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

[Uncensored2008]

got proof he said that?

Most of the conservapedia links to their references don't work. Well except for the one to the wnd opinion piece......which is typical.

Here is their declaration.

pacifica radio/kpfa/uc berkeley library: Other social activist movements & activities social activism sound recording project: Anti-vietnam war protests, berkeley and san franciso: Weathermen - first communique, july 31, 1970

rofl

 

[Pogo]

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch. (For the record, it isn't).

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up this obscure figure Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain how that works to The Beck too.

That is not the point of the OP.

The point, for the intellectually challenged, is not that it is wrong to hold people responsible for their friends, it is that it is stupid beyond belief to think that going on a show run by a moonbat makes you a moonbat.

You just stated the same idea twice with the word "not" in between. But hey, at least they agree with me.

Everyone knows it's Win-dy....

 

[Ernie S.]

see what did I tell you its ok for beck to tell people to murder dems buts its not ok for some one else ...

to correct you ayers never ploted to murder anyone ... they plan to blow up statues from the government ... that's not planning to murder people ...its ass holes like you that listen to the likes of glenn beck deserves what they get

Wouldn't he have to actually tell people to murder dems before he is villified for doing so?

Can you please tell me how encouraging people to adopt Gandhi and MLK Jr's approach to politics is encouraging anyone to murder people?

And that's the problem here. You clearly don't know what Glenn Beck stands for and you are villifying him and Mike Rowe for working together to encourage people to work hard.

Tell me, should they be encouraging people to be lazy idle people instead?

lool if you want to be duped by a lying piece of shit that's fine you go girl me I sling as much shit right back at him ... if he ever come to my state Ill shout the lying piece of shit down ... so far only Obama was here and it was fantastic ...

But you didn't shout that lying piece of shit down, did you?

Look! I get it that you don't care for Mr. Beck. Good for you, but Ayres good/ Beck bad?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you. I should have been more specific. The quote about killing your parents and rich people was not published and is hearsay.

Yet I bolded the pertinent part....

No biggie - I just laugh at your antics.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Got proof he said that?

Most of the conservapedia links to their references don't work. Well except for the one to the WND opinion piece......which is typical.

Here is their Declaration.

Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library: Other Social Activist Movements & Activities Social Activism Sound Recording Project: Anti-Vietnam War Protests, Berkeley and San Franciso: Weathermen - First Communique, July 31, 1970

Check this out.

Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist - Bill Ayers

Thank you. I should have been more specific. The quote about killing your parents and rich people was not published and is hearsay.

No, it is a widely acknowledged quote he made during an interview in 2001.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives - In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - NYTimes.com

 

[Pogo]

Now you're being sarcastic. Hmm, you were the one who introduced the "guilt by association" fallacy here. Not me. Your do well in practicing contextomy. You continue to employ Fallacia oppositionis (fallacy of opposition).

I didn't introduce it. You did.

Read this reeeeeeaal slowly, TK:

Without the Guilt by Association fallacy, this thread does not exist.

Think about it.

Read this real closely,

Argumentum ad modicum does not an argument make.

Think about it.

And by the way, you did in post 24.

I see you skipped the "read" part.

What's with the Latin phrasebook? Arguentum ad modicum isn't even real. "Argument from too little"? Wtf is that?

There's just one fallacy we need concern ourselves with here, and it's the one you built this thread on. Once again, if Guilt by Association is not a fallacy, then this woman in your story is absolutely justified in calling for Mike Rowe's head. Which way you wanna go?

You painted yourself into a corner, TK. You either have to accept the fallacy as a fallacy, which allows your OP to survive AND renders the Ayers/Wright rhetoric fallacious as well... OR you're saying there are no rules, including the one that made your case in the first place.

Your move.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch. (For the record, it isn't).

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up this obscure figure Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain how that works to The Beck too.

That is not the point of the OP.

The point, for the intellectually challenged, is not that it is wrong to hold people responsible for their friends, it is that it is stupid beyond belief to think that going on a show run by a moonbat makes you a moonbat.

You just stated the same idea twice with the word "not" in between. But hey, at least they agree with me.

Everyone knows it's Win-dy....

Maybe, just mabe, you will learn something if you read the entire thing. I doubt it, but I have been wrong before. Feel free to make me wrong again and show that you are actually capable of thinking.

To boil it down to its essence, read these two paragraphs.

