A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[Pogo]

So if a terrorist openly funds and endorses me for political office, what would you think of me? Seriously?

1. Doesn't affect my vote, TK. If I was voting for you before this, I'm still voting for you. After all you're not the one taking the action. I'm far more interested to know if you're funding a terrorist.



2. Possibly not, especially if some bloggo-wag wants to milk the event with innuendo and out the other. But that doesn't make it right. Any more than the robo-calls that South Carolina voters got, putting the idea in their heads that McCain "fathered a black child" was right. There is honest and there is dishonest.



3. No, it's a logical fallacy.

I'm sure there are any number of murderers, embezzlers, thieves, rapists, child molesters, con artists, jaywalkers and people who spit on the sidewalk, who also voted for McCain, or Romney, or Obama or whoever. Shall we go interview them and proceed to shun every candidate based on who votes for them?



4. Why does he need to?
That's the same question Mike Rowe asked the Shannonperson -- why do I need to shun or denounce Glenn Beck or Bill Maher?
They don't. They're the passive party in that relationship. You can shun Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Bill Maher based on their words and actions. You can't legitimately shun a third party just because the despised figure invited them to their studio or threw them some money.

Naturally people are going to assume you agree with a terrorist unless you make some effort to disprove that notion.

5. Not if they're thinking logically. What is it they say about the word assume... ?

1. See, that shows a fundamental flaw in the way people vote. This is blind loyalty, low information voting. Why would you run the risk of the voting for me if somehow my campaign was influenced by a known terrorist? What if I somehow was influenced by his ideals? Wouldn't you be afraid I may try to legalize these ideas? I wonder what ever happened to ethics in elections? Oh yeah, that went out the window a long time ago. Vote for your guy no matter what. How foolish. How sad.

There's the faulty premise: I haven't seen evidence that your campaign was influenced by this known terrorist. The fact that he gave you money or endorses you doesn't mean his goals are the same as yours or vice versa. That's too simplistic. It doesn't take into account (a) who your opponents are or (b) other factors completely unrelated to his terrorist agenda that he likes your position on. And (c) it doesn't mean that you will act on behalf of his agenda anyway. Big donors routinely hedge their bets by funding both parties, or really anyone who stands a chance of winning. It's not a guarantee; that part is up to you.

2. Okay. So you associate with a party and you take on their ideals. So therefore you say "I am Republican" or "I am Democrat." In the same way your affiliation carries with it some of the same (not all of them) ideals your party carries, so too can a man be influenced by the beliefs of his fellows.

I don't believe in parties but taking the last part: if you can take some but not all of the ideals of this party you joined, and if we define a party as a political vehicle you might use to advance the agenda you favor -- then why can't you take some, but not all of the ideals, or not any, from a donor or endorser? They after all are not a party organisation that's going to work with you.

3. No it isn't. It is relativism--moral relativism, rather. This goes right back to the beginning of our discussion, Pogo. You cannot for the life of you say "well it's okay for one guy to associate with a TV personality, but it's also okay for the other to affiliate with a terrorist." If anything, one kills brain cells while the other killed people. As much as you continue to deny it, it seems to me you are placing these two men on equal footing. You are suggesting that what is good for a TV personality is also good for a criminal. You can continue repeating that fallacy, but it makes it no more correct than before.

Actually I don't say that; I say if Person A associates with Person B, (a) that's their business, and more to the point, (b) it doesn't tell me anything about the one I'm not familiar with. Who the persons are individually, would be purely my subjective view. That doesn't mean I have a crystal ball to look in to see how they interact in a meeting at which I'm not present.

And by applying that to both combinations, that is the same rule being applied consistently -- it's not 'hypocrisy' at all as you were stating yesterday.

So I'm not suggesting what's "good for" a TV personality or a criminal or a street sweeper or a presidential candidate. I'm saying the bare fact of two people's associatoin --regardless who they are-- is not enough to form an analysis on. So it's not "moral relativism" because there is no moral question to be considered. We are talking strictly about the method of how legitimate analysis works. Who happens to be in it will change in every combination. Obviously an analysis method can't be a floating anchorless wispy thing that applies here and doesn't apply there. It's a rule, not a moth.

