concerned with security than their personal freedoms. That doesn't mean Americans don't like freedom - it means most Americans don't think it's worth dying for. There's other, less prosperous nations, where people couldn't care less about freedom - they're just worried about where their next meal is going to come from and where they're going to live. Freedom is so far down the list of priorities that it doesn't even show up on the scope.

Your point is a good one. The priorities of a country are what distinguish them from another country. But I'm saying we all still want the same things. This isn't Lord of the Rings where Orcs want to kill all of us and we need to stop them. No, it's people arguing with people. Nobody wants to slaughter an entire nation. The leaders might, but you can't say that the people do.

[chemisttree]

You are quoting the op. That is the topic.
Yeah, that was the point, Ivan.

There is no way to know precisely how much effect they have, but I have heard the same nonsense coming from Bush supporters for years. There is no doubt that it has an effect. In fact an old friend of mine had his mind warped by this nonsense to the point where he no longer welcome in my home. And I'm not even a liberal.

I wonder why the pollsters didn't just come out and ask if the voters were members of Operation Chaos? In Texas I heard the same rant but since the Republican voters voted roughly an even split between the two candidates (favoring Obama!) (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html), it is difficult to tell if it had a serious effect.
A review of the Texas vote shows that among the 15 counties Mr. Obama won with his biggest margins, the voter falloff between the president and Senate races ranged from 22 percent, in Harris County, to 38 percent, in Jefferson County. (c-tree: Voter falloff is the tendency of the voter to vote only for a presidential candidate and ignore the downticket choices. This is believed by the authors to reflect the likelyhood of the voter either not returning in the fall if their choice loses or of crossover voters not wanting to support downticket Democrats)

The biggest falloff was in Republican-heavy Collin County, which Mr. Obama carried by 55 percent. Four in 10 Democratic voters who cast ballots in the presidential race didn't vote in the Senate race.

Republican strategist Royal Masset said the Collin County vote illustrates a big reason for the voter falloff – Republican crossover voters who wanted to influence the outcome.

Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little evidence that happened.

According to exit polls, only 9 percent of Democratic voters statewide identified themselves as Republicans, and they went for Mr. Obama, 53 percent to 46 percent.

Republican pollster Mike Baselice said a 9 percent to 15 percent crossover vote is typical in Texas, and early-voter analysis indicates many of the "new" voters had some history of voting Democratic in general elections and were only new to a primary.

On the Clinton side, her top 15 counties had a substantially lower voter falloff, from 11 percent in Webb County to 24 percent in Bowie County and 26 percent in Hidalgo County.

In South Texas, a Clinton stronghold, more people likely voted for both president and Senate because of the presence of a Senate candidate with a Hispanic surname.

Removing the South Texas counties from the equation did not significantly change the falloff numbers.

The Democrat primary assigns delegates proportionally, not absolutely like the Republicans, so I don't think there is much of an effect either way. The primary in Texas occurred just about the time that the Jeremiah Wright affair came out (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html) and began to get some traction so that could also have affected Hillary's numbers positively, I suppose.

[chemisttree]

That is one of the most brainless arguments I've seen on the news lately, if it even is an argument.

Just because the republicans voted for Hillary in about the same proportion as democrats did does not, in any sensible way, point to the absence of a Limbaugh effect. If anything, it points to a strong influence of Limbaugh once you consider that lots of Republicans will be hard pressed to name even a handful of people that they hate more than Hillary. What would the Republican vote for Hillary have looked like, were there no Operation Chaos? I understand, but in a 2 way race they only need one not a handful. Remember that this all happened after the Wright, Ayers and bitter/angry stories came out.

To make any argument about the effect of a particular influence, you must compare data with and without the influence (the reference). Look for the answer in the early primaries, before Operation Chaos began. What fraction of Republicans favored Hillary in Missouri (both demographically, and results-wise, closest to Indiana among the early races)? The answer is 21%, while 74% voted for Obama. Iowa, another demographically similar early state saw 10% of the Republican vote go for Hillary as opposed to 44% for Obama. Both fractions are significantly smaller than the 54% in Indiana. Another telling sign is that while Republicans made up 3% and 6% of the electorates in IA and MO, they made up 10% of the electorate in IN.
PS: My own experience in Indiana involved 1 person admitting to be a part of Op. Chaos. That's about 2% of all the people I spoke to, in a very liberal part of the state. So, I know it's not a myth!

