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

[Pogo]

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.

Sure it is. And there really are ten thousand people in the band 10,000 Maniacs.

This is a tangent, pothead. It's been tried, it failed, tried again, failed again, and if you want to rehash it yet again, go start a thread in the masochism forum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure it is. And there really are ten thousand people in the band 10,000 Maniacs.

This is a tangent, pothead. It's been tried, it failed, tried again, failed again, and if you want to rehash it yet again, go start a thread in the masochism forum.

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.


Facts on leftists are much like salt on slugs...

 

[Pogo]

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.



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.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

 

[Pogo]

Sure it is. And there really are ten thousand people in the band 10,000 Maniacs.

This is a tangent, pothead. It's been tried, it failed, tried again, failed again, and if you want to rehash it yet again, go start a thread in the masochism forum.

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.


Facts on leftists are much like salt on slugs...

Look, I understand you're desperate to turn this rig around but this ain't your 40 acres. Go start yet another Jonah Goldberg thread and try again since it didn't work the last time. We'll just go to the old ones and cut and paste. But it's not the topic here.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

To say that Nazism is Socialism is true in such a general way that the terms lose their meaning. It's like saying that Communism is Socialism. Even the term Socialism is pretty vague. Which type of Socialism do you think I subscribe to?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look, I understand you're desperate to turn this rig around but this ain't your 40 acres. Go start yet another Jonah Goldberg thread and try again since it didn't work the last time. We'll just go to the old ones and cut and paste. But it's not the topic here.

Flaccid try sparky.

Facts defeat you every time....

 

[BlindBoo]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

 

[Pogo]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

They're so good at the self-delusion thing. I've got one trying to tell me for over five hundred posts that logical fallacies work on some kind of sliding scale.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To say that Nazism is Socialis is true in such a general way that the terms lose their meaning.

As a leftist, you are driven by dogma rather than fact.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are controlled by the state.

Now read the statement of fact that I've already supplied you:

Hitler ran a totalitarian regime with a command economy where the means of production were 100% controlled by the central authority

Starting in the 1960's, the new left in academia decided to rewrite history and cast Hitler as a "capitalist." It was a "big lie" effort from the start, and gained considerable traction, despite the protestations of legitimate historians such as Shirer that such claims were ignorant and direct conflict with the facts. (Before you start, Shirer was a Roosevelt democrat, not a "right winger.")

What you claim is of course false, but more than that, it demonstrates a depth of ignorance that approaches open contempt for knowledge. This is the disease of partisans, the filtering and distortion of availible data to fit the dogma of the party.

Some Maoist apologists have tried to support the idiocy by claims that "well, there was private ownership under the Third Reich." There was private ownership under Stalin and the NEP as well. However, ownership under the Reich was limited to well connected looters who did the bidding of the state, exactly as it was under Lenin and Stalin. Outright ownership of the means of production is a disincentive, as Mussolini (who DID know and care about economics) pointed out. Better to "own the owners" as Benito put it.

The Reich was fully in control of the means of production - the definition of socialism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you - feel free to continue to spew your ignorant dogma, and I will continue to laugh at you.

It's like saying that Communism is Socialism. Even the term Socialism is pretty vague. Which type of Socialism do you think I subscribe to?

If you wish to debate Marx, I'll be more than happy to. I'm well versed in Das Kapital and have a fair exposure to the Manifesto.

I think you subscribe to the American left - which is based on ignorance and obedience to rulers. The vast majority of leftists lack any semblance of understanding of political or economic systems, as you demonstrate here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

You wear ignorance as a badge of honor. Your fellow leftists recognize you as one of their own by it.

 

[JoeNormal]

To say that Nazism is Socialis is true in such a general way that the terms lose their meaning.

As a leftist, you are driven by dogma rather than fact.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are controlled by the state.

Now read the statement of fact that I've already supplied you:

Hitler ran a totalitarian regime with a command economy where the means of production were 100% controlled by the central authority

Starting in the 1960's, the new left in academia decided to rewrite history and cast Hitler as a "capitalist." It was a "big lie" effort from the start, and gained considerable traction, despite the protestations of legitimate historians such as Shirer that such claims were ignorant and direct conflict with the facts. (Before you start, Shirer was a Roosevelt democrat, not a "right winger.")

