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

[Pogo]

I'd appreciate an answer.

I thought I just did that.
The bolded red doesn't make sense as a question because I've said throughout that Mike Rowe (just because he's the example) is perfectly free to associate with Beck and that there is no rational basis to excoriate him for it. There is nothing to compare, because again, I'm talking about how the stage works and they're talking about who the actors are. Again, doesn't matter if the actors are Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan and Osama bin Laden with a side of Jesus sauce; the logic is the same.

NONE of these associations are inherently "horrific". I never implied any such thing.

I asked a simple enough question which you either can't or won't answer. OK So be it.

I'm happy to answer if it becomes a question.

Can anyone here make sense of Ernie's question?

 

[Pogo]

Your memory is so fucked you can't remember what happened yesterday?

By the way, if using bad words negates anything I say, how do you explain this?



This is why you are a douchebag. If you don't like being a douchbag, stop being one.

You are correct (stopped clock syndrome?) -- looking back I see you were here yesterday. Obviously it left a deep impression

"Pothead" was already explained, but it's interesting I can't call him Pothead while he's free to call me Pol Pot. Speaking of dem double standards.

I see you missed the point.

I don't care what you call him, calling him names does not make you a douchebag. What makes you a douchebag is calling other people names, and then complaining when someone calls you a name.

uh...yyyyyeah, ookaaay... Roll the tape:

By the way, if using bad words negates anything I say, how do you explain this?

Here we go. Sorry Pothead...

This is why you are a douchebag. If you don't like being a douchbag, stop being one.

"Bad words"? What's bad there-- "sorry"? "Go"? "We"? "Here"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought I just did that.
The bolded red doesn't make sense as a question because I've said throughout that Mike Rowe (just because he's the example) is perfectly free to associate with Beck and that there is no rational basis to excoriate him for it. There is nothing to compare, because again, I'm talking about how the stage works and they're talking about who the actors are. Again, doesn't matter if the actors are Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan and Osama bin Laden with a side of Jesus sauce; the logic is the same.

NONE of these associations are inherently "horrific". I never implied any such thing.

I asked a simple enough question which you either can't or won't answer. OK So be it.

I'm happy to answer if it becomes a question.

Can anyone here make sense of Ernie's question?

Everyone one who isn't you can.

 

[Uncensored2008]

uh...yyyyyeah, ookaaay... Roll the tape:

Ohh lookey, Pogo compared the association of a person with Glenn Beck to the association of a person with a known and admitted terrorist.

Can you say "false equivalency?"

I knew you could...

"Bad words"? What's bad there-- "sorry"? "Go"? "We"? "Here"?

I don't mind you calling me names, I get a chuckle out of it.

You attempting to appear intellectual is a gas, the best entertainment going....

 

[Pogo]

uh...yyyyyeah, ookaaay... Roll the tape:

Ohh lookey, Pogo compared the association of a person with Glenn Beck to the association of a person with a known and admitted terrorist.

Can you say "false equivalency?"

I knew you could...

"Bad words"? What's bad there-- "sorry"? "Go"? "We"? "Here"?

I don't mind you calling me names, I get a chuckle out of it.

I know you do and I 'splained that to them. You gotta crack a smile once in a while here.

Didn't you like the "E equals Un-C squared"? I made myself chuckle at that one...

You attempting to appear intellectual is a gas, the best entertainment going....

Not attempting to appear intellectual -- attempting to appear funny. And you just confirmed it worked.

The logic is the logic; I don't make the laws of logic, I just enforce 'em.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know you do and I 'splained that to them. You gotta crack a smile once in a while here.

Didn't you like the "E equals Un-C squared"? I made myself chuckle at that one...

Yeah, credit where due, that was pretty good.

Not attempting to appear intellectual -- attempting to appear funny. And you just confirmed it worked.

The logic is the logic; I don't make the laws of logic, I just enforce 'em.

Except that what you have provided is fallacy, not logic...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Pogo:

The Vulcans called. They want their logic back.

 

[Pogo]

Dear Pogo:

The Vulcans called. They want their logic back.

Fascinating.

Tell 'em we'll beam it right over as soon as you get your homework questions done.

