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

[koshergrl]

If you want to slam Obama for his association with Rev. Wright, that's certainly your right. And if you want to slam Rowe for his association with Beck, that's your right too.

But don't try to whine about one and defend the other. It just identifies you as a hyper-partisan hypocrite.

Again with the false parallel.

Beck is not a terrorist. He has never voiced his desire to kill and maim the police, or to destroy the US.

Thus, they are not the same.

Meanwhile:

"But what was unique, he (Mike Rowe) said, was the caliber of Beck’s fans. He said he received 35,000 new friends on Facebook after posting the defense of Beck, and thousands of comments supporting the post.
“Your fans were just very, very cool,” Rowe said, adding that it allowed him once again to “have the conversation” about being able to speak with those you don’t always agree with.
“So if there’s a moral to the story, I guess it’s just ‘never shut up,’” Rowe concluded"

?Never Shut Up?: Mike Rowe Explains Why He Penned a Viral Open Letter to Beck Critic | TheBlaze.com

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nothing is the same as something else. That's an excuse not a defense

 

[koshergrl]

Stow it. Some things are the same. Some things are different. Reality is not relative, leftist loon.

Meanwhile, again:

About the Foundation « Profoundly Disconnected

"
“The idea of challenging kids today upsets a lot of people,” Rowe said. “I’ve already heard from guidance counselors who are saying, ‘Look, why can’t you just give them the money?’ This is $15,000-$20,000. We’re training people really for a year or two in a skilled trade. And they’re saying, ‘Why do they have to write the 500-word essay? Why do they have to make the video? Why do they have to sign the S.W.E.A.T. pledge…?’”
“People don’t like it,” Rowe said easily. “But look, if you don’t like it, this pile of free money [is] just probably not for you.”

 

[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)

"Some at the scene speculated that one tower was pulled over by an excavator, while the other was pushed down. By mid-morning, the excavator remained entangled in the wreckage of one of the towers, although investigators have yet to confirm that it was used in the vandalism.
A neighbor called 911 around 3:30 a.m. to report that someone appeared to be using a bulldozer, or other heavy equipment, to knock the radio towers over, Snohomish County sheriff's spokeswoman Rebecca Hover said.
The towers are in the 13400 block of Short School Road south of Snohomish. Deputies arrived to find a 349-foot tower and a 199-foot tower toppled. A police dog was used to try to track those responsible, but no suspects were caught, Hover said.
The deputies "found some other evidence at the scene," she said. "That's something that only the suspect or suspects would have information about.""

Sounds like it was probably a bomb.

Not that it matters. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the method of destruction.

Ecoterrorists claim toppling of KRKO radio towers | HeraldNet.com - Local news


Also, your contention that a bomb must be used to limit freedom of speech is ridiculous. Or, if your meaning was just that there was no bomb (which we certainly don't know, since it is acknowledged that some method was used aside from just pushing the tower over)...and that there was also no restriction of freedom of speech (sorry, all speech is protected, including sports announcements. Knocking down radio towers is the way fascists limit free communication).


BTW, my computer won't let me access your "source". So your "source" is apparently garbage that sets my firewall nuts.

I'm puzzled how you quoted my source if you can't access it -- it's simply a local newspaper website.

It was never my contention that a bomb must be used to squelch free speech -- it was Glenn Beck's contention that that's what happened. But there's no evidence of bombing and there's plenty of evidence of pulling and pushing, leaving aside the reports of locals who heard the machinery. There were pictures of the tower base where you can clearly see a base pulled and bent to a 90 degree angle.

Just buying the antenna alone is a five-figure investment, let alone putting it up, let alone two of them, so this would have set KKRO (and/or their insurance carrier) back a few pence.

The article also mentioned the vandals were "lucky" they weren't killed. I'd say more like miraculous -- unless the station was off the air at the time that's fifty thousand watts of tower in the air plus countless ground radials underfoot. If it was nighttime the directional array would have been active, meaning most or all of the towers would be live. Would have served them right too. You don't even want to be walking around live towers, let alone going after them with an earth mover.

Anyway the point was that Beck painted this act of vandalism as (a) a "bombing" and (b) a strike on free speech, even though (1) there was no evidence or suggestion of a bomb, and (2) pulling down two towers didn't take KRKO off the air anyway, and if it had, the only "free speech" that would have been affected would have been Seattle Mariners games and the like (and he's literally from that area, so he knows damn well what the station does). Moreover the local controversy over KRKO has been the radiation from newly placed towers, not the program content. So Beck misrepresented both the method and the motive, and did so for political gain. So when I see a post that says "Beck never set a bomb for political gain", it's impossible not to recall KRKO.

That doesn't mean Beck engaged in terrorism, which by definition is committing violence or destruction intended to intimidate or coerce the public with a political point. It does mean he used the emotional punch of fake terrorism to intimidate or coerce the public with a political point. I just find that irony... interesting.

(/offtopic)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would you accept an endorsement from Oliver North?

Are you calling Col. North a terrorist?

I know he fought against your Soviet allies in Nicaragua - but really...

 

[Pogo]

If you want to slam Obama for his association with Rev. Wright, that's certainly your right. And if you want to slam Rowe for his association with Beck, that's your right too.

But don't try to whine about one and defend the other. It just identifies you as a hyper-partisan hypocrite.

Again with the false parallel.

Beck is not a terrorist. He has never voiced his desire to kill and maim the police, or to destroy the US.

Thus, they are not the same.