You mean you want to compare Obama's numbers before the Wright affair, the Ayers story, the angry bitter comments? I think you need to recalibrate your analysis.

[Hurkyl]

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?
Others have pointed out some specific examples of direct problems with this claim. I could add more (what about happiness?) -- but I want to point out some entirely different flaws.

For the sake of argument, I will assume in this post that the above list is actually correct.

The other problems stem from the fact that these are just the high-level, and vague descriptions:

(1) Different groups of people, and even different people within the same group, will have differing opinions about what most of those goals really are.

(2) These high-level goals are comprised of many subgoals which certainly vary between different people -- e.g. the means acquiring food will be much different for a group of people living in the North American midwest versus a group of people roaming the deserts of the Arabian peninsula!


So even if you can successfully abstract away the diversity of the human condition, you only get homogeneity at this abstract level. As soon as you start specializing to concrete instances, that diversity reappears.

[Poop-Loops]

So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

[drankin]

So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

Actually, I think that's true in a way. Their idea of freedom is different than the Western idea. They despise our form of freedom.

[Gokul43201]

I understand, but in a 2 way race they only need one not a handful. Remember that this all happened after the Wright, Ayers and bitter/angry stories came out.



You mean you want to compare Obama's numbers before the Wright affair, the Ayers story, the angry bitter comments? I think you need to recalibrate your analysis.I agree that there are definitely other factors that weigh in as well, and you need to find some way to adjust for them. Notice I never said that the comparison made above was conclusive of anything, but if anything it's heading in the direction towards a fuller analysis. And that's also why I brought up the numbers on the fraction of Reps voting in a democratic primary. Negatives about Obama may turn Obama favouring Reps towards Hillary or McCain, but they shouldn't get more Reps to want to vote for Hillary over McCain. On the other hand, Op Chaos specifically requires even McCain supporting Reps to vote for Hillary.

[LightbulbSun]

On the topic of nations:

We need to have nations, but we need to be more accepting of diversity. Everyone has a different life goal.

[Ivan Seeking]

Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect?

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well.

[drankin]

Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect?

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well.

I think the term "hate radio" be defined so that people know what you are talking about? What is this "hate" anyway?

In order to be considered KKK-like shouldn't they be exclusive to a particular race or at least wear white cloaks with pointy hoods or something?

[Ivan Seeking]

Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK because the definition of the enemy is a variable that changes according to the needs of the show. As stated, liberals are the enemy; liberal being anyone who disagrees with any position held by the hate mongers, apparently. I gave a list that Savage expands in the link from Edward, in ~post 3. It seems that even "latte lappers" and college grads aren't safe.

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also that Gokul cited at least 40 million listeners just among the top five rated hate shows, and though we don't know what crossover exists, there are plenty more shows.

In 2004 Bush received a total of just over 62 million votes.

So at 28 million, the Limbaugh listeners alone add up to just under half as many people as voted for Bush.

[Ivan Seeking]

Limbaugh on Michael J Fox [Parkinsons Disease victim and spokesman]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yK0JrHfAA

[chemisttree]

Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Support? I hadn't even heard of Michael Savage until this thread. Nice try.... Kind of like "Have you stopped beating you wife yet?"

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect? Little effect. One person that you meet (in a really liberal part of the state) doesn't really appear to me as an 'effect'... more like 'affect'.

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well. Are you saying that Operation Chaos is hate speech? Did you hear how fast Limbaugh "released the superdelegates" to support Obama? It was clear to me that he was trying to take credit for the next obvious development in the campaign and claim the credit for it. Hate speech? No, just a bit petty and vindictive perhaps.

[wildman]

So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

They couldn't give a rat's a_s about our freedoms. It is all about overthrowing the Conservative Arab countries. They only attack us because we support the Saudis and other conservative states. If we didn't support those states, they would ignore us.

[seycyrus]

Didn't he actually settle the suit and pay her off because the plaintiff's case included word-to-word quotations of the phone conversations?

PS: Quotes such as these (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html)?

I would be surprised if Oreiley acknowledged his reasons for settling out of court.

Are you going on public record that you believe that settling out of court is an indication of guilt?

[seycyrus]

The O'Reilly Saga, Part 2 of many:
What's the problem with this?

There is no such thing as the "Paris Business Review" - O'Reilly just made it up, as we've come to expect from him.

Such hogwash.

That's what you've "come to expect from him"?

