VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:17:05 07/07/03 Mon
Author: Rockford
Subject: Are there still troops in Iraq?

It seems like every other day there's a new report of American soldiers being killed or wounded in hostile fire.
The worst part is there's no end in sight, and no one in talk radio, at least locally, wants talk about Iraq anymore.

After months of helping to drum up public support for the war, mostly by mocking anti-war protesters, the local hosts have all gone back to doing Oprah impressions (Sexy teacher contests, Do married people really have less sex?, isn't sex great?)

The Bush administration continues to govern by arrogance, supplying NO information about the situation to the American people. What's the timetable for getting the troops out? What is the plan for transfer of power? Is there a plan at all, or are you just making this up as you go along? They basically just tell us peasants to "Shut up, and let the aristocracy do the ruling."

The allegedly 'liberal' press corps refuses to push for answers for fear of being sent to the back of room and not being called on by Ari.

Talk radio is the perfect vehicle for putting public pressure on elected officials, but they are taking a politcal pass. Aren't we still supporting the troops?

By the way. Anyone know when the next big 'Rally for America' is? Just wondering.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


[> This is talk radio Rockford. As one host said, the rules have changed. We don't have to be right anymore. It is very strange that so many people see talk radio as a real source of information when it is nothing but entertainment. Phil Hendrie was right about those people...they are weird. -- Anton Geesnick, 22:35:40 07/07/03 Mon

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> What a crock. That's the North Dallas Forty argument: When we say it's a game, you say it's a business, when we say it's a business, you say it's a game. Can't have it both ways. To help drum up popular support for a war, and then forget about it when it becomes inconvenient or less exciting- that makes you a truly despicable human being. -- (Rally for) Rockford., 09:04:01 07/08/03 Tue

[ Edit | View ]

[> No kidding! But thats talk radio. I have pretty much stopped listening because of stuff like this. Perhaps you should too. Eventually when the ratings drop to nothing, the program directors might get the message. -- Anton Geesnick, 21:02:03 07/08/03 Tue

[ Edit | View ]

[> I supported the war, and I still think we did the right thing. However, I am still disturbed by some of what I'm hearing on talk radio. Click here for more. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Truth, justice, and all that crap.), 01:44:08 07/10/03 Thu

We've all heard the Democrats pounding away at Dubya, saying that he lied to us about Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction. (I still want to know what killed all those Kurds in the early 90s. Spoiled mayonaisse, perhaps?)

But several of the conservative hosts I listen to don't seem to want to argue the actual point of whether or not Iraq ever had WMDs. Instead, they've decided to rely on these two arguments: polls which show that most Americans still support Bush's actions regardless of whether or not WMDs are ever found in Iraq, and Bush's late-game strategery-switch to giving other reasons besides WMDs to invade Iraq over.

On the first point... if the American people support it, it must be okay? That's not what y'all were saying during the Lewinsky scandal. And Hitler had high poll numbers too.

On the second point... what you're saying is that as long as a President has one valid reason for military action, it's okay for him to lie about other reasons? Sorry, but if he lies about one, that makes me doubt the rest, and it should give you the same doubts too.

Not that I think he's lying... see the sarcastic mayo reference above. And even if he DID lie, the suggestion of impeachment now coming from some circles is just plain silly. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" according to the Constitution, and there's no law against lying. (There IS a law against lying UNDER OATH, even if it's about sex. Deal with it, Clintonites.) But if it can be shown he did lie, then Bush will lose the support he won from me in 2000.

Oh, and a quick vocab lesson: to lie is not simply to tell an untrue statement. To lie is to tell an untrue statement while knowing it's untrue. There are those in some circles who need to be reminded of that.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Well I never supported the war to begin with. ... -- Anton Geesnick, 19:01:24 07/10/03 Thu

To my eyes it was an obvious con game pulled by the neo conservatives on the American people. Pat Buchanan was the only sane voice opposing the war and his magazine the best source of info in the months leading up to it. What's happening now and what is being revealed now should be no surprise to anyone who looked honestly at the situation and tried to keep themselves informed. Seems that these so called conservative talk show hosts take their orders directly from the White House. Don't look to talk radio in its present form for accurate information.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2017 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.