JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
No more than your silly post before, kiddo. You really are far more ignorant than fearmongering.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No more than your silly post before, kiddo. You really are far more ignorant than fearmongering.
In other words, ringel does not like having his silliness kicked up his butt.
In other words, ringel does not like having his silliness kicked up his butt.
If it gets a liberal booted out of office, then yesOr is honesty the best policy?
Go.
Ringel and Foxfyre, in fact, tried to project the definition onto those who disagree with. Their behavior fits it: "One who spreads the ideology of fear through propaganda to fulfill a concealed agenda."
I merely put Foxfyre's commentary into context, and the fearmonger attacks me "to fulfill a concealed agenda." What is that concealed agenda: to further a biased and distorted scheme.
I'm a fearmongerer??!! You truly are delusional.
Imo, the end never justifies the means if the means are dishonest or otherwise unethical.
If the ends are a multi-million dollar radio contract, ask Limbaugh and Beck. Fear mongering seems to have been a goose which lays golden eggs for them and their compatriots.Or is honesty the best policy?
Go.
Have Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other right wing talking heads ever said something such as~ Liberals think____ or, the Obama agenda is to ____Well NK, that would determine if you can make a case that Limbaugh and Beck or just 'fear mongering' or whether they are reporting real information that you just don't want to believe or hear.
In my view, 'fear mongering' is inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.
Goldwater would have almost certainly become President if his opponents had not conducted a last minute ad campaign depicting him framed by a mushroom cloud. THAT is fear mongering.
The Democrats unsuccessfully used Willie Horton in an effort to derail Dukakis in the 1988 primary campaign. So the Bush 41 campaign resurrected the ad. Was it effective? Who knows? But it was a type of fear mongering suggesting that if you elect Dukakis, released felons like Willie Horton will be the result.
The Democrats also used the same tactic in 1988 with a commercial describing how Bush In 1968, George Bush helped an ex-convict fund a halfway house for early released felons in Houston, Texas. In 1982, one of those prisoners raped and murdered a ministers wife. The implication of course is that this is what you can expect if you elect George H.W. Bush and it is a type of fear mongering.
Both ads were accurate in their content. What made them fearmongering is the dishonest conclusion they intended to be drawn from the ads.
So much of what the numbnuts et al relate as fear mongering is simply reporting truthful facts. I don't think truthful facts are fear mongering.
Ringel and Foxfyre, in fact, tried to project the definition onto those who disagree with. Their behavior fits it: "One who spreads the ideology of fear through propaganda to fulfill a concealed agenda."
I merely put Foxfyre's commentary into context, and the fearmonger attacks me "to fulfill a concealed agenda." What is that concealed agenda: to further a biased and distorted scheme.
I'm a fearmongerer??!! You truly are delusional.
Not completely delusional. He just often has a real disability when it comes to discerning the purpose and intent of a post.
Have Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other right wing talking heads ever said something such as~ Liberals think____ or, the Obama agenda is to ____Well NK, that would determine if you can make a case that Limbaugh and Beck or just 'fear mongering' or whether they are reporting real information that you just don't want to believe or hear.
In my view, 'fear mongering' is inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.
Goldwater would have almost certainly become President if his opponents had not conducted a last minute ad campaign depicting him framed by a mushroom cloud. THAT is fear mongering.
The Democrats unsuccessfully used Willie Horton in an effort to derail Dukakis in the 1988 primary campaign. So the Bush 41 campaign resurrected the ad. Was it effective? Who knows? But it was a type of fear mongering suggesting that if you elect Dukakis, released felons like Willie Horton will be the result.
The Democrats also used the same tactic in 1988 with a commercial describing how Bush In 1968, George Bush helped an ex-convict fund a halfway house for early released felons in Houston, Texas. In 1982, one of those prisoners raped and murdered a ministers wife. The implication of course is that this is what you can expect if you elect George H.W. Bush and it is a type of fear mongering.
Both ads were accurate in their content. What made them fearmongering is the dishonest conclusion they intended to be drawn from the ads.
So much of what the numbnuts et al relate as fear mongering is simply reporting truthful facts. I don't think truthful facts are fear mongering.
And those blanks are usually filled with pap like 'grab power and ignore the wishes of real Americans' or 'destroy everything that has made this nation great' or 'create an entitlement society dependent on government'.
Could those statements be examples of inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion?
If so, you must agree that Limbaugh is fear mongering.
Limbaugh is the worst variety of fear mongerer by your definition. He tells his listeners what he thinks Liberals are motivated by, what Liberals believe and what they think and it's consistently wrong and dishonest. Limbaugh has never characterized Liberals as anything like we actually are. He profits handsomely by such lies and there are those who never think deeper than he asks to question his lies.Have Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other right wing talking heads ever said something such as~ Liberals think____ or, the Obama agenda is to ____Well NK, that would determine if you can make a case that Limbaugh and Beck or just 'fear mongering' or whether they are reporting real information that you just don't want to believe or hear.
In my view, 'fear mongering' is inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.
Goldwater would have almost certainly become President if his opponents had not conducted a last minute ad campaign depicting him framed by a mushroom cloud. THAT is fear mongering.
The Democrats unsuccessfully used Willie Horton in an effort to derail Dukakis in the 1988 primary campaign. So the Bush 41 campaign resurrected the ad. Was it effective? Who knows? But it was a type of fear mongering suggesting that if you elect Dukakis, released felons like Willie Horton will be the result.