Meanwhile:

"But what was unique, he (Mike Rowe) said, was the caliber of Beck’s fans. He said he received 35,000 new friends on Facebook after posting the defense of Beck, and thousands of comments supporting the post.
“Your fans were just very, very cool,” Rowe said, adding that it allowed him once again to “have the conversation” about being able to speak with those you don’t always agree with.
“So if there’s a moral to the story, I guess it’s just ‘never shut up,’” Rowe concluded"

?Never Shut Up?: Mike Rowe Explains Why He Penned a Viral Open Letter to Beck Critic | TheBlaze.com

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

I want to take back the time I just wasted reading your ridiculous and nonsensical post, aka "blathering with no meaning". You owe me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Stow it. Some things are the same. Some things are different. Reality is not relative, leftist loon.

Not even identical twins are identical. So that's a bullshit dodge to require 2 things to be the same in every way to compare them.

What most Ppl understand is that when you compare two things you are talking about the similarities. I think that's hard for you so you choose to ignore the entire point. Such is life

 

[koshergrl]

Shut the hell up.

God you relativists make me sick to my stomach.

Yes, you can compare things.

Yes, there are valid comparisons.

No, Rowe and fucking Ayers are not valid comparisons in this instance.

Just as it makes no sense whatever to say "If people are going to break the law, we must change the law to allow the illegal things they do to become LEGAL, thus reducing law breakage" is idiotic and asinine, so is your retarded ramblings about "Everything is different...and yet...the same".

Christ. Go back to school. Your brain has shriveled.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

Given historical norms, people wouldn't be voting for me then, would they?

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

This guilt by association argument is a cover for Obama's ties with an underground terrorist, who held a fundraiser for Obama's fledgling political career, and openly endorsed him for office.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

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

And to be blunt here, he never openly rejected Ayers' donations or endorsements.

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

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

Again. Rowe being interviewed by Beck is in no way comparable to the sponsorship of our president by a murderous terrorist, who admits to setting bombs, and regrets not doing more and killing more people.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Rove and Ayers both are and have been associated with political figures. You seem angry about thinking. Like the Hulk. You can compare them for that reason. I understand you want to make the rules sweetie but you don't and it is a valid comparison like you and the hulk. Both angry for no reason and you refuse to think.

You don't have to be green to make the comparison.

 

[koshergrl]

Who's talking about Rove?

Fucking nutter.

And Obama wasn't "associated with" political figures. He was running for the presidency.

Not *the same* as a television personality who has endorsed political candidates.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How do you let a "v" distract the hulk that way?

I didn't mention Obama, I said Ayers and Rove (I meant Rowe)

Hulk(you) is smashing himself. Hulk tired...need rest

 

[Pogo]

Rove and Ayers both are and have been associated with political figures. You seem angry about thinking. Like the Hulk. You can compare them for that reason. I understand you want to make the rules sweetie but you don't and it is a valid comparison like you and the hulk. Both angry for no reason and you refuse to think.

You don't have to be green to make the comparison.

Ah, CC did you get one of these too?

>> koshergrl has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

Hi, you have received -3795 reputation points from koshergrl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
What an asinine post.

Regards,
koshergrl

Note: This is an automated message.

That, along with

Shut the hell up.

-- is the crux of the question here. Some word-fascists just can't stand the thought of other people thinking outside the teeny weeny little box they live in. No different from trying to control Mike Rowe's walking in to Glenn Beck or Bill Maher.

Well guess what princess - ClosedCaption's right too, them's the rules of logic, like 'em or lump 'em. If you don't like it, go talk to Aristotle. Hey, if you can't convince Ari you can always neg him and run away like a coward. But you'll never squelch free speech, I can guarantee you that right here and now.

Here's the difference between you and class, KG, and TemplarKormac I hope you don't mind if I mention this...

After going round and round the last two days on this question, with TK taking the position you have, he and I repped each other -- positively . We didn't do it here since I haven't posted anything he agrees with and he hasn't posted anything I agree with, but we met in another thread and got it done. We respect that we each deserve our own opinion, we respect each other for making our case and at least attempting to see the other side. Bottom line, it's possible to hold your own view and still respect that other people have the same right You don't need to work yourself into a lather just because you don't get your way rhetorically. All you do with this continuous negging is dig yourself in a hole and look petulant.

Or to put it another way:
You're basically playing the role of Shannon K. Walsh to my Mike Rowe.

Nice play there.

 

[Pogo]

Who's talking about Rove?

Fucking nutter.

And Obama wasn't "associated with" political figures. He was running for the presidency.

Not *the same* as a television personality who has endorsed political candidates.

The people, and what they're doing, aren't the same. Clearly.

But the logic that applies to both associations is.

As I put it yesterday, we're talking about how the stage works and you keep barking about who the actors are. Doesn't matter who the actors are; the stage works the same way.

 

[koshergrl]

Word-fascists...lolol...more proof that you are incapable of organized thought or adhering to reality.

 

[koshergrl]

Who's talking about Rove?

Fucking nutter.

And Obama wasn't "associated with" political figures. He was running for the presidency.

Not *the same* as a television personality who has endorsed political candidates.

The people, and what they're doing, aren't the same. Clearly.

But the logic that applies to both associations is.

As I put it yesterday, we're talking about how the stage works and you keep barking about who the actors are. Doesn't matter who the actors are; the stage works the same way.

I know you think you're saying something REALLY intellectual and worthwhile...but...

Start at 32 secs:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nof2FYyIeVg]FINDING NEMO 3D Clip - 'Exit Buddy' - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJGeeryk0Eo]Finding Nemo( Dory speaking "whale") - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hulk like cartoons

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

Given historical norms, people wouldn't be voting for me then, would they?

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



3. No, it's a logical fallacy.

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

And to be blunt here, he never openly rejected Ayers' donations or endorsements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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