Oh that reminds me-- the Borg called. They/it say/says yes, you can keep the costume for Hallowe'en.

 

[Darkwind]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

By attempting to kill other humans? A conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion and harms no one in and of itself.

You have a strange notion of virtue and questionable morality.

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't mind you calling me names, I get a chuckle out of it.

You attempting to appear intellectual is a gas, the best entertainment going....

The point is he cries when people call him names.

 

[Pogo]

By attempting to kill other humans? A conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion and harms no one in and of itself.

You have a strange notion of virtue and questionable morality.

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

Disclaimer: OK I made a point of not getting into the value judgements of Glenn Beck and Bill Ayers et al, but this is just too inviting so I'll take the tangent...

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points.

Actually you may want to check again...

>> Beck on air, 30 Sept '09: "Now they're worried about bombings taking place. Well, let me show you some new footage. A bombing did take place this past week in a town just north of Seattle called Everett. The only reason why I know this story is 'cause I was there. Radio station KRKO, their towers were blown up. When freedom of speech is being squelched, the left usually says, "That's fascist!" But in this case the left doesn't even call them anything!" <<

Just a few problems with this, starting with the fact that there wasn't any bombing. That "bomb" was planted by Beck, to make a political point. The towers were taken down by an excavator. No bomb at all. (source)

Second problem: his "freedom of speech" rant. Number one, the tower vandalism was apparently done out of environmental concerns for the RF energy being radiated into the area from newly-placed towers -- not for what the station carried on its airwaves (the tower destruction did not take it off the air). And number two, the station in question, KRKO-AM ... is a sports station.

So no bomb, no speech infringement. Did The Glenn Beck simply get a few details muddled from a story on the other end of the continent? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But KRKO is in Everett, Washington -- where Beck was born. Literally. And he was in the area that same week in a "homecoming" appearance. Indeed he mentions that he was there above, so ignorance is no excuse.

So you could say that Glenn Beck did set a "bomb" to score political points after all.

I just thought that was ironic considering Darkwind's wording there. Nice setup.

(/offtopic)

 

[BDBoop]

I don't mind you calling me names, I get a chuckle out of it.

You attempting to appear intellectual is a gas, the best entertainment going....

The point is he cries when people call him names.

I know TK does. Jesus, I've never seen a 'man' weep as hard as he does on a regular basis.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

Disclaimer: OK I made a point of not getting into the value judgements of Glenn Beck and Bill Ayers et al, but this is just too inviting so I'll take the tangent...

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points.

Actually you may want to check again...

>> Beck on air, 30 Sept '09: "Now they're worried about bombings taking place. Well, let me show you some new footage. A bombing did take place this past week in a town just north of Seattle called Everett. The only reason why I know this story is 'cause I was there. Radio station KRKO, their towers were blown up. When freedom of speech is being squelched, the left usually says, "That's fascist!" But in this case the left doesn't even call them anything!" <<

Just a few problems with this, starting with the fact that there wasn't any bombing. That "bomb" was planted by Beck, to make a political point. The towers were taken down by an excavator. No bomb at all. (source)

Second problem: his "freedom of speech" rant. Number one, the tower vandalism was apparently done out of environmental concerns for the RF energy being radiated into the area from newly-placed towers -- not for what the station carried on its airwaves (the tower destruction did not take it off the air). And number two, the station in question, KRKO-AM ... is a sports station.

So no bomb, no speech infringement. Did The Glenn Beck simply get a few details muddled from a story on the other end of the continent? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But KRKO is in Everett, Washington -- where Beck was born. Literally. And he was in the area that same week in a "homecoming" appearance. Indeed he mentions that he was there above, so ignorance is no excuse.

So you could say that Glenn Beck did set a "bomb" to score political points after all.

I just thought that was ironic considering Darkwind's wording there. Nice setup.

(/offtopic)

You get pinned down, and lie, what a surprise.

Beck did not plant a bomb. In fact, you haven't even provided evidence he mentioned a bomb.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't mind you calling me names, I get a chuckle out of it.

You attempting to appear intellectual is a gas, the best entertainment going....

The point is he cries when people call him names.