The Democrats also used the same tactic in 1988 with a commercial describing how Bush In 1968, George Bush helped an ex-convict fund a halfway house for early released felons in Houston, Texas. In 1982, one of those prisoners raped and murdered a ministers wife. The implication of course is that this is what you can expect if you elect George H.W. Bush and it is a type of fear mongering.
Both ads were accurate in their content. What made them fearmongering is the dishonest conclusion they intended to be drawn from the ads.
So much of what the numbnuts et al relate as fear mongering is simply reporting truthful facts. I don't think truthful facts are fear mongering.
And those blanks are usually filled with pap like 'grab power and ignore the wishes of real Americans' or 'destroy everything that has made this nation great' or 'create an entitlement society dependent on government'.
Could those statements be examples of inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion?
If so, you must agree that Limbaugh is fear mongering.
It is fear mongering only if it is intentionally misrepresented or is inserting an untruthful conclusion into the issue at hand. And I have been listening to Rush off and on for more than 20 years now, and I have not heard him do that. He tromps on a lot of liberal sacred cows and offers rebuttal for a lot of liberal doctrines and platitudes, and he does sometimes get it wrong, but I've never EVER heard him be intentionally dishonest about anything.
Have Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other right wing talking heads ever said something such as~ Liberals think____ or, the Obama agenda is to ____Well NK, that would determine if you can make a case that Limbaugh and Beck or just 'fear mongering' or whether they are reporting real information that you just don't want to believe or hear.
In my view, 'fear mongering' is inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.
Goldwater would have almost certainly become President if his opponents had not conducted a last minute ad campaign depicting him framed by a mushroom cloud. THAT is fear mongering.
The Democrats unsuccessfully used Willie Horton in an effort to derail Dukakis in the 1988 primary campaign. So the Bush 41 campaign resurrected the ad. Was it effective? Who knows? But it was a type of fear mongering suggesting that if you elect Dukakis, released felons like Willie Horton will be the result.
The Democrats also used the same tactic in 1988 with a commercial describing how Bush In 1968, George Bush helped an ex-convict fund a halfway house for early released felons in Houston, Texas. In 1982, one of those prisoners raped and murdered a ministers wife. The implication of course is that this is what you can expect if you elect George H.W. Bush and it is a type of fear mongering.
Both ads were accurate in their content. What made them fearmongering is the dishonest conclusion they intended to be drawn from the ads.
So much of what the numbnuts et al relate as fear mongering is simply reporting truthful facts. I don't think truthful facts are fear mongering.
And those blanks are usually filled with pap like 'grab power and ignore the wishes of real Americans' or 'destroy everything that has made this nation great' or 'create an entitlement society dependent on government'.
Could those statements be examples of inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion?
If so, you must agree that Limbaugh is fear mongering.
It is fear mongering only if it is intentionally misrepresented or is inserting an untruthful conclusion into the issue at hand. And I have been listening to Rush off and on for more than 20 years now, and I have not heard him do that. He tromps on a lot of liberal sacred cows and offers rebuttal for a lot of liberal doctrines and platitudes, and he does sometimes get it wrong, but I've never EVER heard him be intentionally dishonest about anything.
Limbaugh is the worst variety of fear mongerer by your definition. He tells his listeners what he thinks Liberals are motivated by, what Liberals believe and what they think and it's consistently wrong and dishonest. Limbaugh has never characterized Liberals as anything like we actually are. He profits handsomely by such lies and there are those who never think deeper than he asks to question his lies.Have Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other right wing talking heads ever said something such as~ Liberals think____ or, the Obama agenda is to ____
And those blanks are usually filled with pap like 'grab power and ignore the wishes of real Americans' or 'destroy everything that has made this nation great' or 'create an entitlement society dependent on government'.
Could those statements be examples of inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion?
If so, you must agree that Limbaugh is fear mongering.
It is fear mongering only if it is intentionally misrepresented or is inserting an untruthful conclusion into the issue at hand. And I have been listening to Rush off and on for more than 20 years now, and I have not heard him do that. He tromps on a lot of liberal sacred cows and offers rebuttal for a lot of liberal doctrines and platitudes, and he does sometimes get it wrong, but I've never EVER heard him be intentionally dishonest about anything.
I'm sorry. You did not understand my post. Limbaugh is wrong about Liberals. Limbaugh tells you what you want to hear about Liberals and you lap it up with a spoon. Limbaugh takes the darkest possible rationale and expands upon it to make it more palatable for you to believe.Limbaugh is the worst variety of fear mongerer by your definition. He tells his listeners what he thinks Liberals are motivated by, what Liberals believe and what they think and it's consistently wrong and dishonest. Limbaugh has never characterized Liberals as anything like we actually are. He profits handsomely by such lies and there are those who never think deeper than he asks to question his lies.
It is fear mongering only if it is intentionally misrepresented or is inserting an untruthful conclusion into the issue at hand. And I have been listening to Rush off and on for more than 20 years now, and I have not heard him do that. He tromps on a lot of liberal sacred cows and offers rebuttal for a lot of liberal doctrines and platitudes, and he does sometimes get it wrong, but I've never EVER heard him be intentionally dishonest about anything.
How is that fear mongering if he is right about what liberals are motivated by?
I've never found a liberal willing to give an honest definition of liberals or what they are motivated by. All I get, if I get anything, is a series of a few 'feel good' things that liberals want which is not unlike what all normal people want. But I have witnessed first hand, up close and personal, some unintended consequences of liberal philosophy on how to accomplish it and up close and personal some blatant lies, intolerance, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy demonstrated by liberals who flat out told me that they were superior to me.
Is it fearmongering to report that?