News The Dangerous Influence of Far-Right Talk Radio on American Politics

[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:

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.

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.

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.

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 down now, WARS ARE BAD!

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

I bet those people don't wear flag lapel pins, either.

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.

That's not exactly a war now, is it? We don't have an enemy we need to destroy, we just have a fly in our ointment we are annoyed by. Myanmar doesn't want to kill us any more than we want to kill them.

 

[seycyrus]

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

The truth is that in the real world, you would adjust your behavior.
He WAS guilty once when he claimed he was innocent. Only a naive person judges the present without consideration of the past.

Answer the simple question. Would you let your kids go play in the neighbors front yard?

(I am now waiting for you come forth with several responses indicating that you don't have kids, your neighbor doesn't have a front yard, don't let them play alone unsupervised anyway etc. etc. without addressing the spirit of my question).

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

Why do insist on asking questions when you already know the answer? The IAEA is the one that is pressing Iran on the Nuclear issues.

Do you think the IAEA's case against Iran is legitimate or illegitimate?

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!

Go take a flying leap. I didn't *cite* it. I said I heard it on the radio, on NPR. I did not present my information in any way that can be construed otherwise. People on PF talk about stuff they heard or saw all the time without being asked to produce a timestamp.

Note I didn't say I heard a claim that all reports were 100% correct. I said I heard claims. The fact that you are even aware that such claims exist, demonstrate that that such claims are being made.

There's a right side to a war?

Yes, oftentimes there is. I suggest you read "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White

I'm still not understanding where you get the "no matter what" part from. It doesn't say so on the sticker,...

You are being dishonest and deceptive. You asked me what *my* feelings on the matter were. I explained the origin of the *no matter what* part in earlier posts.

and anything implied comes from the fact that, you'd better sit down now, WARS ARE BAD!

Watch out for the BIG dose of reality coming your way! Sometimes the consequences of not going to war are WORSE!

I bet those people don't wear flag lapel pins, either.!

That's another example of spin. the ORIGINAL controversy was because people were being forced to REMOVE their lapel pins. Not the other way around.

That's not exactly a war now, is it? We don't have an enemy we need to destroy, we just have a fly in our ointment we are annoyed by. Myanmar doesn't want to kill us any more than we want to kill them!

Exscuse me? Can you participate in an argument without the introduction of fourteen strawmen?

*IF* we invaded Myanmar it WOULD be a war, (at least for a few moments) wouldn't it?

The point is that the editorial raised the question whether the pros of invading Myanmar would outweigh the cons.

The fact that such a question can even be raised indicates that it is not such a cut and dried issue as you propose.

The fact that the NYT(The holiest bastion of clear and correct thinking!) posits a line, that once crossed, would merit an invasion is a clear indication that being *Already against the next war* is a simple-minded viewpoint that does not adress the realities and complexities of the world today (or anytime in the past or present).

 

[Poop-Loops]

Answer the simple question. Would you let your kids go play in the neighbors front yard?

(I am now waiting for you come forth with several responses indicating that you don't have kids, your neighbor doesn't have a front yard, don't let them play alone unsupervised anyway etc. etc. without addressing the spirit of my question).

...why would I let my kids play in the neighbor's front yard? I've never seen kids playing in someone else's yard unless they were playing that that other person's kids as well.

If they were playing with other kids, then sure. If they were going to go play for the hell of it, I'd give out a LOL and tell them to go somewhere else.

Honestly, why would I?

Why do insist on asking questions when you already know the answer? The IAEA is the one that is pressing Iran on the Nuclear issues.

Do you think the IAEA's case against Iran is legitimate or illegitimate?

I thought the nuclear issue was all but resolved, i.e. they don't have any nukes or a program and they want nuclear power. That's hardly the same issue as them supplying weapons to Iraq.

Go take a flying leap. I didn't *cite* it. I said I heard it on the radio, on NPR. I did not present my information in any way that can be construed otherwise. People on PF talk about stuff they heard or saw all the time without being asked to produce a timestamp.

I heard George W. Bush tell me he wants to date Ahmadinejad.

You are being dishonest and deceptive. You asked me what *my* feelings on the matter were. I explained the origin of the *no matter what* part in earlier posts.

And it will kill you to repeat it for people who don't want to wade through the last few pages?