Point is, I didn't go on Real Time to endorse BM, and I didn't go on The Factor to endorse BO. I went on because millions of people watch those shows. I approached our liberal president for the same reason. Likewise, his conservative opponent. And I showed up on Sesame Street with the same agenda that I took to Congress.

Closing the skills gap is bigger than you or me or any particular venue, and Real Time gave me an opportunity to reach 5 million people. I'm grateful for that, and I'll do it again if they want me back.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...310182.-2207520000.1382896830.&type=3&theater

The man is being challenged for using different venues to promote something he believes in, not for hanging out with Glenn Beck and using his connections to raise funds for a political campaign. He believes in his project, and is willing to cross political lines because he thinks his cause is more important than politics.

You, on the other hand, think scoring points off people is more important than thinking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't introduce it. You did.

Read this reeeeeeaal slowly, TK:

Without the Guilt by Association fallacy, this thread does not exist.

Think about it.

Read this real closely,

Argumentum ad modicum does not an argument make.

Think about it.

And by the way, you did in post 24.

I see you skipped the "read" part.

What's with the Latin phrasebook? Arguentum ad modicum isn't even real. "Argument from too little"? Wtf is that?

There's just one fallacy we need concern ourselves with here, and it's the one you built this thread on. Once again, if Guilt by Association is not a fallacy, then this woman in your story is absolutely justified in calling for Mike Rowe's head. Which way you wanna go?

You painted yourself into a corner, TK. You either have to accept the fallacy as a fallacy, which allows your OP to survive AND renders the Ayers/Wright rhetoric fallacious as well... OR you're saying there are no rules, including the one that made your case in the first place.

Your move.

Stop invoking Danth's law hotshot. Argumentum ad modicum is literally translated as "argument to irrelevance". You're making an essentialist argument by insisting, "it is what it is and it will always be that way." Please. I have you pegged, Pogo. You did nothing to address my OP, you tried to nitpick it, along with applying your own version of spin to the subject.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love how liberals here are invoking their own tu quoque arguments... it's hilarious! It's as if they act like they don't do it either.

 

[Pogo]

Read this real closely,

Argumentum ad modicum does not an argument make.

Think about it.

And by the way, you did in post 24.

I see you skipped the "read" part.

What's with the Latin phrasebook? Arguentum ad modicum isn't even real. "Argument from too little"? Wtf is that?

There's just one fallacy we need concern ourselves with here, and it's the one you built this thread on. Once again, if Guilt by Association is not a fallacy, then this woman in your story is absolutely justified in calling for Mike Rowe's head. Which way you wanna go?

You painted yourself into a corner, TK. You either have to accept the fallacy as a fallacy, which allows your OP to survive AND renders the Ayers/Wright rhetoric fallacious as well... OR you're saying there are no rules, including the one that made your case in the first place.

Your move.

Stop invoking Danth's law hotshot. Argumentum ad modicum is literally translated as "argument to irrelevance". You're making an essentialist argument by insisting, "it is what it is and it will always be that way."

No, TK, no. Just because you're not willing to accept the reality doesn't mean that I made the reality up.

These are laws of logic. They're immutable. They were ancient when you were born and, if you can imagine this time span, they were ancient when I was born too.
I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em.

I already linked, explained and exampled this. Don't take my word for it -- read it
here
or here
or here
or here.

I didn't write any of those pages, yet they all agree.

As I said -- your move.

Hey, I'm trying to train you to be a good lawyer here. This is for your own good.
And free too

 

[TemplarKormac]

I see you skipped the "read" part.

What's with the Latin phrasebook? Arguentum ad modicum isn't even real. "Argument from too little"? Wtf is that?

There's just one fallacy we need concern ourselves with here, and it's the one you built this thread on. Once again, if Guilt by Association is not a fallacy, then this woman in your story is absolutely justified in calling for Mike Rowe's head. Which way you wanna go?

You painted yourself into a corner, TK. You either have to accept the fallacy as a fallacy, which allows your OP to survive AND renders the Ayers/Wright rhetoric fallacious as well... OR you're saying there are no rules, including the one that made your case in the first place.

Your move.

Stop invoking Danth's law hotshot. Argumentum ad modicum is literally translated as "argument to irrelevance". You're making an essentialist argument by insisting, "it is what it is and it will always be that way."

No, TK, no. Just because you're not willing to accept the reality doesn't mean that I made the reality up.

