Well done on creating your first podcast. I thought it was original and distinctive. I'll keenly looking forward to the next one.

Of course, 90% of the fun is going to be watching your more Liberal listeners counterstrike in the comments...
 

Hmm... you've got an interesting blog here adam

don't interpret this post as me defending adam. if you managed to listen to the end of his podcast, he sounded increadibly radical, like he's part of some religious/facist cult or something. He sounded like he wanted to nuke iran more for vengance than for practicality (except he seems to have forgotten that killing innocent civilians as revenge for the deaths of innocent civilians is inexplicably bad reasoning)

He is somewhat right about a few things though. I suppose it's easier to write in terms of hypothetical situations, since the facts are disputable (the implications of the facts anyway). Hypothetically, if a psychotic dictator was developing nukes, would any of you honestly be against some form of military action?
 

No adult civilian is "innocent." All who fail to actively resist our enemies are complicit in their actions.

We bombed enemy cities in the World Wars without second thought or regret - I think we ought to repeat that experience now.
 

We bombed enemy cities in the World Wars without second thought or regret - I think we ought to repeat that experience now.

First of all, this is simply not true, as any of the post-Dresden or Hiroshima literature will readily confirm - there has been plenty of agonising in the decades since. While bombing them probably was the right thing to do under those particular circumstances, you're utterly deluded if you think it was an easy decision with no regrets or second thoughts.

Secondly, when you say "we", I'm assuming you mean the Allies, but the action you propose - assuming the US is taking pre-emptive action - would actually be directly equivalent to the Nazis bombing London or Coventry.
 

Hypothetically, if a psychotic dictator was developing nukes, would any of you honestly be against some form of military action?

This is a red herring, though, since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a psychotic dictator, however much it suits Adam and his Republican friends to paint him as such. Believe it or not (and like it or not) he has significantly greater democratic legitimacy than Bush did from 2000-2004, and if the Iranian people decide to get rid of him, there are countless mechanisms to let them do so.

He's certainly playing with fire (at least as much for electoral advantage as anything else), but he knows full well that anything involving nuclear weapons that can be traced to an Iranian source would invite massive retaliation that would bring the country to its knees in a matter of days - and Iran would have far less ability to defend itself than the USSR did in the second half of the twentieth century.
 

Of course, 90% of the fun is going to be watching your more Liberal listeners counterstrike in the comments...

A friendly word of advice - a couple of years ago a person of somewhat right-wing views discovered Adam's blog and thought that he'd found an ideological soulmate, so started cheering him to the rafters.

Unfortunately, he did this before reading the blog in depth, and was later horrified - and embarrassed - to discover just what he'd been defending.

(Sadly, the blog on which he posted his admirably honest confession no longer exists, otherwised I'd link to it).

Opposition to Adam has nothing to do with any liberal-conservative divide - it's to do with sanity versus insanity. For proof over and above the evidence of the blog itself, one of his most persistent (and wittiest) critics was the notorious W J Phillips, who's about as far-right as they come.
 

WJ Phillips is a Buchanananite crypto-fascist, as I recall.
 

I see we have newcomers here who are unfamiliar with Adam's uniquely nuanced worldview and moral sensibilities.

Adam's views on the morality of force are almost elegant in their simplicity: Any use of force by the United States for any purpose is, by definition, above moral reproach. Any use of force against the interests of the United States* is an intolerable outrage, to which nuclear annihilation is a fully appropriate response.

*Note that Adam defines "force" in this context extremely broadly ("I don't really see any difference between acts of economic war and acts of actual war"--actual quote from a comment thread a few posts down), and also sees "the interests of the United States" and "the interests of the Republican party" as essentially synonymous.

I am not constructing a straw man or exaggerating Adam's views in the slightest. If the newbies doubt me, I recommend reading some of Adam's posts from 2004, when he was at the height of his powers--the presidential election year brought out the best in him, so to speak. Or just ask Adam yourself.
 

I am not constructing a straw man or exaggerating Adam's views in the slightest.

If anything, you're downplaying them, as you left out his visceral loathing of the Chinese and anyone even vaguely sympathetic towards homosexuality (this last is expressed so vehemently that many regular readers are convinced that he's trying to hide something).

Sadly, the true glory of this blog in 2004 no longer exists - the original Haloscan comments threads were one of the funniest things on the whole of the World Wide Web.

Adam got rid of them after they were linked to by Andrew Sullivan's blog immediately after the 2004 election, causing a massive surge in traffic in which 99% of commenters disagreed with him somewhat passionately over his belief that female Democrat activists should be turned into "comfort women" for the rampaging Republican hordes (their male counterparts would in turn be "curb-stomped"). After that, an unofficial mirror site attempted to keep the comments going, but they were never the same for some reason: most of the regulars had moved on to pastures new.

Things have improved slightly since then, but not to the same level of belly-laugh hilarity - mind you, Adam himself has been somewhat off the boil of late: his recent defence of genocide is just about the only bit of authentic Yoshida wingnuttery that I've seen recently.
 

Adam, I doubt most of those "guilty" civilians have the capability to actively resist the regimes they live in. Keep in mind that part of the population consists of women, children, elderly, and other unarmed, peacefull, people. They don't have a serious hope of resisting the regime they live in, but you'd still kill them indiscriminately? What if (hypothetically) a future canadian prime minister became a psychotic dictator... you'd have no problem with your home being bombed?

as for chimpanzee that, i used the hypothetical case because i knew someone would point out that the Iranian president isn't insane, as there's yet to be a credited psychological analysis of his sanity. Perhaps you are right though, he may be stable.

He's made statements that, at the very least, show him to be a loose cannon. He's repeatedly denied Isreal's right to exist. His government has been linked to suicide bombings. (google Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, as news, and you'll find scores of articles confirming this)

I'm not advocating Nuclear war, but something has to be done. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and nothing seems to be stopping them.
 

This podcast is, in turn, hilarious, insanse, chilling, but mostly funny. When he gets riled up, he gets winded. You fat tub of shit, you probably sweat when you eat.

Also, he is trying to invoke "Network," especially near the end, trying to get people to stand up and say something.

It's hard to stand up when you're laughing so hard, your spleen is bursting.
 

That was priceless, Adam!

It was satire, wasn't it?
 

Wow, podcast. You sound as fucking crazy as I figured you would. Rush Limbaugh impersonation?