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

[Ernie S.]

OK I'm off to go trick or treating with the adopted grandkids.
Have fun, y'all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He's not just an *engineer*...

He's an *engineer* in *corporate America*....I think that makes him especially special.

I suspect he engineers tacos at Taco Bell, and that most of his posting takes place on his iphone as he's trudging the 4 blocks from his basement studio apartment to work his 3x weekly 4-hour shifts.

Which also explains the really long *breaks*.

I think those who design tacos for Taco Bell are more accurately termed "chemists."

A little styrene, a bit of proponol, some poly vinyl chloride....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't lump everyone I disagree with into the immoral camp. It's the fact that Glenn Beck has an inordinate influence over his audience and derives a substantial income from them by presenting disinformation that is damaging to the well functioning of this country that I believe is immoral.

Offer some evidence that Beck has more, or even as much, influence over his audience as Maddow or Matthews have over the mindless drones who watch them?

Really, your entire argument is that Beck is a conservative and you don't like conservatives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I develop algorithms with a statistical and perceptual component to them that I suppose allows me to see beyond black and white. As for being a leftist, I could only be considered that by someone who is ideologically so far to the right that nothing besides black and white thinking is possible.

The reality is dude, that you are so far left that even the center appear "radical right" to you.

So, you're a programmer. Reasonable - that's what I started out doing, and I still write a LOT of code. (C# mostly.)

I still don't see it very compatible with leftism. If I develop an application, I expect certain behaviors from it. Core logic is still basis of everything from queries to hardware polling.

But then, if you're doing statistical work, then fuzzy thinking and hallucinogenic results would be expected.

Statistics: the only "science" that is less scientific than psychology...

What do you call a programmer, an engineer, a doctor, and a statistician? Three scientists and a flake....

 

[JoeNormal]

I don't lump everyone I disagree with into the immoral camp. It's the fact that Glenn Beck has an inordinate influence over his audience and derives a substantial income from them by presenting disinformation that is damaging to the well functioning of this country that I believe is immoral.

Offer some evidence that Beck has more, or even as much, influence over his audience as Maddow or Matthews have over the mindless drones who watch them?

Really, your entire argument is that Beck is a conservative and you don't like conservatives.

I used to be a conservative much like you say you used to be a republican. I'm still a conservative when it comes to my finances... I suppose as I've become more aware of the forces that shape our world, I've seen the damage caused by the self-serving, short term thinking that conservatives seem to champion.

Beck, has had his day fortunately. As far as I'm concerned, he has no more influence than any other bit player in the conservative pantheon. That wasn't always the case though. As for Maddow and Matthews, admittedly, I don't watch them regularly but from what I HAVE seen, they haven't promoted the level of distortion that Beck was famous for.

 

[JoeNormal]

I develop algorithms with a statistical and perceptual component to them that I suppose allows me to see beyond black and white. As for being a leftist, I could only be considered that by someone who is ideologically so far to the right that nothing besides black and white thinking is possible.

The reality is dude, that you are so far left that even the center appear "radical right" to you.

So, you're a programmer. Reasonable - that's what I started out doing, and I still write a LOT of code. (C# mostly.)

I still don't see it very compatible with leftism. If I develop an application, I expect certain behaviors from it. Core logic is still basis of everything from queries to hardware polling.

But then, if you're doing statistical work, then fuzzy thinking and hallucinogenic results would be expected.

Statistics: the only "science" that is less scientific than psychology...

What do you call a programmer, an engineer, a doctor, and a statistician? Three scientists and a flake....

Well obviously, programs have to follow certain strict coding guidelines and have to actually work. I write DSP and certain aspects of it are very cut and dried. The cool stuff though is a little AIish and when you're trying to get a machine to process a signal in real time that has an infinite range of characteristics, you can't be too attached to preconceived notions of how best to do it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I used to be a conservative much like you say you used to be a republican. I'm still a conservative when it comes to my finances... I suppose as I've become more aware of the forces that shape our world, I've seen the damage caused by the self-serving, short term thinking that conservatives seem to champion.