4. How was Bill Ayers a third party? Am I missing something here? Did he not serve as Obama's springboard 18 years ago? Anyway, one is again a TV personality, the other is a PRESIDENT. If you were the president, your life would be under a constant scrutiny for as long as you held office. And if you were caught palling around with an admitted terrorist, not only would he be tarnishing HIS reputation, but the influence his position holds among the people he governs. It is natural for people to delve into your past to gauge your integrity as a man.

The "third party" there refers to the "associatee", the figure being associate with that is assumed to be problematic. In the instant case of the OP, that's Glenn Beck, because he has no active role -- he's just the guy deemed a bad influence by Shannon K. Walsh. That's the same role Bill Ayers has -- the guy held as a bad influence. The associator is who we're concerned with -- and that's Mike Rowe or Barack Obama.

Your phrase "palling around" kind of sharpens the whole problem here (and shades of Sarah Palin, you really want to go that shallow?). "Palling around" is extremely vague. It indicates you really don't know what the relationship is if that's your best description.

Of course people want to delve into a candidate's past, and present. But the bald fact of somebody's appearing on Glenn Beck, or going to Wright's church, does not in itself tell you anything about that person.

5. "Qui tacet Consentit" or "silence implies consent." Or in more modern terms, "silence is golden."

Uh... right, OK.
Silence may be golden but doesn't necessarily mean consent. Not sure why you bring that up...?

I'm turning in early tonight -- lots of work and travel to catch up on. Have a good night my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's the faulty premise: I haven't seen evidence that your campaign was influenced by this known terrorist. The fact that he gave you money or endorses you doesn't mean his goals are the same as yours or vice versa. That's too simplistic. It doesn't take into account (a) who your opponents are or (b) other factors completely unrelated to his terrorist agenda that he likes your position on. And (c) it doesn't mean that you will act on behalf of his agenda anyway. Big donors routinely hedge their bets by funding both parties, or really anyone who stands a chance of winning. It's not a guarantee; that part is up to you.

Let me stop you right there. If he didn't share one or more goals with me, then why is he donating to my campaign? This is overly simplistic, in my honest opinion. It does mean he shares common ideals with me. Big donors take on the personalities of their leader. SEIU, AFL-CIO, GE and etc. in Obama's case. Koch Brothers and others for Romney/McCain and so on. So that is a misconception.

I don't believe in parties but taking the last part: if you can take some but not all of the ideals of this party you joined, and if we define a party as a political vehicle you might use to advance the agenda you favor -- then why can't you take some, but not all of the ideals, or not any, from a donor or endorser? They after all are not a party organization that's going to work with you.

Hmm, in order for someone to "work with you" you must share a common goal Pogo. In this case, Ayers donated time and money to Obama's political endeavors. So either they did share a common goal or they didn't. The bad thing here is that Ayers is a terrorist. We all yell and scream when Obama donates to Middle Eastern terrorists, wouldn't that seem to imply that he doesn't mind accepting support from or supporting terrorists?

Actually I don't say that; I say if Person A associates with Person B, (a) that's their business, and more to the point, (b) it doesn't tell me anything about the one I'm not familiar with. Who the persons are individually, would be purely my subjective view. That doesn't mean I have a crystal ball to look in to see how they interact in a meeting at which I'm not present.

And by applying that to both combinations, that is the same rule being applied consistently -- it's not 'hypocrisy' at all as you were stating yesterday.

So I'm not suggesting what's "good for" a TV personality or a criminal or a street sweeper or a presidential candidate. I'm saying the bare fact of two people's association --regardless who they are-- is not enough to form an analysis on. So it's not "moral relativism" because there is no moral question to be considered. We are talking strictly about the method of how legitimate analysis works. Who happens to be in it will change in every combination. Obviously an analysis method can't be a floating anchorless wispy thing that applies here and doesn't apply there. It's a rule, not a moth.

"If Person A associates with Person B then its (a) their business." First yes, it is my business, as Obama put it so succinctly, "Judge me by the people I surround myself with" he says. So I shall do just that. This is nothing but a scapegoat, a justification for why he is associating with him in the first place. Simple really. "(B) it doesn't tell me anything about the one I'm not familiar with." Well yes it does actually. Where I come from, I not only research the candidate, but his accomplices as well. I look down on those who willingly accept donations and endorsements from terrorists. Who else wouldn't?

