How Fear Mongering Has Benefited You

bhkad · #1 (**permalink**) 02-16-2008, 02:44 PM

How Fear Mongering Has Benefited You

Bush-War-America Bashers regularly call any thing said in favor of measures to protect America from attacks or infiltration as 'fear mongering.'

And I think that is incorrect. I believe real problems, dangers and threats exist and to address this or these problems and prevent them BEFORE they manifest as real attacks is the smart thing to do.

Apparently the bashers do not think so.

So, this thread is intended to teach them that "Fear Mongering" benefits all of us every day and that without the fear mongers in history many of us would likely not be here at all.

The first products of fear mongering I will mention are the lock and key.

The Lock & Key.

Without them people could not safeguard their valuables.

Here is what the basher would say:

Quote:

You girly men are afraid that thieves are hiding under your beds waiting to steal your things!

Well, here are the facts.

Quote:

FBI Uniform Crime Reporting 2003
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's annual publication, Crime in the United States, 2003, compiles crime statistics from more than 17,000 city, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies.

Here is a summary of the larceny and theft statistics for 2003:

* The UCR Program estimated larceny-thefts at slightly more than 7 million offenses in 2003. This represents a decrease of 0.5 percent when compared to the 2002 estimate. In 2003, larceny-theft made up 67.3 percent of the estimated volume of property crime.

* By category, thefts from motor vehicles accounted for the largest portion (26.4 percent) of larceny-theft offenses in the Nation.

* In 2003, the value of property taken in larceny-theft offenses collectively was an estimated $4.9 billion. Property lost to thieves had an average value of $698 per offense. The highest average dollar loss, $1,030, was associated with thefts from buildings.

* Nationwide in 2003, 18.0 percent of all larceny-thefts were cleared by arrest or exceptional means; 20.2 percent of larceny-theft clearances involved only juveniles.

* The estimated number of arrests for larceny-theft offenses accounted for 71.3 percent of the estimated total number of arrests for property crimes.

Larceny and Theft Statistics for 2003

Fear Mongering works to help keep us and our belongings safe.

Now, I invite all of you to name just one (or a few, if you feel like it) product or process or other example of how FEAR MONGERING helps us every day.

foundit66 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 06:34 PM

Again, you fail to notice a difference inbetween the "fear mongering" you ADVOCATE, and the examples you bring forth.

You talk about "lock and key" and locking up valuables.
But isn't that an INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE to do so???

By analogy, YOU are asking that OTHER PEOPLE give up their right to privacy and right to a warrant requirement.
By analogy, you would demand that "locks and keys" be required by ALL people, so that NOBODY has the choice as to whether or not to lock something up or not.

Or how about this for another analogy.
Smoking kills. It's a health hazard.
By analogy, based on your "fear mongering" approach, shouldn't we outlaw cigarettes?

Obviously that WOULD "benefit" people in society, wouldn't it?

Quit giving examples which involve NO involuntary sacrifice of personal rights and freedoms and pretending that proves your point.
The fact that you AVOID such examples demonstrates your own position's weakness.

You want to wire-tap?
GET A WARRANT. THEN it is legal.

foundit66 · #3 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 06:58 PM

And to point out another flaw of the proposed analogy.
I am not against locking things down.
The CURRENT LEGAL system has legal channels to "lock things down".

If the police or FBI have enough evidence of potential wrong-doing and they want to invade a person's privacy, they GET A WARRANT to do so.
I am fully behind the warrant.
This is how we SHOULD be "locking" things.

If there is sufficient reason, you get a warrant.
That's the legal way to do things.
And it's another sign of the weakness of bhkad's position that he REPEATEDLY FAILS to address that fact.

forester814 · #4 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

I believe real problems, dangers and threats exist and to address this or these problems and prevent them BEFORE they manifest as real attacks is the smart thing to do.

I guess that makes me a fear monger too, by this definition.

I have a 10 year old daughter. I tell her not to talk to strangers. This preventive tactic seems a lot smarter to me than waiting for her to get in a car with a child molestor, and then telling her not to do that.

I draw a distinction between that behavior and starting a war with Iraq, and then attempting to retroactively scotch tape an anti-islamofascism agenda to it.