I know TK does. Jesus, I've never seen a 'man' weep as hard as he does on a regular basis.

Douches come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[Pogo]

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points. To set bombs and then detonate them is an attempt to kill. Issuing a warning somehow constitutes being absolved of the intent to kill? Like I said. Questionable morality at best.

As was mentioned earlier. The real cause of all that death was abandoning the mission and leaving millions to die in the aftermath.

As it stands right now, is the weather underground blowing up bombs against the government policies that are killing people today? I can assure you, Glenn Beck isn't.

Disclaimer: OK I made a point of not getting into the value judgements of Glenn Beck and Bill Ayers et al, but this is just too inviting so I'll take the tangent...

Last time I checked, Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points.

Actually you may want to check again...

>> Beck on air, 30 Sept '09: "Now they're worried about bombings taking place. Well, let me show you some new footage. A bombing did take place this past week in a town just north of Seattle called Everett. The only reason why I know this story is 'cause I was there. Radio station KRKO, their towers were blown up. When freedom of speech is being squelched, the left usually says, "That's fascist!" But in this case the left doesn't even call them anything!" <<

Just a few problems with this, starting with the fact that there wasn't any bombing. That "bomb" was planted by Beck, to make a political point. The towers were taken down by an excavator. No bomb at all. (source)

Second problem: his "freedom of speech" rant. Number one, the tower vandalism was apparently done out of environmental concerns for the RF energy being radiated into the area from newly-placed towers -- not for what the station carried on its airwaves (the tower destruction did not take it off the air). And number two, the station in question, KRKO-AM ... is a sports station.

So no bomb, no speech infringement. Did The Glenn Beck simply get a few details muddled from a story on the other end of the continent? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But KRKO is in Everett, Washington -- where Beck was born. Literally. And he was in the area that same week in a "homecoming" appearance. Indeed he mentions that he was there above, so ignorance is no excuse.

So you could say that Glenn Beck did set a "bomb" to score political points after all.

I just thought that was ironic considering Darkwind's wording there. Nice setup.

(/offtopic)

You get pinned down, and lie, what a surprise.

Beck did not plant a bomb. In fact, you haven't even provided evidence he mentioned a bomb.

It was a tangent, riffing on the opening of Darkwind's wording, not that important.

But the full transcript of the show is here.

Who's the liar now, beeeeyatch?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Disclaimer: OK I made a point of not getting into the value judgements of Glenn Beck and Bill Ayers et al, but this is just too inviting so I'll take the tangent...

Actually you may want to check again...

>> Beck on air, 30 Sept '09: "Now they're worried about bombings taking place. Well, let me show you some new footage. A bombing did take place this past week in a town just north of Seattle called Everett. The only reason why I know this story is 'cause I was there. Radio station KRKO, their towers were blown up. When freedom of speech is being squelched, the left usually says, "That's fascist!" But in this case the left doesn't even call them anything!" <<

Just a few problems with this, starting with the fact that there wasn't any bombing. That "bomb" was planted by Beck, to make a political point. The towers were taken down by an excavator. No bomb at all. (source)

Second problem: his "freedom of speech" rant. Number one, the tower vandalism was apparently done out of environmental concerns for the RF energy being radiated into the area from newly-placed towers -- not for what the station carried on its airwaves (the tower destruction did not take it off the air). And number two, the station in question, KRKO-AM ... is a sports station.

So no bomb, no speech infringement. Did The Glenn Beck simply get a few details muddled from a story on the other end of the continent? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But KRKO is in Everett, Washington -- where Beck was born. Literally. And he was in the area that same week in a "homecoming" appearance. Indeed he mentions that he was there above, so ignorance is no excuse.

So you could say that Glenn Beck did set a "bomb" to score political points after all.

I just thought that was ironic considering Darkwind's wording there. Nice setup.

(/offtopic)

You get pinned down, and lie, what a surprise.

Beck did not plant a bomb. In fact, you haven't even provided evidence he mentioned a bomb.

It was a tangent, riffing on the opening of Darkwind's wording, not that important.

But the full transcript of the show is here.

Who's the liar now, beeeeyatch?

That would be the guy that said Beck planted the bomb.