Beck, has had his day fortunately. As far as I'm concerned, he has no more influence than any other bit player in the conservative pantheon. That wasn't always the case though. As for Maddow and Matthews, admittedly, I don't watch them regularly but from what I HAVE seen, they haven't promoted the level of distortion that Beck was famous for.

Ah, so "distortion" means views you oppose. Ultra-leftists like Maddow and Matthews preach what you already believe, so you accept it as truth...

What was that about "influencing the audience" again, sparky?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well obviously, programs have to follow certain strict coding guidelines and have to actually work. I write DSP and certain aspects of it are very cut and dried. The cool stuff though is a little AIish and when you're trying to get a machine to process a signal in real time that has an infinite range of characteristics, you can't be too attached to preconceived notions of how best to do it.

Damn..

All my bashing of statisticians... WASTED..

But whatyagonnado?

 

[JoeNormal]

I used to be a conservative much like you say you used to be a republican. I'm still a conservative when it comes to my finances... I suppose as I've become more aware of the forces that shape our world, I've seen the damage caused by the self-serving, short term thinking that conservatives seem to champion.

Beck, has had his day fortunately. As far as I'm concerned, he has no more influence than any other bit player in the conservative pantheon. That wasn't always the case though. As for Maddow and Matthews, admittedly, I don't watch them regularly but from what I HAVE seen, they haven't promoted the level of distortion that Beck was famous for.

Ah, so "distortion" means views you oppose. Ultra-leftists like Maddow and Matthews preach what you already believe, so you accept it as truth...

What was that about "influencing the audience" again, sparky?

You show me an example of a Maddow/Matthews lie on a par with the 'nazis were socialists' crap that Beck was spouting and I'll back up my claim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You show me an example of a Maddow/Matthews lie on a par with the 'nazis were socialists' crap that Beck was spouting and I'll back up my claim.

I've got to get out of here, but of course the Nazis were socialists.

Socialism is control of the means of production by the state. The Reich outright nationalized many industries and put Nazi Stooges in charge of the rest.

As for Madcow?

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2013/10/1...ddow-lies-can-you-count-about-veterans-march/

 

[JoeNormal]

You show me an example of a Maddow/Matthews lie on a par with the 'nazis were socialists' crap that Beck was spouting and I'll back up my claim.

I've got to get out of here, but of course the Nazis were socialists.

Socialism is control of the means of production by the state. The Reich outright nationalized many industries and put Nazi Stooges in charge of the rest.

As for Madcow?

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2013/10/1...ddow-lies-can-you-count-about-veterans-march/

Nazism falls under Fascism. Socialism does not.

List of political ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for your Maddow link, wow. No bias there.

Rachel Maddow, Castro (yup) Valley HS, 1990, before being captured by globalist/Marxofascist operatives planted inside the CIA and forced to watch endless hours of Gomer Pyle, USMC (well we hope it was nothing more disturbing)

Seeing how you picked the most right wing site you could, I guess I can just find some similarly left wing propaganda. And here I thought I was going to have to find a transcript of Beck's show and then explain differences in political ideology.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong.

"
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation."

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.
This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern."

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

 

[koshergrl]

"
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty."

"
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

 

[Pogo]

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?





"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.

I took a day off and won't attempt to catch up but just a coupla things.

I still have no explanation for how a consistent position is hypocrisy. Once again my point all along is that it is a fallacy to infer an idea from an association alone. Ernie seems to have stated that point a few posts after this, although it looks to me like he's trying to play both sides.

But here's an analogy: to be a Republican doesn't mean you have to be a racist, right? Indeed they have nothing to do with each other, and we both know plenty of Republicans who don't have a racist bone in their body and never did. Yet just because David Duke and Strom Thurmond and a few others were/are Republicans, we'll see some wags declare that "to be Republican means to be racist". And that doesn't follow. Because it's a fallacy. Does George Bush palling around with Strom Thurmond make Bush a racist?

THAT is what Guilt by Association is.

 

[Pogo]

"
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty."

"
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

Oh please.