These are laws of logic. They're immutable. I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em.

I already linked, explained and exampled this. Don't take my word for it -- read it
here
or here
or here
or here.

I didn't write any of those pages, yet they all agree.

As I said -- your move.

Hey, I'm trying to train you to be a good lawyer here. This is for your own good.
And free too

So how does this equate to my thread exactly? Does continually labeling it a fallacy excuse you from addressing my point? Come on Pogo, we can argue fallacies till doomsday, but you never gave a real answer to my thread. Lets go wiseguy. The idea that you think you are some sort of "enforcer" is hilarious. Your argument died some time ago. It was a non sequitur as far as my thread is concerned.

Back on topic you go.

 

[Rozman]

Who?....

I guess the question is being asked about Mike Rowe a successful host of a TV show..
And someone who does a good amount of TV work in a national ad campaign for Ford motor company
a successful car maker....

That who...

Well I guess someone who is doing a great job and earning a nice living is to be made fun of.

 

[BlindBoo]

Check this out.

Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist - Bill Ayers

Thank you. I should have been more specific. The quote about killing your parents and rich people was not published and is hearsay.

No, it is a widely acknowledged quote he made during an interview in 2001.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives - In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - NYTimes.com

No it doesn't. That quote was mention by the author as widely attributed to him. He did not confirm it. In fact the time publish his rebuttal to that so called interview.

Clarifying the Facts? a letter to the New York Times, 9-15-2001 | Bill Ayers

"Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thank you. I should have been more specific. The quote about killing your parents and rich people was not published and is hearsay.

No, it is a widely acknowledged quote he made during an interview in 2001.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives - In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - NYTimes.com

No it doesn't. That quote was mention by the author as widely attributed to him. He did not confirm it. In fact the time publish his rebuttal to that so called interview.

Clarifying the Facts? a letter to the New York Times, 9-15-2001 | Bill Ayers

"Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war."

Sure, but Ayers later said he was "only joking" at the time. So right there he is acknowledging he made such a statement. Go away.

 

[Pogo]

Stop invoking Danth's law hotshot. Argumentum ad modicum is literally translated as "argument to irrelevance". You're making an essentialist argument by insisting, "it is what it is and it will always be that way."

No, TK, no. Just because you're not willing to accept the reality doesn't mean that I made the reality up.

These are laws of logic. They're immutable. I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em.

I already linked, explained and exampled this. Don't take my word for it -- read it
here
or here
or here
or here.

I didn't write any of those pages, yet they all agree.

As I said -- your move.

Hey, I'm trying to train you to be a good lawyer here. This is for your own good.
And free too

So how does this equate to my thread exactly? Does continually labeling it a fallacy excuse you from addressing my point? Come on Pogo, we can argue fallacies till doomsday, but you never gave a real answer to my thread. Lets go wiseguy. The idea that you think you are some sort of "enforcer" is hilarious. Your argument died some time ago. It was a non sequitur as far as my thread is concerned.

Back on topic you go.

I've been on topic the whole time, because as I said your OP depends on this rule of logic and cannot exist without it.

And the "answer" has been the same throughout. Let's run it in slo-mo:

Your OP poses this question, and you're absolutely right to pose it:
>> if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country? <<

We must infer that you view such dissociation as a negative. And I agree with you.

In the instant case Shannon K. Walsh comes to a conclusion about Mike Rowe based on his association with a person she finds abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No, it isn't. Rowe is correct to respond as he did.

In the other case offered here for comparison, you and some others came to a conclusion about Barack Obama based on his association with persons you find abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No it isnt.

Notice that not only are both answers the same, but that they must be the same. It is not possible to declare that logic applies in A while it does not apply in B. It cannot be invoked selectively, because it's about how you reached the conclusion, not who's a participant in it. That is what makes it a fallacy. There isn't some kind of magical threshold where Guilt By Association kicks in. To suggest that based on our own view of the participants would not only be ludicrous but subjective.

In other words it doesn't matter who Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers threatened, or if they ever did any misdeed at all. That's irrelevant.

Is this making sense?

Moreover, Mike Rowe himself, quoting from your OP, makes this point:
>> How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don&#8217;t disagree with? <<

Rowe is absolutely right.

Now apply that to Obama and Ayers/Wright...

Bingo. Now you're consistent.