That certainly implies a pattern of behavior. You know ... a pattern...something that could be expected to be repeated in the future with certainty ...

say TONIGHT or TOMORROW night or ... PICK A NIGHT!

Say whaaat? You'd rather just wait until your favorite blogger or website (*We watch...so YOU don't have to!) parses through history and finds the tidbits and passes down the treats? Aww, isn't that cute.

Yes, I am back. The evil conservative who listens to NPR every morning, Tavis Smiley every evening and watches CNN and Olbermann every night. The guy who has a raging hardon for Oreiley even though I only watch him about once a week.

The closed-minded (shut tight tight tight!) monster who offended the open-minded liberals by suggesting that we actually watch a show firsthand and compare it to another show, again watched firsthand (tight! tight! tight!)




So... what are we watching tomorrow night?

[seycyrus]

Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

I don't think you mean that, do you?

I think this is a fair example of how exaggerations can be generated by people discussing an emotional topic.

[edward]

Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

I don't think you mean that, do you?

I think this is a fair example of how exaggerations can be generated by people discussing an emotional topic.

Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??

Savage gave the emotional caller a hateful boost when he replied: "I pull up beside of these people and yell at them"

He actually says a lot worse than "yell" at them. Listen to the last 45 seconds of this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Tp93c6aw

[drankin]

Savage is the man!

[seycyrus]

Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??

Savage gave the emotional caller a hateful boost when he replied: "I pull up beside of these people and yell at them"

He actually says a lot worse than "yell" at them. Listen to the last 45 seconds of this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Tp93c6aw

I am trying to avoid going down the KKK path ...

[seycyrus]

Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??


Well that certainly is a stupid bumper sticker.

That's simply announcing to the world that you have already been brainwashed.

[lisab]

Savage is the man!

Grown @ss men don't act like that...screaming at other motorists because of a bumper sticker on their car? Come on - what a loser.

[drankin]

Grown @ss men don't act like that...screaming at other motorists because of a bumper sticker on their car? Come on - what a loser.

He's passionate!

[Evo]

I have edited the posts on this page so that they make sense. If I missed something, please let me know.

[chemisttree]

I'm sure you're ready for your shower now...

[LightbulbSun]

*Sigh* The wasteland that is talk radio and cable news television.

[Ivan Seeking]

Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

[Alienjoey]

Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

It seems as though that video is only a few minutes of the discussion, not the full exchange. The full exchange (nine minutes long, with the latter five consisting mainly of Kevin James shouting "It all goes back to appeasement" and "Energized, legitimized", etc.) can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24655385#24655385

[lisab]

Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

Wow, that guy sure is no William F. Buckley! He just keeps spewing talking point, talking point, talking point!

[mheslep]

Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043
Who says he's conservative, besides himself no doubt? Sounds like he's just partisan.

[mheslep]

Olberman on hate TV belongs in here
"Shut the Hell up"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEBpC0GLr6Y&feature=related

[Ivan Seeking]

What did he say that is factually incorrect? I only watched about half of it, but so far it sounds right.

btw, I don't watch Olberman or anyone who yells at the camera.

[mheslep]

Its all the hyperbole in there ramped up to 120dbl, same thing as Savage.

[Ivan Seeking]

Its all the hyperbole in there ramped up to 120dbl, same thing as Savage.

What I saw is not even close to savage. You really can't tell the difference?

Does Olberman tell people to open their window and scream at other people driving on the freeway, as Savage say he does [Savage sounds like a real psycho]? Did Olberman call all conservatives fascists or perverts? Does he attack education? Where do we find any attacks like this with Olberman?

What I heard was factually correct.

[chemisttree]

What I heard was factually correct.

That's the saddest thing of all...

[mheslep]

What I saw is not even close to savage. You really can't tell the difference?Yes Savage is apparently much less pompous. I also see Savage has a PhD in biochem from Berkeley.

Does Olberman tell people to open their window and scream at other people driving on the freeway, as Savage say he does [Savage sounds like a real psycho]? Did Olberman call all conservatives fascists or perverts? Does he attack education? Where do we find any attacks like this with Olberman?

What I heard was factually correct.As I said its hyperbole; half of Olberman is not subject to fact checking at all as in "cold blooded murderers" and "Shut the hell up" at the end.

[Gokul43201]

This comparison between Olbermann and Savage is completely ridiculous! mheslep, did you watch the clip posted in one of the early posts?

Or try this one. Savage's response to a prank caller who identified himself as gay and poked fun at Savage's teeth:Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage, and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls?...I don't care about these bums; they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages.