But please, carry on with your "lessons."
Those of us with smaller brains will try our best to keep up with you.

Adept1 · #5 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Again, you fail to notice a difference inbetween the "fear mongering" you ADVOCATE, and the examples you bring forth.
Again you fail to notice what the request was. He asked for more examples.
You talk about "lock and key" and locking up valuables.
But isn't that an INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE to do so???
Yes except that those aren't the ONLY locks and keys around. And some things are REQUIRED by law TO BE LOCKED.
By analogy, YOU are asking that OTHER PEOPLE give up their right to privacy and right to a warrant requirement.
By analogy, you would demand that "locks and keys" be required by ALL people, so that NOBODY has the choice as to whether or not to lock something up or not. You do have difficulty making a reasonable analogy don't you? The comparison between a lock and privacy is trying to lump subjects that do not compare.

Or how about this for another analogy.
Smoking kills. It's a health hazard.
By analogy, based on your "fear mongering" approach, shouldn't we outlaw cigarettes?YES. And don't even try to say that they aren't.

Obviously that WOULD "benefit" people in society, wouldn't it?

Quit giving examples which involve NO involuntary sacrifice of personal rights and freedoms and pretending that proves your point.
The fact that you AVOID such examples demonstrates your own position's weakness.

You want to wire-tap?So who is fear mongering by bringing "wiretaps" into a conversation about fear mongering?
GET A WARRANT. THEN it is legal.

When the criminals are breaking into your house I bet you just insist that the cops stop by the courthouse and wake the judge.

bhkad · #6 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

I guess that makes me a fear monger too, by this definition.

I have a 10 year old daughter. I tell her not to talk to strangers. This preventive tactic seems a lot smarter to me than waiting for her to get in a car with a child molestor, and then telling her not to do that.

That is a perfect example of Fear Mongering!

Thanks for the contribution!

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

I draw a distinction between that behavior and starting a war with Iraq, and then attempting to retroactively scotch tape an anti-islamofascism agenda to it.

But please, carry on with your "lessons."
Those of us with smaller brains will try our best to keep up with you.

This should help you to better see the issue of why we invaded.

All of these reasons existed at the time but the Administration couldn't speak to some of them, so they mentioned the reasons they could. (You'll note that the segment marked "Prevent Larger War" includes the perception that Saddam had real WMD's and that is why we had to disarm him.) And, being unaccustomed to blatantly withholding the truth from the public they did it in a less smooth manner than the liberal public is accustomed to being schmoozed.

Some of the reasons STILL can't be acknowledged now. But in time they will be.

foundit66 · #7 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept1

Again you fail to notice what the request was. He asked for more examples.
I saw what the request was.
The point is that the way he answered the "request" makes his argument MUTE and POINTLESS.
You ever hear of a strawman argument?
(What am I talking about. You SUBSIST on strawman arguments.

I argue for warrants. I agree that once a warrant is in hand, we should wire-tap, inspect houses, etc, etc.
But by bhkad's argument, he is pretending that I NEVER want to wire-tap.

The "fear mongering" I am talking about is one whereby you LACK sufficient reason for obtaining a wiretap, so you just go ahead and do it anyways SOLELY because of UNSUBSTANTIATED and NON-SPECIFIC FEAR.
If you can show a REASON for fear (like is done in the process of obtaining a warrant), then THAT is a legitimate and legal course of action.

Yes except that those aren't the ONLY locks and keys around. And some things are REQUIRED by law TO BE LOCKED.
Let's see.
His examples resolved SOLELY around "larceny", so that's the context of my reply.
If you want to take the conversation elsewhere, then BE SPECIFIC in what you're talking about.
Otherwise, you're just pretending to say something meaningful when all you're doing is moving off topic and saying non-sequiturs.

You do have difficulty making a reasonable analogy don't you?
And you have difficulty explaining WHY the analogy is invalid, and blindly declaring that it's wrong cause you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.

The comparison between a lock and privacy is trying to lump subjects that do not compare.
I got that.

Obviously, you lacked the capacity to understand MY point whereby HIS analogy was flawed because his pretense is like saying that I am arguing against those who CHOOSE to lock up their homes.
I don't. I have no quarrel with that.