It suggests hypocrisy when you simply dismiss this association with Ayers as innocuous, trying to defer guilt away from Obama, whilst saying it is okay for Mike Rowe to associate with Glenn Beck. Perhaps you are using this as a cover. Either it is, or it isn't okay for Obama to associate with a terrorist. It is either okay for one and bad for the other, okay for both or bad for both. I think you're wanting it both ways but it doesn't work that way. You are muddying the water here, Pogo. Remember Obama did say "judge me by those of whom I surround myself." Once again I shall. And that is what I have done.

The "third party" there refers to the "associatee", the figure being associate with that is assumed to be problematic. In the instant case of the OP, that's Glenn Beck, because he has no active role -- he's just the guy deemed a bad influence by Shannon K. Walsh. That's the same role Bill Ayers has -- the guy held as a bad influence. The associator is who we're concerned with -- and that's Mike Rowe or Barack Obama.

Your phrase "palling around" kind of sharpens the whole problem here (and shades of Sarah Palin, you really want to go that shallow?). "Palling around" is extremely vague. It indicates you really don't know what the relationship is if that's your best description.

Of course people want to delve into a candidate's past, and present. But the bald fact of somebody's appearing on Glenn Beck, or going to Wright's church, does not in itself tell you anything about that person.

I fail to see how your equating me or my comments to Sarah Palin has anything to do with this discussion, sir. It is a common colloquialism in my neck of the woods. My grammar and linguistic capabilities are not the things being debated here. You are drumming up assumptions now. I studied both men. I know their past together from what I've read. So to say I "don't know what the relationship is" is a flawed assertion. Even Ayers is aware of the connection, as he tries to downplay it. “Bernadine and I had hosted the initial fundraiser for Obama and uncharacteristically donated a little money to his campaign, we lived a few blocks apart and sat on a couple nonprofit boards together. So what? Who could have predicted it would blow up like this?” He says. Ironically, this association was brought up by ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Not by any Republicans.

Uh... right, OK.
Silence may be golden but doesn't necessarily mean consent. Not sure why you bring that up...?

Why? His silence on the matter when confronted about his relationship with Bill Ayers is quite telling. So 'qui tacet consentit'. He who remains silent implies consent. It makes me think he thinks the association holds enough weight for him to obfuscate or dodge any questions about it. He apparently holds the belief that associations do matter, and that any associations that cast a bad light on him should somehow be avoided.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The players in the two cases are not the same, certainly not. But it doesn't matter; the logic is the logic. It does not and can not depend on who you're talking about. If it does, then there are no rules; we have rhetorical anarchy, which means every argument ever made, no matter how specious, is equally (in)valid.

That can't work. Nodog is correct up there.

As pointed out before, you are not offering logic, only logical fallacy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The players in the two cases are not the same, certainly not. But it doesn't matter; the logic is the logic. It does not and can not depend on who you're talking about. If it does, then there are no rules; we have rhetorical anarchy, which means every argument ever made, no matter how specious, is equally (in)valid.

That can't work. Nodog is correct up there.

As pointed out before, you are not offering logic, only logical fallacy.

Rebuttal of the year. Brought me to tears

 

[Ernie S.]

Pogo has offered or discussed 3 situations here.
#1 Rowe/Beck
As TK so aptly put it, the worst that could happen is a few dead brain cells. We have one media personality associating with another. Neither has much of an impact on government policy and seeing Rowe also associated with Bill Maher, we have a wash here.

#2 unnamed subject/Charles Manson
Unsub may be a novelist, biographer or psychologist trying to understand the thought process that makes one a mass murderer.
OR, unsub may be a would-be mass murderer, himself that wants to emulate a mass murderer. We can only judge the effect of such a meeting by judging the character of the unsub.
Can we be positive that someone with a nefarious past would use information gleaned from a meeting of the minds with Manson to emulate him? Of course not, but logic should tell us to be suspicious. Their meeting could result in tragedy.

#3 Ayres/obama
A known terrorist and political activist arranges a fund raiser/coming out (politically) party for a left leaning political activist/would-be POTUS. Are we to be certain that obama was not influenced by Ayres, Dohrn and the rest of the people Ayres gathered in his home for the kick off of obama's political career?