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1166879684/The_Call_That_Got_Michael_Savage_Fired

[drankin]

Savage is THE MAN. He doesn't hold back. Not worried about offending anyone.

[mheslep]

This comparison between Olbermann and Savage is completely ridiculous! mheslep, did you watch the clip posted in one of the early posts?

Or try this one. Savage's response to a prank caller who identified himself as gay and poked fun at Savage's teeth:

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1166879684/The_Call_That_Got_Michael_Savage_FiredNever said the two were the same. Yes that's some Bronx style street vulgarity from Savage, offensive or at least boring. Olberman's offensive in another way. If you think you're going to convince me Olbernan's rants and his regular "worst person in the world" are not offensive, for other reasons, you are wasting your time.

BTW - check Obama on the subject. He called Wright offensive and over the top for some of Wrights rants that parallel Olberman, again just with a different style.

[Gokul43201]

Yes that's some Bronx style street vulgarity from Savage, offensive or at least boring.Please let's not confuse bigotry with slang.

[Gokul43201]

Yes Savage is apparently much less pompous. I also see Savage has a PhD in biochem from Berkeley.From Berkeley? He chose to go to what is arguably the most liberal campus in the entire country? Does Savage actually have a far left background that he wishes to hide?

A minute of looking around...and I find he does not have a PhD in Biochemistry, but a PhD in ... get this: Nutritional Ethnomedicine!!!

Can anyone here name a field that Savage himself would more loudly scream at as being "liberal"?

But this gets better...Savage, as Michael Weiner, has written a book (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Homeopathy-Michael-Weiner/dp/0895294125/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product)titled The Complete Book of Homeopathy, the Holistic and Natural Way to Good Health.

Not only is he a loudmouthed bigot who appears to be hiding a liberal past, but he's also a crackpot and a quack.

[mheslep]

Please let's not confuse bigotry with slang.I don't think I have. The street stuff you can commonly hear in parts of NY wouldn't pass off as just slang.

[Poop-Loops]

Well that certainly is a stupid bumper sticker.

That's simply announcing to the world that you have already been brainwashed.

Why would you be for a war? The last time a US war was justified was WW2 and that was because we were attacked by an actual country first, and Europe had already been ravaged.

Oh, I guess "Gulf War 1" kind of counts, too.

Seriously, I'm trying to understand your mindset here.

[Poop-Loops]

Not only is he a loudmouthed bigot who appears to be hiding a liberal past, but he's also a crackpot and a quack.

You forgot hypocrite.

[Poop-Loops]

This is liberal extremism. As Dr Savage points out, that mindset is a mental disorder. English want to be English, Irish want to be Irish, French want to continue being French, Americans want to be Americans, Iranians want to be Iranians... take away their borders and they lose their culture, their identity, their government and their langauge. Your idea, though ideal in a strange sort of way, is not even close to reality.

What's wrong with losing their culture, identity, government, and language?

Let me tell you my story. I was born in Greece to Polish parents and live in the US. I only lived in Greece for 3 months before coming to the US but lived in Poland for a total of about 4 years. While in the US I moved from the East Coast to the West Coast.

My point? My sense of culture, identity, government, and language has completely eroded. And I LOVE it. I honestly don't care where I live anymore. I have no ties to any country or culture and do what I please instead of what I "should" as part of a country.

The idea that French want to be French and Irish want to be Irish and English want to be English is a completely manufactured and arbitrary labeling of those people. Jesus Christ, do you have any idea how frickin' TINY England and Ireland are? You take away the border and nobody would care. The only reason they don't want to assimilate into one big Great Britain like they should is because they are butt hurt about all the wars in the past.

You know what's a mental disorder? Wanting to die for your leader. Wanting to die for a tiny piece of land that you can't even call your own because the government has the final say on it. "For King and Country."? Please. There are much more worthwhile causes to die for than that.

[seycyrus]

Why would you be for a war?

The bumper sticker implies a certain foreknowledge about the events involved in the next *war*. Does it not?

Can these people tell the future?

I think it is fair to say that certain judgements have been made about the participants.

The last time a US war was justified was WW2 and that was because we were attacked by an actual country first, and Europe had already been ravaged..

You are aware that there are people who will make claims that the US was the actual instigator of hostilities in WW2?

I do not hold that point of view, nor am I here to argue that position, rather I am pointing out that such theories do exist.

