Does the end justify the means with regards to fearmongering?

[JakeStarkey]

No more than your silly post before, kiddo. You really are far more ignorant than fearmongering.

 

[Ringel05]

No more than your silly post before, kiddo. You really are far more ignorant than fearmongering.

Nice try there Skippy. Did you also have your funny bone removed when they attempted to perform the Cranial-rectal resection procedure? The one that failed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, ringel does not like having his silliness kicked up his butt.

 

[Ringel05]

In other words, ringel does not like having his silliness kicked up his butt.

Ah look everyone, Snarkie's trying to make his first joke. How cute.

 

[Luissa]

In regards to what is going in the US, I don't think it will turn out well, history has proven this.

 

[xotoxi]

In other words, ringel does not like having his silliness kicked up his butt.

Are you referring to Charlie Ringel?

 

[lizzie]

Imo, the end never justifies the means if the means are dishonest or otherwise unethical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know about "never." But fear mongering, as a couple of suds tried above, is simply demagoguery and unworthy personally and professionally.

 

[Spoonman]

Or is honesty the best policy?

Go.

If it gets a liberal booted out of office, then yes

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Imo, the end never justifies the means if the means are dishonest or otherwise unethical.

Back in the 70's, he YWCA put out a national 'imperative': "To thrust our collective power towards the elimination of racism wherever it exists and by any means necessary." And everywhere all over the country, bumper stickers and banners on and in YWCA buildings featured in big ugly black crooked uneven but eye catching letters:

ELIMINATE RACISM, WHEREVER IT EXISTS AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

And though I 100% supported the emphasis to eliminate racism and worked hands on to implement the imperative, the slogan always bothered me. I think you just nailed the reason why.

 

[Nosmo King]

Or is honesty the best policy?

Go.

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.

If, on the other hand, fear mongering is used as a political campaign tactic, beware. Praying on the fears of people is only affective if the solutions proffered by the fear mongerers actually change the situation for the better. It's political dynamite. If the solutions do not bring about the desired change, the fear mongerers are, and very well should be, dismissed as the idiots they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 minister’s 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.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 minister’s 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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Comfort yourself with that, foxfyre.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 minister’s 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.

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 minister’s 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.

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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 minister’s 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.

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.

Yes, he has fear-mongered, and, yes, either you are ignorant (which you aren't) or you believe that such behavior is acceptable (which I believe of you). Any of us who have been listening to have for what seems forever simply listen to what he says his enemies are doing then examine his behavior and words to see that he is often describing himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

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?

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.

If I said Conservatives are motivated by greed, lust for capital and ignorant of all the harm they leave in their wake while amassing more and more riches, I would be fear mongering. It would be a palatable message for anyone who is Liberal and unwilling to unearth the truth for themselves. But, by your own definition of fear mongering, I would be inserting a dishonest toxic element into a concept or issue or news item in order to sway public opinion.