 

[ron4342]

Given the politically derisive nature of our country right now, suddenly we have enough gumption to question who associates with who, or whether we agree with them. I mean come on folks, seriously? According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. But anyhow, if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

[The following is an excerpt from Mike Rowe's Facebook page (Rowe is the host of Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs)]

Shannon K. Walsh wrote, “Mike – How could you associate with such a horrible and psychotic person that is Glen[n] Beck? I wouldn’t accept a dime off that hateful, nasty racist. Very disappointed to see this post.”

Well, hi there, Shannon – and a pleasant good morning to you too!

If you want a detailed answer to your question, please take a moment to read my earlier reply to Bob Reidel, another crestfallen soul who couldn’t reconcile my association with a TV host that he personally despised. As you read it (out loud, if possible, and in a public place), kindly replace the words “Bob Reidel” with “Shannon K. Walsh,” and “Bill Maher” with “Glenn Beck.” But prepare yourself – you might be forced to conclude that my true objective here has little to do with winning or losing your approval.

As for your personal characterization of Glenn Beck, I can only assume you have information not available to me. In my time with him, I saw nothing “horrible, psychotic, hateful, or nasty.” I smelled no burning sulphur, no smoldering brimstone, and saw no sign of cloven hooves.

To the contrary, I found a very passionate guy who employs about 300 people, works his butt off, and puts his money where his mouth is. Do we agree on everything? Of course not. Am I “disappointed” by that fact? Not at all. The real question, Shannon, is … why are you?

To be clear, I’m not here to tell you what to think or whom to hate. Like everyone else, you’re free to pick your devils, choose your angels, and attach the horns and halos accordingly.

But the guts of your question – even without all the name-calling and acrimony – reveal the essence of what’s broken in our country. You want to know “how I can associate” with someone you don’t like? The short answer is, how can I not? How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

-Mike

Read more at A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded... | Independent Journal Review

What a person says and how they go about spreading their message are two completely different things. A perfect case in point would be bill o'reilly. A few years ago o'reilly was on a mission to condemn those who were for abortion. He even focused on an abortion doctor whom he called Tiller the Baby Killer. On air he told where Tiller lived. To some it would sound like a o'really was doing a wonderful service. To others it was a call for action. One of o'reilly's followers shot and killed Tiller in front of his family as he was coming out of church. o'reilly claimed that the 30 or 40 rants on his program had nothing to do with the crazy who killed Tiller. I see beck in the same light I see o'reilly.
As to Obama and ayres, to the best of my knowledge they attended some meeting where they happened to be in the same room. I also believe he was invited and accepted an invitation to a social gathering at ayres home. I was once invited and accepted to go to a luncheon at Wayne Newtons home. WAYNE AND I DO NOT PAL AROUND OR ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER. What Obama did IS NOT hanging around with someone despite the right's overwhelming desire to throw mud.
Rowe, on the other hand, does hang around with beck and even defends his actions. Whether it is fair or not, or weather it is accurate or not, a person is known by the company they keep. Rowe has a perfect right to hang around with whom ever we wishes. I have a perfect right to judge his behavior on who he hangs around with.
One final thought, beck is a distributor of hatred. More often than not his rants are designed to tear people and this country apart. I would have a difficult time respecting anyone who makes the choice to"pal" around with him.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it is a widely acknowledged quote he made during an interview in 2001.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives - In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - NYTimes.com

No it doesn't. That quote was mention by the author as widely attributed to him. He did not confirm it. In fact the time publish his rebuttal to that so called interview.

Clarifying the Facts? a letter to the New York Times, 9-15-2001 | Bill Ayers

"Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war."

Sure, but Ayers later said he was "only joking" at the time. So right there he is acknowledging he made such a statement. Go away.

The missing bits.....from the NYT interview. I guess you forgot this part?

"And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,"

No.

 

[Peterf]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

How can you not see the relevance? A guy who bloviates on air is exactly the same thing as a guy who builds bombs and kills cops. If Mike Rowe can hang out with some blowhard who says stuff, surely Obama can hang out with a guy who plots to kill other people. It's the same thing!

If I understand it correctly Rowe is a journo while Obama is the US president. Who the latter associates with is a matter of great public interest. But the former much less so.