Wait, that was you.

 

[Pogo]

You get pinned down, and lie, what a surprise.

Beck did not plant a bomb. In fact, you haven't even provided evidence he mentioned a bomb.

It was a tangent, riffing on the opening of Darkwind's wording, not that important.

But the full transcript of the show is here.

Who's the liar now, beeeeyatch?

That would be the guy that said Beck planted the bomb.

Wait, that was you.

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Pogo:

The Vulcans called. They want their logic back.

Fascinating.

Tell 'em we'll beam it right over as soon as you get your homework questions done.

Oh that reminds me-- the Borg called. They/it say/says yes, you can keep the costume for Hallowe'en.

Lol. What homework questions were those? Keep your fantastical false equivalency crap to yourself. Even my younger brother knows your full of nonsense. He's 17, and he hates Glenn Beck and Barack Obama, as well as politics for that matter.

Cool! tell the Borg I appreciate the gift! I am Locutus of Borg!

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no "false equivalence" there because there is no equivalence stated there.
The statement doesn't say that A and B are "equivalent". The statement says that A and B are irrelevant. Do you not understand the difference?
That's what the words "Doesn't matter" means. Sheeeesh.

Once again, I'm not sure what these words are doing between the screen and your eyes, but an apple doesn't change to a banana just because you misidentify it.

See what you're doing with your head there? That's gotta hurt. I'm trying to get this thought in a ....kinder, gentler way. All you have to do is see the error of your misreads. Starting with what's sitting right above that banging head.

While you're ignoring that one, why not continue to ignore the last couple of questions... here they are again:


Question the First:

Here's TK's statement, oh-so-conveniently "left out" of Pothead's post:

You agree that Mike Rowe should be allowed to associate with Glenn Beck, but you get upset or launch into attack mode when people infer guilt on Barack Obama for associating with Bill Ayers.

Why is that?

(Why is that? Because they're the same thing, that's why. The word "but" has no logical function.)

Break it down:
Rowe can associate with Beck (- yes, because to say he can't is guilt by association)
but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with (Ayers) (- yes, because that is guilt by association).

(2) is the same thing as (1), stated backwards.

Your task: explain how those two are not expressions of the same idea. Because you called the coexistence of these two statements "hypocrisy". Explain.

Question the Second:

You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer?

That one's been sitting since yesterday and remains unmolested.

Question 1: You're okay with Mike Rowe associating with Glenn Beck, but on the other hand are getting upset that people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

The reason they have nothing to do with one another, is for one, Beck is not a convicted criminal, he has not participated in any acts of terrorism, nor has he done anything horribly reprehensible to his fellow Americans, he and Mike Rowe do not always see eye to eye and have come together despite those differences for a common cause.

Two, Ayers is a terrorist. He has made it known he was a terrorist and he has participated in acts of terrorism. He was the leader of the Weather Underground. He personally held a fundraiser for Obama to help him get his political career off the ground. They knew each other and had previously interacted with each other as I mentioned previously. Ayers personally endorsed Obama in 2008. Therefore, there has been ample chance for any of Ayers' ideas to rub off on Obama. This isn't inference of guilt by association, this is inference of guilt through Obama's actions of taking money and endorsements from a convicted terrorist!

Three, nobody is accusing Obama of being a terrorist himself, which I gather you think people are doing by supposedly making fallacious "guilt by association" arguments.

Question 2: Charles Manson didn't have a fundraiser with me in my own home that launched my political career. Answer your question?

I have repeatedly contrasted the differences here, Uncensored called you on your false equivalency argument as well. You have become overtly childish as this thread has gone on. You didn't like it when I got in your face about it either, you call people "beeeyotch" and "pothead," you have managed to hurl multiple insults in my direction, without ever addressing my original post. I can only take it you only came here to attack the messenger, not the message. You conjure up the false fantasy and expect me to answer it? It was nothing but a strawman, a red herring, a non sequitur, ad hominem, false equivalency and false dilemma arguments all rolled up into one.

 

[whitehall]

Proof that the world is upside down in the liberal mind when they consider a former T.V. personality and a voice on the radio to be a political enemy.