It is my contention that the people who support such ideas are the same ones that would sport a bumper sticker that says "I am already against the next war."

The implied "no matter what", is the troubling part.

[Poop-Loops]

The bumper sticker implies a certain foreknowledge about the events involved in the next *war*. Does it not?

Can these people tell the future?

I think it is fair to say that certain judgements have been made about the participants.

I'm still not understanding. There IS a foreknowledge of the next war. People will die, innocent people, economies will be ravaged, and pain all around. No matter what else, we can all agree that those things are bad.

You are aware that there are people who will make claims that the US was the actual instigator of hostilities in WW2?

I do not hold that point of view, nor am I here to argue that position, rather I am pointing out that such theories do exist.

That's fascinating. What does it have to do with anything here? Oh, do you mean that the US traded with Germany during WW2? That's a far cry from actually instigating violence, but, well, I think this clip shows it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozDSmAm62Dk

It is my contention that the people who support such ideas are the same ones that would sport a bumper sticker that says "I am already against the next war."

Your contention is the problem. I am already against the next war and I don't believe in those "theories" you were talking about. Oops.

The implied "no matter what", is the troubling part.

No matter what, war is bad. How you can say otherwise is unimaginable to me.

[mheslep]

Why would you be for a war? The last time a US war was justified was WW2 and that was because we were attacked by an actual country first, and Europe had already been ravaged.How was the US declaration of war on Germany justified? Germany did not attack the US prior to the US entry, shipping to support Germany's enemy Britain aside.

[cristo]

The idea that French want to be French and Irish want to be Irish and English want to be English is a completely manufactured and arbitrary labeling of those people. Jesus Christ, do you have any idea how frickin' TINY England and Ireland are? You take away the border and nobody would care.

Wow, that is a really ignorant statement!

[Poop-Loops]

How was the US declaration of war on Germany justified? Germany did not attack the US prior to the US entry, shipping to support Germany's enemy Britain aside.

Okay, so when's the last war that WAS justified then? Why would someone not be against future wars?

[seycyrus]

I'm still not understanding. There IS a foreknowledge of the next war. People will die, innocent people, economies will be ravaged, and pain all around. No matter what else, we can all agree that those things are bad.

Not to be unfeeling (I am making a point), but those things will happen, regardless of whether a war occurs.

The question really is, will *going to war* increase those things over *not going to war*?

That's fascinating. What does it have to do with anything here?

In my experience the same people who claim that the US is/has been/always will be the greatest evil in the history of the universe, are the same people who would sport such a bumper sticker.


Your contention is the problem. I am already against the next war and I don't believe in those "theories" you were talking about. Oops.

Not to be hostile, but I don't quite believe you. Rather,I believe that you are against what you *believe* will be the conditions leading up to, and resulting from the next war. You do not know for certain.

I believe (hope?) I could create scenarios, in which you would agree that war woud be the best choice of action.

The bumper sticker, with it's implied *no matter what* dictates an immediate dismissal of the all of my scenarios, *no matter what*.

No matter what, war is bad. How you can say otherwise is unimaginable to me.

Sometimes not going to war would be worse.

A better bumper sticker would state "I am already against the conditions that would make going to war next time, a neccessity."

[seycyrus]

Okay, so when's the last war that WAS justified then? Why would someone not be against future wars?

When not going to war would be worse.

So, just to clarify. Do you think the US entering the war in WW2 was a good thing or a bad thing?

[Poop-Loops]

It was better than not going to war, but it wasn't *good*.

Moreover, that's my whole point. WW2 had some point to it. Since then it has been a lot of spin and no clear rhyme or reason, just war for the sake of war.

[chemisttree]

How was the US declaration of war on Germany justified? Germany did not attack the US prior to the US entry, shipping to support Germany's enemy Britain aside.

Germany and Italy declared war on the US first. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm) The US reciprocated immediately.

We should get our facts straight before we go too far...

And there were Americans who were against that war as well. The American Bund party members leaps to mind. There will always be anti war types regardless of the provocation. Some even believe that we should not have a war against poverty or be at war with terrorists because war is not the perfect instrument. That's OK, keep waiting for the perfect instrument. It's juuust around the corner...

[edward]

The bumper sticker implies a certain foreknowledge about the events involved in the next *war*. Does it not?

Can these people tell the future?

I think it is fair to say that certain judgements have been made about the participant

No they can't tell about the future, yet the past appears to be about to repeat itself.