So it's not 'the same thing'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a person says and how they go about spreading their message are two completely different things. A perfect case in point would be bill o'reilly. A few years ago o'reilly was on a mission to condemn those who were for abortion. He even focused on an abortion doctor whom he called Tiller the Baby Killer. On air he told where Tiller lived. To some it would sound like a o'really was doing a wonderful service. To others it was a call for action. One of o'reilly's followers shot and killed Tiller in front of his family as he was coming out of church. o'reilly claimed that the 30 or 40 rants on his program had nothing to do with the crazy who killed Tiller. I see beck in the same light I see o'reilly.
As to Obama and ayres, to the best of my knowledge they attended some meeting where they happened to be in the same room. I also believe he was invited and accepted an invitation to a social gathering at ayres home. I was once invited and accepted to go to a luncheon at Wayne Newtons home. WAYNE AND I DO NOT PAL AROUND OR ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER. What Obama did IS NOT hanging around with someone despite the right's overwhelming desire to throw mud.
Rowe, on the other hand, does hang around with beck and even defends his actions. Whether it is fair or not, or weather it is accurate or not, a person is known by the company they keep. Rowe has a perfect right to hang around with whom ever we wishes. I have a perfect right to judge his behavior on who he hangs around with.
One final thought, beck is a distributor of hatred. More often than not his rants are designed to tear people and this country apart. I would have a difficult time respecting anyone who makes the choice to"pal" around with him.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Wow - virtually none of what you posted was true.

Lying is such a big part of the identity of a leftist. You must be very proud of your utter lack of so much as a hint of integrity...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, TK, no. Just because you're not willing to accept the reality doesn't mean that I made the reality up.

These are laws of logic. They're immutable. I don't make the laws, I just enforce 'em.

I already linked, explained and exampled this. Don't take my word for it -- read it
here
or here
or here
or here.

I didn't write any of those pages, yet they all agree.

As I said -- your move.

Hey, I'm trying to train you to be a good lawyer here. This is for your own good.
And free too

So how does this equate to my thread exactly? Does continually labeling it a fallacy excuse you from addressing my point? Come on Pogo, we can argue fallacies till doomsday, but you never gave a real answer to my thread. Lets go wiseguy. The idea that you think you are some sort of "enforcer" is hilarious. Your argument died some time ago. It was a non sequitur as far as my thread is concerned.

Back on topic you go.

I've been on topic the whole time, because as I said your OP depends on this rule of logic and cannot exist without it.

And the "answer" has been the same throughout. Let's run it in slo-mo:

Your OP poses this question, and you're absolutely right to pose it:
>> if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country? <<

We must infer that you view such dissociation as a negative. And I agree with you.

In the instant case Shannon K. Walsh comes to a conclusion about Mike Rowe based on his association with a person she finds abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No, it isn't. Rowe is correct to respond as he did.

In the other case offered here for comparison, you and some others came to a conclusion about Barack Obama based on his association with persons you find abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No it isnt.

Notice that not only are both answers the same, but that they must be the same. It is not possible to declare that logic applies in A while it does not apply in B. It cannot be invoked selectively, because it's about how you reached the conclusion, not who's a participant in it. That is what makes it a fallacy. There isn't some kind of magical threshold where Guilt By Association kicks in. To suggest that based on our own view of the participants would not only be ludicrous but subjective.

In other words it doesn't matter who Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers threatened, or if they ever did any misdeed at all. That's irrelevant.

Is this making sense?

Moreover, Mike Rowe himself, quoting from your OP, makes this point:
>> How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don&#8217;t disagree with? <<

Rowe is absolutely right.

Now apply that to Obama and Ayers/Wright...

Bingo. Now you're consistent.

I did apply that to Ayers and Wright. Because the inherent hypocrisy here is, is that Obama can associate with a terrorist, but Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck. You have tried to explain why associating with a terrorist is not essentially a bad thing. My, oh my, how wrong you are.

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

THE ONE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE YOU IGNORE is that Beck is not a terrorist, he is a political commentator. So any associations he creates with others will not infer guilt of any kind. None.

Ayers is an avowed underground terrorist who has no regrets about what he did back in his hayday. You have a president who literally had his political career kickstarted this man. On top of that, Obama never explicitly rejected his endorsement for president.

Therefore, Pogo, any associations he as the President makes are subject to intense societal scrutiny, and in that regard would infer the guilt of sympathizing with a former terrorist on top of that. See the difference?

Yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance. Do some investigating. Educate yourself, don't lecture me about consistency until you can learn to debate me directly instead of launching strawmen at me.