Certain? No. Logically pretty damned sure? Of course!
We can argue fallacies and equivalences add infinitum, but the fact remains, in this case, it is far more likely that the guy visiting Manson was a would-be mass murderer.

 

[koshergrl]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

Can you cry louder the people in the balcony want to here you squeel

 

[koshergrl]

Brilliant rejoinder, dolt!

Please tell me what "squeel" means, you idiot?

 

[JoeNormal]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

So tell me again how 'upright moral compass' relates to Beck. The guy is a revisionist history, spin machine. If you can't see how that might be damaging to the well functioning of this country, I don't know what to say.

 

[koshergrl]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iplfWUtKMzI]Evan's Unique Broadcast - Bruce Almighty (6/9) Movie CLIP (2003) HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rebuttal of the year. Brought me to tears

He is using the fallacy of false equivalency - associating elements that are not similar.

Were you a tad brighter, you would have caught it the last 7 times it was explained.

But then, you're not a leftist because your the best and brightest, now are you?

 

[koshergrl]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

So tell me again how 'upright moral compass' relates to Beck. The guy is a revisionist history, spin machine. If you can't see how that might be damaging to the well functioning of this country, I don't know what to say.

And that's practically the same thing as being a terrorist!

Shut the fuck up, you piece of shit. In a way I'm looking forward to the collapse of society because when it happens, the losers like you will be the first to croak. Low intelligence, ultra arrogant crapheads who have zero reason to be smug but are anyway because they've been taught from the cradle that they are *special* just because they are who they are, and read what they read, and think what they think.

You will experience a serious head on with reality, when the structure that currently protects you, and which you are attempting to pull down with every ounce of your pathetic ability, goes away and you are left exposed to the elements, and the real world. You exist because people better than you protect your life...and for no other reason. You offer nothing to the world, you're incapable of getting along on your own, and you spit on the very infrastructure that sustains you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Rebuttal of the year. Brought me to tears

He is using the fallacy of false equivalency - associating elements that are not similar.

Were you a tad brighter, you would have caught it the last 7 times it was explained.

But then, you're not a leftist because your the best and brightest, now are you?

If you read my post no two things are exactly the same. So that is a weak ass dodge.

Most people know that when you compare two things you are comparing the similarities not the differences. What was that about being bright?

Either you don't know that, you are half a retard and really think that two things must be exactly alike i.e. nothing on earth or you are pretending.

Oh bright one

 

[Ernie S.]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

So tell me again how 'upright moral compass' relates to Beck. The guy is a revisionist history, spin machine. If you can't see how that might be damaging to the well functioning of this country, I don't know what to say.

No, the guy is a Conservative commentator. The fact that you disagree with him is irrelevant. Don't listen.
The fact that our POTUS is a revisionist history spin machine lying piece of shit is relevant to all of us. Whether or not I listen to him, I am affected by his policies.

 

[koshergrl]

Rebuttal of the year. Brought me to tears

He is using the fallacy of false equivalency - associating elements that are not similar.

Were you a tad brighter, you would have caught it the last 7 times it was explained.

But then, you're not a leftist because your the best and brightest, now are you?

If you read my post no two things are exactly the same. So that is a weak ass dodge.

Most people know that when you compare two things you are comparing the similarities not the differences. What was that about being bright?

Either you don't know that, you are half a retard and really think that two things must be exactly alike i.e. nothing on earth or you are pretending.

Oh bright one

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1o9ZWqCnKk]Bruce Almighty - Evan Baxter News Report - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeNormal]

The bottom line is that Rowe remains a stand-up guy who believes in America and Americans, and Ayers, Obama, CC and Pogo are anti-American pieces of shit who don't understand why terrorism and murder is considered *bad* while patriotism, a sound work ethic and an upright moral compass is considered *good*.

So tell me again how 'upright moral compass' relates to Beck. The guy is a revisionist history, spin machine. If you can't see how that might be damaging to the well functioning of this country, I don't know what to say.

And that's practically the same thing as being a terrorist!

Shut the fuck up, you piece of shit. In a way I'm looking forward to the collapse of society because when it happens, the losers like you will be the first to croak. Low intelligence, ultra arrogant crapheads who have zero reason to be smug but are anyway because they've been taught from the cradle that they are *special* just because they are who they are, and read what they read, and think what they think.