My quarrel, by the analogy, is in the pretense that we have to DEMAND OTHER PEOPLE enact safety precautions on their homes.
Furthermore, it would be more apt to draw the comparison as to a requirement that people should submit to random home searches to make sure their houses aren't being burgled.

YES. And don't even try to say that they aren't.
The point is that I AM NOT saying that they should outlaw cigarettes.
The point is that by the "fear mongering" mentality, YOUR SIDE should be insisting on outlawing cigarettes based on the "risk".
I swear. Forest for the trees...

So who is fear mongering by bringing "wiretaps" into a conversation about fear mongering?
I swear. You are TERMINALLY slow.
The "wire-tap" discussion is the WHOLE REASON WHY bhkad made this thread in the first place.
I pointed out that the ONLY BASIS for his insistence on allowing ILLEGAL wire-taps is based SOLELY on fear.
Whereas, for a LEGAL wire-tap the person requesting the wire-tap has to show DUE CAUSE as to WHY there is substantial reason for the wire-tap. MORE than JUST fear.

When the criminals are breaking into your house I bet you just insist that the cops stop by the courthouse and wake the judge.

I support the CURRENT LEGAL requirements in the system.
A warrant is not needed in the situation you describe.
Strawman arguments do nothing to support your cause.

Your foolishness is refuted by a simple "I require nothing of the sort", and your duplicity and foolishness is exposed.

foundit66 · #8 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

This should help you to better see the issue of why we invaded.

And the source of this is WHAT???

You give no source for the graphic.
Furthermore, the fact that "WMDs" is completely missing from this poll puts the whole thing as suspect.
When was this information supposedly gathered in the first place?

Does your poll have any more validity (or REAL timeliness) than this one?
Poll: The Reason for Invading Iraq

forester814 · #9 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

I guess that makes me a fear monger too, by this definition.

I have a 10 year old daughter. I tell her not to talk to strangers. This preventive tactic seems a lot smarter to me than waiting for her to get in a car with a child molestor, and then telling her not to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

That is a perfect example of Fear Mongering!

Thanks for the contribution!

:

This makes every responsible parent, and (I suppose) every person who is concerned about the safety of any other person, a fear monger, a patently ridiculous use of the term.

Have you no concept of levels? Are you really trying to suggest that W's invasion and occupation of Iraq, your rants against the coming islamopocalypse, and me protecting my child are even close to being on the same level?

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I support the CURRENT LEGAL requirements in the system.

There was your error...

The recent FISA law not requiring wiretaps WAS legal...The legislative branch passed it AS LAW last year...

What happened was the Democrats put in in what's known as a "sunset" provision...That means the law has an expiration date...

Now WHY did they do that????...Did they think terrorism had an expiration date????...

Now the expiration date has come, so they need to revisit it (of course, they wouldn't have needed to if they just went and made the last one permanent)...

The Senate passed it (with a SUPERMAJORITY...Clinton & Obama were to afraid to vote, so they both abstained)...but (surprise!) the Democrats won't even let the bill come to a vote!!!

Here was the President's Radio Address this weekend...

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.

The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess.

Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don’t change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.

For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively — and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.

The Senate sent this bill to the House for its approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country — and our country is at greater risk as a result.

House leaders have no excuse for this failure. They knew all along that this deadline was approaching, because they set it themselves. My administration will take every step within our power to minimize the damage caused by the House’s irresponsible behavior. Yet it is still urgent that Congress act. The Senate has shown the way by approving a good, bipartisan bill. The House must pass that bill as soon as they return to Washington from their latest recess.

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.

So think "We think it's wrong" or "Congress thinks it's wrong" is a false statement...

The Senate had a supermajority vote passing it and reauthorizing WHAT WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED!!!!

It's the LEADERSHIP in the House that is BLOCKING it from coming to a full House vote...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/open-discussion/2199-how-fear-mongering-has-benefited-you.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	02-17-2008 08:47 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos

The Following User Says Thank You to forester814 For This Useful Post:
Yagmi

The Following User Says Thank You to Adept1 For This Useful Post:
bhkad

The Following User Says Thank You to bhkad For This Useful Post:
Adept1

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
Adept1