I think we can safely assume that the people who buy these stickers are not thinking about WWII.

The Iran situation is constantly in the news. Threats and warnings by the Bush Administration have made it clear where the next war will be.

Lets not confuse the issue by looking at world history. We know where the problem area is.

The bogus war in Iraq makes people want to be damn sure about what country we attack next.

[Poop-Loops]

Some even believe that we should not have a war against poverty or be at war with terrorists because war is not the perfect instrument. That's OK, keep waiting for the perfect instrument. It's juuust around the corner...

LOL? See, this is what I don't like about right-wingers: you take away jobs from real comedians.

The war on drugs as well as the war on terror are epic failures.

[seycyrus]

It was better than not going to war, but it wasn't *good*.

Well, then your definition of *good* is so relative as to be absolutely meaningless.

[seycyrus]

No they can't tell about the future, yet the past appears to be about to repeat itself.

Seeing as Bush is not goign to be in office and is not in a position to invade Iran, one can safely say that will not be attacking Iran under the same conditions.

I think we can safely assume that the people who buy these stickers are not thinking about WWII.

I think it is safe to assume that these people are not thinking, period.

The Iran situation is constantly in the news. Threats and warnings by the Bush Administration have made it clear where the next war will be.

The Iran situation is not all about it's interactions with the US. The UN in general, and the IAEA specifically, has voiced many concerns over Iran's conduct. not to mention many other countries.

The bogus war in Iraq makes people want to be damn sure about what country we attack next.

Make damn sure? That goes against the implied *no matter what*.

[Poop-Loops]

Seeing as Bush is not goign to be in office and is not in a position to invade Iran, one can safely say that will not be attacking Iran under the same conditions.


This is exactly how Iraq started, so I don't know what you are talking about. Moreover, you have McCain wanting to keep the Bush Legacy alive. Besides that, there's several month so of Bush left.

I think it is safe to assume that these people are not thinking, period.

:rolleyes:

The Iran situation is not all about it's interactions with the US. The UN in general, and the IAEA specifically, has voiced many concerns over Iran's conduct. not to mention many other countries.

Sure. Saying they want to destroy Israel is far-out on the loon radar, but what have they actually done to threaten anybody? They stopped their nuclear program, and so far there is absolutely zero evidence of them meddling in Iraq. (providing weapons, at least) Is there anything I haven't heard of that is cause for concern? This is an honest question, by the way, I'd just like to know.

Make damn sure? That goes against the implied *no matter what*.

No, actually, it goes WITH the implied the "no matter what". You are against the war from the start. So it would take something extraordinary to change your mind.

Oops, I forgot, people aren't allowed to do that. It's "flip flopping".

[seycyrus]

This is exactly how Iraq started, so I don't know what you are talking about. Moreover, you have McCain wanting to keep the Bush Legacy alive. Besides that, there's several month so of Bush left.

It would be logistically impossible to deploy our troops to Iran in the same manner that we deployed to Iraq in the time interval indicated.

Sure. Saying they want to destroy Israel is far-out on the loon radar, but what have they actually done to threaten anybody? They stopped their nuclear program, and so far there is absolutely zero evidence of them meddling in Iraq. (providing weapons, at least) Is there anything I haven't heard of that is cause for concern? This is an honest question, by the way, I'd just like to know.

They stopped the nuclear program they claimed *never existed*, and now claim that other programs *don't exist*. That doesn't strike you as cause for concern? Please note, that the IAEA has not cleared them of transgressions.

There is FAR from zero evidence of them meddling in Iraq. The one recent news story absolved them of being involved in ONE incident, it said nothing about the others. There are plenty of reports from soldiers (at all levels) stating that Iran is providing weapons to dissidents in Iraq. It's even on NPR.

But again, that is besides the point. The bumper sticker crowd is against the next war, no matter what!

[Poop-Loops]

They stopped the nuclear program they claimed *never existed*, and now claim that other programs *don't exist*.

I'm not following you. We found out they lied about something, so clearly they must be lying about everything else.

No, seriously, how does that logic go? You ask your friend for $5, he says he doesn't have any money on him, but you find $5 on him, then ask for $100000000000 and he says he doesn't have it again, so therefore he must have it?

That doesn't strike you as cause for concern? Please note, that the IAEA has not cleared them of transgressions.

No, but then again I don't jump at my own shadow.