You will experience a serious head on with reality, when the structure that currently protects you, and which you are attempting to pull down with every ounce of your pathetic ability, goes away and you are left exposed to the elements, and the real world. You exist because people better than you protect your life...and for no other reason. You offer nothing to the world, you're incapable of getting along on your own, and you spit on the very infrastructure that sustains you.

You don't know anything about me except that I enjoy torturing ultra right wing morons. When the inevitable collapse occurs, engineers like me will be the people sought after to put the pieces back together. Maybe there'll be a market for people like you to sell oranges at freeway exits.

 

[koshergrl]

I know you're a leftist kook, who equates a philanthropist who uses the Beck show to advertise SCHOLARSHIPS for high school kids with a president who gets his ideas and support from terrorists.

That tells me more than enough about you, and I'm perfectly confident that every single word I wrote is the truth. As you know as well, hence your sulk.

 

[koshergrl]

Engineers like you, lol.....funneh. When I'm right (and I'm always right) I'm SOOOOO right:

"Many engineering students lack the necessary skills required to enter the corporate world. Societal pressure, inadequate infrastructure, poor quality of teachers and outdated syllabus are the major reasons for this.
Are our engineering students unemployable? Unable to get a job, textile engineering graduate Lakshmi Priya decided to do her own research on opportunities.

"The finding was devastating: her engineering degree was a mere rubber stamp. She lacked the skills required for a job in a relevant field. “One company asked me whether I knew how to mix dyes and had designer and garment manufacturer contacts. Since I had never worked in a garment firm before and did not have internship experience, I was at a loss,” she says. She is now preparing for her MBA entrance exam.

"Two MBA candidates of Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) secured -40 marks out of a maximum score of 400. The questions related to problem-solving, logical reasoning, language comprehension, general knowledge and data interpretation — life skills needed to enter the corporate world. If it is any consolation, 311 students scored zero. "

In fact, this article says the same thing I just said about you, but in different words:

" They cannot concentrate, do deep study and think well and constructively,” he adds.
Mr. Visveswaran, academic-turned-software-industry veteran, makes a list: lack of fundamentals, absence of strict evaluation, no proper mentoring, students opting for engineering because of societal pressure and finding no role models in colleges which are run by managements and not by principals/academics. “The whole eco system from teaching standards, exams and student mindset to parents contributes,” he says. "

http://www.thehindu.com/features/education/a-question-of-employability/article5009780.ece


"On the technical side, today’s engineering education seems stuck in the past. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/08/01/the-engineer-of-the-future/

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you read my post no two things are exactly the same. So that is a weak ass dodge.

No two apples are exactly the same, but comparing an apple and a monkey turd is still a fallacy.

Most people know that when you compare two things you are comparing the similarities not the differences. What was that about being bright?

The concept that association with Glenn Beck is the same as association with a known and admitted terrorist is comparing apples and monkey turds.

There is no validity - it is a logical fallacy.

Either you don't know that, you are half a retard and really think that two things must be exactly alike i.e. nothing on earth or you are pretending.

Oh bright one

You were defeated on page one, you simply lack the wits to grasp it.

 

[Ernie S.]

So tell me again how 'upright moral compass' relates to Beck. The guy is a revisionist history, spin machine. If you can't see how that might be damaging to the well functioning of this country, I don't know what to say.

And that's practically the same thing as being a terrorist!

Shut the fuck up, you piece of shit. In a way I'm looking forward to the collapse of society because when it happens, the losers like you will be the first to croak. Low intelligence, ultra arrogant crapheads who have zero reason to be smug but are anyway because they've been taught from the cradle that they are *special* just because they are who they are, and read what they read, and think what they think.

You will experience a serious head on with reality, when the structure that currently protects you, and which you are attempting to pull down with every ounce of your pathetic ability, goes away and you are left exposed to the elements, and the real world. You exist because people better than you protect your life...and for no other reason. You offer nothing to the world, you're incapable of getting along on your own, and you spit on the very infrastructure that sustains you.

You don't know anything about me except that I enjoy torturing ultra right wing morons. When the inevitable collapse occurs, engineers like me will be the people sought after to put the pieces back together. Maybe there'll be a market for people like you to sell oranges at freeway exits.

So you falling on your face is torture? I'll admit, I am a bit embarrassed for you, but I'll get over it.