Watch out for the BIG dose of reality coming your way! Sometimes the consequences of not going to war are WORSE!

Oh noes! Sometimes! The dreaded sometimes! What about that deceitful most of the time huh? I guess you're not into gambling much.

That's another example of spin. the ORIGINAL controversy was because people were being forced to REMOVE their lapel pins. Not the other way around.

LOL Spin? The irony is delicious.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DR2d9SU8y5k
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299439,00.html
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2008/04/07/obamas_lapel_pin.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BkKh7YAnZYg
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S2K3UO0&show_article=1

The entire issue was him not wearing a pin.

Exscuse me? Can you participate in an argument without the introduction of fourteen strawmen?

I guess I'm just trying to one-up you. I'm sorry.

*IF* we invaded Myanmar it WOULD be a war, (at least for a few moments) wouldn't it?

No, because we wouldn't have any declared enemy. Even in Iraq we said "SADDAM BAD! GO BOOM!" The people fighting against us would be an annoyance more than anything. We have no reason to try and kill them unless they shoot first. We are not trying to overthrow the government or anything of the sort.

The point is that the editorial raised the question whether the pros of invading Myanmar would outweigh the cons.

The fact that such a question can even be raised indicates that it is not such a cut and dried issue as you propose.

Hold on, I seem to have all of your words in my mouth. Would you like them back?

The fact that the NYT(The holiest bastion of clear and correct thinking!) posits a line, that once crossed, would merit an invasion is a clear indication that being *Already against the next war* is a simple-minded viewpoint that does not adress the realities and complexities of the world today (or anytime in the past or present).

You're insulting the NYT and then using them as support for your claim?

 

[seycyrus]

...why would I let my kids play in the neighbor's front yard? I've never seen kids playing in someone else's yard unless they were playing that that other person's kids as well.

If they were playing with other kids, then sure. If they were going to go play for the hell of it, I'd give out a LOL and tell them to go somewhere else.

Honestly, why would I?

Either you are lying or you don't know what you are talking about.

I thought the nuclear issue was all but resolved, i.e. they don't have any nukes or a program and they want nuclear power.

A quick glance at the current issues regarding the IAEA and Iran would show that you thought wrong.

That's hardly the same issue as them supplying weapons to Iraq.

I did not try to equate the two. It was a separate point in the discussion. *Again* you go with the logical fallacy.

And it will kill you to repeat it for people who don't want to wade through the last few pages??

I'm sorry, at this point I feel that you are being intentionally deceptive. My explanation was given directly to YOU in replies to your posts. You asking me to repeat it every few posts has gotten old. Furthermore, your argument against my position indicates that you at the least have a rough inkling about what it is and are just trolling.

...Oh noes! Sometimes! The dreaded sometimes! What about that deceitful most of the time huh? I guess you're not into gambling much.

Maybe your bumper sticker should say "I'm PROBABLY against the next war."

But wait, that wouldn't have quite the *fighting against the man* appeal, would it?

...LOL Spin? The irony is delicious.
...
The entire issue was him not wearing a pin.

Uhm, okay. An honest person might have concluded that I was referring to another incident besides the RECENT Obama flap, when I used the word ORIGINAL. I was referring to back in '03 (?) when news stations were having their personnel remove their American flag lapel pins on air, so they wouldn't offend anyone.

Do you need to win an argument SO MUCH that you will ignore what I am saying and create one of your own choosing? Okay, the Obama lapel pin thing was stupid. there, happy?

No, because we wouldn't have any declared enemy.

The declared enemy would be the government troops trying to stop us from entering their country.

We are not trying to overthrow the government or anything of the sort.

We would be engaged in a shooting war with government troops that opposed our forced relief efforts. Why do you keep using the present tense? We are discussing a hypothetical situation. One that was proposed by the NYT.

Hold on, I seem to have all of your words in my mouth. Would you like them back??

That's your foot, and no, keep it there.

You're insulting the NYT and then using them as support for your claim?

Yeah, if you're smart you can do stuff like that. I was using it as an illustration.

How about you try to counter the illustration I provided?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Either you are lying or you don't know what you are talking about.

I am lying about what exactly? That I wouldn't let my kids play in any neighbor's front yard because it is THEIR property? Or what?

Nothing else currently matters in the thread. If you are having troubles understanding this, then any other discussion with you is pointless.