This horse has been beaten dead multiple times. And you lost. Get the fuck over it.

 

[bripat9643]

"
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty."

"
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

Oh please.

This horse has been beaten dead multiple times. And you lost. Get the fuck over it.

You lost, dipshit, but I love the way you declare victory in the face of utter defeat. Denial is so entertaining.

 

[Pogo]

The avatar says it all.

 

[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.



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?





"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.



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.

I took a day off and won't attempt to catch up but just a coupla things.

I still have no explanation for how a consistent position is hypocrisy. Once again my point all along is that it is a fallacy to infer an idea from an association alone. Ernie seems to have stated that point a few posts after this, although it looks to me like he's trying to play both sides.

But here's an analogy: to be a Republican doesn't mean you have to be a racist, right? Indeed they have nothing to do with each other, and we both know plenty of Republicans who don't have a racist bone in their body and never did. Yet just because David Duke and Strom Thurmond and a few others were/are Republicans, we'll see some wags declare that "to be Republican means to be racist". And that doesn't follow. Because it's a fallacy. Does George Bush palling around with Strom Thurmond make Bush a racist?

THAT is what Guilt by Association is.

You're skirting the issue. I know what guilt by association is, but I have no need for it to be explained to me in verbatim. On top of everything else, that analogy is a red herring. Such an analogy would be a fallacy of division and is furthermore based on false equivalence. Since for the sake of this analogy and this debate, it's okay for Bush to associate with Thurmond even though he's a racist, Obama to associate with Bill Ayers although he's a terrorist, and Mike Rowe with Glenn Beck who is a controversial at best TV personality. What is good for Bush and Rowe should be also true for Obama in your argument. The hypocrisy here is that you try to level Obama's association with Ayers to that of a relationship with a TV personality, but you attack others for slamming Obama's association while also 'defending' Rowe's association with Beck. I smell something fishy.

However that is wrong. Other than being a staunch racist, Thurmond didn't commit acts of terrorism, nor did he break the law as he knew it; and as I recall, he died in 2003. All Bush did was wish him a happy 100th birthday and throw a celebration, which was rather innocuous. That being said, Thurmond never endorsed Bush for President, and endorsed Dole over HW in 1988. I would condemn the inference of racism in that case because there is no evidence to suggest such. The thing same goes for Glenn Beck and Mike Rowe. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Who on his own helped Obama's career off the ground. The fact he was accepting donations from this man shows he lacked the ability to temper his associations with unwieldy figures. You should never equate a terrorist with a racist nor a TV personality. Because all three share completely different ideas and worldviews. None of these are the same. The circumstances surrounding each are drastically different.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nazism falls under Fascism. Socialism does not.

Akin to stating that "Water falls under clear, liquid does not.

Pop quiz;

Prior to forming the Fascisti, Benito Mussolini was the head of which party?

1. The Reelect George W. Bush Party
2. The Italian Republican Party
3. The Italian Bolshevik Party
4. I Partied too much in grade school to have an answer

List of political ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for your Maddow link, wow. No bias there.

I didn't bother with the Wiki link. I've read Mussolini and am very familiar with the subject. You, other the other hand, are not.

Hitler had not grasp, nor appreciation of economics. The economy of the Reich was probably more pure as a socialist economy than the NEP riddled economy of Stalin. I'm amused at the one dimensional partisans who are determined to mold Nazism into a straw man that they can battle.

Hitler ran a totalitarian regime with a command economy where the means of production were 100% controlled by the central authority. The desperation of mindless partisans to portray such a system as anything but socialist is amusing.

And of course you dismiss lies by Madcow - lies in service of the party are a virtue...

Seeing how you picked the most right wing site you could, I guess I can just find some similarly left wing propaganda. And here I thought I was going to have to find a transcript of Beck's show and then explain differences in political ideology.

Just as you pick the most leftwing sites in your attacks on Beck - which is the point that you missed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh please.

This horse has been beaten dead multiple times. And you lost. Get the fuck over it.

Yes, and you revisionists have been utterly defeated. Nazism is socialist - always was - and leftist lies don't alter reality.