There is FAR from zero evidence of them meddling in Iraq. The one recent news story absolved them of being involved in ONE incident, it said nothing about the others. There are plenty of reports from soldiers (at all levels) stating that Iran is providing weapons to dissidents in Iraq. It's even on NPR.

Sources? I can't imagine guys carrying Iranian flags running around all over Iraq, so how exactly do these soldiers know where they are from? Captured prisoners?

But again, that is besides the point. The bumper sticker crowd is against the next war, no matter what!

You keep saying that but never actually connect to why that is wrong.

[seycyrus]

I'm not following you. We found out they lied about something, so clearly they must be lying about everything else.

No, seriously, how does that logic go? You ask your friend for $5, he says he doesn't have any money on him, but you find $5 on him, then ask for $100000000000 and he says he doesn't have it again, so therefore he must have it?


I must seriously ask why you felt the desire to increase the sum of money in your example. Are you trying to lend credence to your argument by use of exageration?

We are talking about nuclear programs, past and present. Your example would have been more properly illustrated if you had used equivalent amounts of money.

Here is a better example and I will not have to resort to ludicrous exageration to fluff my point.

A few years ago you had suspicions that the guy in the trailer across the street was operating a meth lab. He says he never, ever, ever had one. The police bust his place find some traces of stuff, but say that stopped producing a year ago.

You now have suspicions, and the police have suspicions that he is once again operating a meth lab. He says, he would never, ever, ever do that...

Your call.

Sources? I can't imagine guys carrying Iranian flags running around all over Iraq, so how exactly do these soldiers know where they are from? Captured prisoners?

Munitions have certain tell-tale signs indicating where they were produced. Go see the Iron Man movie. The exact flow is difficult to trace, but there are people who know about such things.

As I mentioned, I hear references to reports on NPR as well as CNN. I certainly do not have specifics of when/where I heard the stuff on the radio.

You keep saying that but never actually connect to why that is wrong.

I shall try to be civil and reanswer this point even tho I feel like I have made my position clear.

I am against the fact that this bumper sticker implies a course of action *no matter what*. To me the bumper sticker implies a foreknowledge that the US will be on the *wrong* side of the next conflict, *no matter what*.

To me that implies a certain anti-US sentiment. The *no matter what* part. No matter what, the US will be wrong...

If that is indeed what it is implying, then it IS certainly an unpatriotic sticker.

On a related note. There was some discussion raised by an article in the NY Times about the US using military might to force the Myanmar govt. to accept aid to it's people.

[Art]

How was the US declaration of war on Germany justified? Germany did not attack the US prior to the US entry, shipping to support Germany's enemy Britain aside. :confused: It was the other way around, Germany declared war on the US.

[Poop-Loops]

I must seriously ask why you felt the desire to increase the sum of money in your example. Are you trying to lend credence to your argument by use of exageration?

We are talking about nuclear programs, past and present. Your example would have been more properly illustrated if you had used equivalent amounts of money.

Here is a better example and I will not have to resort to ludicrous exageration to fluff my point.

A few years ago you had suspicions that the guy in the trailer across the street was operating a meth lab. He says he never, ever, ever had one. The police bust his place find some traces of stuff, but say that stopped producing a year ago.

You now have suspicions, and the police have suspicions that he is once again operating a meth lab. He says, he would never, ever, ever do that...

Your call.


ZOMG YOU'RE RIGHT! He's guilty until proven innocent!! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!?!?

That's all you have to go by? Suspicions? What evidence do you actually have of Iran doing anything sinister?

Munitions have certain tell-tale signs indicating where they were produced. Go see the Iron Man movie. The exact flow is difficult to trace, but there are people who know about such things.

As I mentioned, I hear references to reports on NPR as well as CNN. I certainly do not have specifics of when/where I heard the stuff on the radio.

Then don't bother citing it. I can say I heard as well that every single claim against Iran has been proven false. But I don't remember where I got that claim from. Oops, I guess we are on equal footing!

I shall try to be civil and reanswer this point even tho I feel like I have made my position clear.

I am against the fact that this bumper sticker implies a course of action *no matter what*. To me the bumper sticker implies a foreknowledge that the US will be on the *wrong* side of the next conflict, *no matter what*.

There's a right side to a war?

To me that implies a certain anti-US sentiment. The *no matter what* part. No matter what, the US will be wrong...

I'm still not understanding where you get the "no matter what" part from. It doesn't say so on the sticker, and anything implied comes from the fact that, you'd better sit