What you claim is of course false, but more than that, it demonstrates a depth of ignorance that approaches open contempt for knowledge. This is the disease of partisans, the filtering and distortion of availible data to fit the dogma of the party.

Some Maoist apologists have tried to support the idiocy by claims that "well, there was private ownership under the Third Reich." There was private ownership under Stalin and the NEP as well. However, ownership under the Reich was limited to well connected looters who did the bidding of the state, exactly as it was under Lenin and Stalin. Outright ownership of the means of production is a disincentive, as Mussolini (who DID know and care about economics) pointed out. Better to "own the owners" and Benito put it.

The Reich was fully in control of the means of production - the definition of socialism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you - feel free to continue to spew your ignorant dogma, and I will continue to laugh at you.

It's like saying that Communism is Socialism. Even the term Socialism is pretty vague. Which type of Socialism do you think I subscribe to?

If you wish to debate Marx, I'll be more than happy to. I'm well versed in Das Kapital and have a fair exposure to the Manifesto.

I think you subscribe to the American left - which is based on ignorance and obedience to rulers. The vast majority of leftists lack any semblance of understanding of political or economic systems, as you demonstrate here.

Ok, I'll approach this from a different angle. Right wingers believe that Europeans are Socialists. Is that true?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok, I'll approach this from a different angle. Right wingers believe that Europeans are Socialists. Is that true?

You have employed the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

I have no responsibility for what "right wingers" believe, nor for your misrepresentation of the same.

As is the case with the United States, most European economies are mixed. Some are far more socialist than we, some are less so.

 

[JoeNormal]

Ok, I'll approach this from a different angle. Right wingers believe that Europeans are Socialists. Is that true?

You have employed the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

I have no responsibility for what "right wingers" believe, nor for your misrepresentation of the same.

As is the case with the United States, most European economies are mixed. Some are far more socialist than we, some are less so.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

Is Bill Ayres a "dick"?

You forget that Glen Beck and Mike Rowe are simply Media personalities. The fact that you disagree with Mr. Beck's politics doesn't make him a dick, a murderer, a bomber or a terrorist.
It is safe to assume that any influence Beck shared with Rowe will not result in Mr. Rowe killing cops, planting bombs or committing other acts or terrorism.
On the other hand, a known dick; a murderer, a bomber and a terrorist, gathered a group of like minded people in his home and solicited support for the launch of barack obama's political career.
Is it certain that Ayres influenced obama's politics? No. Of course not, but it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

Is Bill Ayres a "dick"?

You forget that Glen Beck and Mike Rowe are simply Media personalities. The fact that you disagree with Mr. Beck's politics doesn't make him a dick, a murderer, a bomber or a terrorist.
It is safe to assume that any influence Beck shared with Rowe will not result in Mr. Rowe killing cops, planting bombs or committing other acts or terrorism.
On the other hand, a known dick; a murderer, a bomber and a terrorist, gathered a group of like minded people in his home and solicited support for the launch of barack obama's political career.
Is it certain that Ayres influenced obama's politics? No. Of course not, but it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

I know we're trying to dance around it with words Ernie, but we're actually saying the same thing here.

Yes, you can draw that conclusion. But you can't do so logically.

(Doesn't matter who's a dick, that's just grasping for a generic example that will sink in. I also invoked Wilma Flintstone and Mother Theresa. The idea is the perceived character is irrelevant to the logic. Plus, it was an opportunity to invent the word undick.)

 

[Avatar4321]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

Yeah. Totally revisionist to call the National Socialists socialists.

 

[Ernie S.]

You can't following debate rules, but logically, you CAN draw that inference. A basic understanding of human nature demands you at least consider obama's guilt by association with such an evil character.

 

[Pogo]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

Yeah. Totally revisionist to call the National Socialists socialists.

It is, if you know anything about it.

Diga me- what kind of nuts are in Grape Nuts?
What part of Nashville were the Nashville Teens from?
How come if you buy what we call Russian Dressing in France it's called "Sauce Americain"?
More to this point-- how democratic is the Democratic Republic of Korea?

(/offtopic)

 

[koshergrl]

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It - Forbes

 

[JoeNormal]

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It - Forbes

The article doesn't say what the title says. If anything, the article asks the question, does America want European Socialism? Anyone who's been there would probably answer yes. The most common reaction for people who return to the US from a trip to Europe is depression. It's so comparatively nice.

Top 20 Happiest Countries in The World : Discovery News

The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes