What if?

[Modbert]

BBD, you didn't really think folks from the left would actually answer this, did you? This type of question has been posed here before and the answers are always the same. . . those guys tell the truth? Yeah, right blah, blah, blah. They simply cannot get beyond bashing the messenger. Even if you presented the question as 'suppose this information was coming from Diane Sawyer . . . what would your reaction be then', they'd still duck and dodge and say 'well, she'd never say that . . . .'

ETA: note the responses so far

You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you? Because if so, it would be difficult for me to not sit there and just laugh.

Edit: Rush Limbaugh just stated last month that Second Hand Smoke does not kill you.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911020033

Now, if everyone believed him over science, plenty of people now and in the future would be dead or be affected negatively medically.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

 

[Big Black Dog]

But what if they were telling the truth and laying out the real facts. Just for the sake of conversation, what would you say then?

What exactly are you trying to justify with this "what if" situation?

Not trying to justify anything. Just wondering what the reaction would be from folks if these people were proven to be truthful. I think it's funny that so many people won't even consider the possibility. Too much tunnel vision.

 

[Modbert]

Not trying to justify anything. Just wondering what the reaction would be from folks if these people were proven to be truthful. I think it's funny that so many people won't even consider the possibility. Too much tunnel vision.

Except the irony of the situation is you fail to see the tunnel vision of believing Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc on everything. That would be like someone believing the President may they be Bush or Obama on everything. The mere ignorance is laughable.

What I think you're trying to do in this situation is say these guys are always truthful without coming out and saying it directly. And it's not even a possibility because Beck, Rush, etc are not only humans but they're in the media. And the last person in the media who was close or was a honest human being 100% of the time was "Uncle Walter."

 

[Murf76]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

What I'm talking about is the Lockean philosophy on natural law... "unalienable right"s, 'men overthrowing abusive rulers'... because that's human nature. We have the right to free speech because we're human and able to talk. We have the right to our property because we're human, thus we can produce it and protect it. We will overthrow tyrannous rulers because we're human and it's our nature to live freely.

Human animals are social creatures too though, who at our base level will naturally gang together for protection and security. That too, is natural. The strong will rise above the weak, as cream to the top of the bucket. And we will look to the strongest to provide the protection and security we seek. But... I still maintain that the U.S. Constitution harnesses the best in our nature and thwarts the worst, and that it was deliberately designed to do so. Because it insists that we share the power from the bottom up rather than the top down and sets limits on central power, thwarting even the strongest of authoritarians who might rise to the top of our "cream bucket".

Think about it. It doesn't matter how rich a man is, or how influential, he can't just TAKE government office. Together, WE decide if he's worthy or not. The best a corrupt politician can hope for is to keep us fooled about his nature. He can't MAKE us elect him.

The Constitution also serves us as a referee in our disputes. We will gang together and divide into "clans" in order to achieve certain goals. That too, is human nature. But the Constitution is the arbiter which keeps us from destroying one another and allows us to remain essentially undivided even as we split into "teams" on the issues of the day.

It's imperative that it stand. Otherwise, there is NOTHING to keep us from one another's actual throats.
Reason exists in higher thought. And as human animals, we can't always count on achieving reason. We need a proper referee, common ground to bind us as a whole. And we have it.... IF we don't throw it away.

It's the depredations already laid upon our contract with government which have so polarized us. On any issue of the day, we had a final arbiter if we disagreed. We had a glue to bind us together. And we didn't have to rely upon FORCE to make the other the other guy do it our way. A third party, in the form of the Law, had the final say in any dispute. We'd get our way if we were right, and not if we were wrong.

But not just any Law will do. An arbitrary law, which hasn't been previously agreed to and embraced by all parties involved... is just another expression of FORCE and will be naturally met with opposing FORCE. Arbitrary Law is Tyranny. It is outside the framework of our agreement... not a contract.

Our framers knew all this. They were, for the most part, well educated men, studied in Philosophy and History. They weren't distracted by American Idol, Sunday Night Football, or online porn. And what they provided to us has resulted, so far, in the greatest nation to ever grace the planet in that our standard of living is the envy of the world and of history.

So... should we take Thomas Jefferson's word on what's the Constitution means?... James Madison's?... or should we believe whatever Nancy "Are You Serious" Pelosi tells us to?

I don't think we have to dwell on the question long.

You know.. it's okay to be a liberal, and it's okay to be a conservative. We can have those differing viewpoints and still exist as a people. But we can't force positions either liberal or conservative outside the constitutional framework without tearing apart the whole.

 

[Zoom-boing]

BBD, you didn't really think folks from the left would actually answer this, did you? This type of question has been posed here before and the answers are always the same. . . those guys tell the truth? Yeah, right blah, blah, blah. They simply cannot get beyond bashing the messenger. Even if you presented the question as 'suppose this information was coming from Diane Sawyer . . . what would your reaction be then', they'd still duck and dodge and say 'well, she'd never say that . . . .'

ETA: note the responses so far

You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you? Because if so, it would be difficult for me to not sit there and just laugh.

Edit: Rush Limbaugh just stated last month that Second Hand Smoke does not kill you.

Dr. Limbaugh: There is "hysteria" about H1N1, secondhand smoke -- which "does not kill you" | Media Matters for America

Now, if everyone believed him over science, plenty of people now and in the future would be dead or be affected negatively medically.

BBD asked a 'what if' question and no one has answered him they just bashed the messengers, you included. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Modbert]

BBD asked a 'what if' question and no one has answered him they just bashed the messengers, you included. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm not bashing the messengers, I bashed the theory that Rush believed that second hand smoke doesn't kill.

It's like I said in a previous post, to expect anyone in the media (especially in the political spectrum) to be completely honest without any sort of spin, or biased is ignorant.

Sorry if I don't choose to be ignorant by believing that these political commentators could be honest when it's not in their best interest to be so. If you don't have a selective memory, you might recall Glenn Beck for example believing that the Bailouts and Health Care Reform are good ideas.

 

[Zoom-boing]

BBD asked a 'what if' question and no one has answered him they just bashed the messengers, you included. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm not bashing the messengers, I bashed the theory that Rush believed that second hand smoke doesn't kill.

It's like I said in a previous post, to expect anyone in the media (especially in the political spectrum) to be completely honest without any sort of spin, or biased is ignorant.

Sorry if I don't choose to be ignorant by believing that these political commentators could be honest when it's not in their best interest to be so. If you don't have a selective memory, you might recall Glenn Beck for example believing that the Bailouts and Health Care Reform are good ideas.

Sure you did. "You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you?"

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

 

[Modbert]

Sure you did. "You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you?"

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I did say that, because the same holds true for anyone really in the media today. If their lips are moving, they are biased. However, Savage is a hate monger, Hannity is a liar as I just made a thread about, Beck has no true values as previously mentioned, and Rush is Rush.

I'm not attacking the messenger, because that would mean I don't address their points. I address them constantly. This thread is about the messenger, therefore I'm addressing the messenger.

As for BBD suppose question, the answer is obvious. This is just a excuse to say "Well they're all right and you're just being ignorant by not believing every thing they say."

There's three sides to every story: The left side, the right side, and the truth.

 

[Oldandtired]

Sure you did. "You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you?"

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I did say that, because the same holds true for anyone really in the media today. If their lips are moving, they are biased. However, Savage is a hate monger, Hannity is a liar as I just made a thread about, Beck has no true values as previously mentioned, and Rush is Rush.

I'm not attacking the messenger, because that would mean I don't address their points. I address them constantly. This thread is about the messenger, therefore I'm addressing the messenger.

As for BBD suppose question, the answer is obvious. This is just a excuse to say "Well they're all right and you're just being ignorant by not believing every thing they say."

There's three sides to every story: The left side, the right side, and the truth.

Actrually, Most such as myself do not autopmatically believe anything a TV personality says.....But many of the things they say open the door to debate...and that allows me to make an educated decision as what to believe and notbelieve.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any concrete opposition to what Beck has been saying. All I keep hearing is people saying he is a loon....but I have yet to hear the other side of his accusations. Did Van jones NOT call himself a communist? I read it...in his own words....DId Anita Dunn NOT say that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers? She did. I heard her say it.

So until I hear WHY they were chosen to assist the Presoident BY the President, what choice do I have? Ignore these things? Is that healthy?

 

[MaggieMae]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

What I'm talking about is the Lockean philosophy on natural law... "unalienable right"s, 'men overthrowing abusive rulers'... because that's human nature. We have the right to free speech because we're human and able to talk. We have the right to our property because we're human, thus we can produce it and protect it. We will overthrow tyrannous rulers because we're human and it's our nature to live freely.

Human animals are social creatures too though, who at our base level will naturally gang together for protection and security. That too, is natural. The strong will rise above the weak, as cream to the top of the bucket. And we will look to the strongest to provide the protection and security we seek. But... I still maintain that the U.S. Constitution harnesses the best in our nature and thwarts the worst, and that it was deliberately designed to do so. Because it insists that we share the power from the bottom up rather than the top down and sets limits on central power, thwarting even the strongest of authoritarians who might rise to the top of our "cream bucket".

Think about it. It doesn't matter how rich a man is, or how influential, he can't just TAKE government office. Together, WE decide if he's worthy or not. The best a corrupt politician can hope for is to keep us fooled about his nature. He can't MAKE us elect him.

The Constitution also serves us as a referee in our disputes. We will gang together and divide into "clans" in order to achieve certain goals. That too, is human nature. But the Constitution is the arbiter which keeps us from destroying one another and allows us to remain essentially undivided even as we split into "teams" on the issues of the day.

It's imperative that it stand. Otherwise, there is NOTHING to keep us from one another's actual throats.
Reason exists in higher thought. And as human animals, we can't always count on achieving reason. We need a proper referee, common ground to bind us as a whole. And we have it.... IF we don't throw it away.

It's the depredations already laid upon our contract with government which have so polarized us. On any issue of the day, we had a final arbiter if we disagreed. We had a glue to bind us together. And we didn't have to rely upon FORCE to make the other the other guy do it our way. A third party, in the form of the Law, had the final say in any dispute. We'd get our way if we were right, and not if we were wrong.

But not just any Law will do. An arbitrary law, which hasn't been previously agreed to and embraced by all parties involved... is just another expression of FORCE and will be naturally met with opposing FORCE. Arbitrary Law is Tyranny. It is outside the framework of our agreement... not a contract.

Our framers knew all this. They were, for the most part, well educated men, studied in Philosophy and History. They weren't distracted by American Idol, Sunday Night Football, or online porn. And what they provided to us has resulted, so far, in the greatest nation to ever grace the planet in that our standard of living is the envy of the world and of history.

So... should we take Thomas Jefferson's word on what's the Constitution means?... James Madison's?... or should we believe whatever Nancy "Are You Serious" Pelosi tells us to?

I don't think we have to dwell on the question long.

You know.. it's okay to be a liberal, and it's okay to be a conservative. We can have those differing viewpoints and still exist as a people. But we can't force positions either liberal or conservative outside the constitutional framework without tearing apart the whole.

Wonderful post. It's so refreshing to see clear thinking for a change.

 

[MaggieMae]

BBD, you didn't really think folks from the left would actually answer this, did you? This type of question has been posed here before and the answers are always the same. . . those guys tell the truth? Yeah, right blah, blah, blah. They simply cannot get beyond bashing the messenger. Even if you presented the question as 'suppose this information was coming from Diane Sawyer . . . what would your reaction be then', they'd still duck and dodge and say 'well, she'd never say that . . . .'

ETA: note the responses so far

You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you? Because if so, it would be difficult for me to not sit there and just laugh.

Edit: Rush Limbaugh just stated last month that Second Hand Smoke does not kill you.

Dr. Limbaugh: There is "hysteria" about H1N1, secondhand smoke -- which "does not kill you" | Media Matters for America

Now, if everyone believed him over science, plenty of people now and in the future would be dead or be affected negatively medically.

BBD asked a 'what if' question and no one has answered him they just bashed the messengers, you included. Thanks for proving my point.

Okay, to answer the "what if" question, if those right-wing commentators had irrefutable evidence that everything they've been saying is in fact true, I would send each of them a bouquet of roses, together with a personalized locked whine box with my name engraved on it, and a card with my humble apologies for ever doubting them.

Now seriously, doesn't that sound silly knowing what we know about their respective agendas?

 

[MaggieMae]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

Good Lord, where did you find that interpretation?

 

[MaggieMae]

Sure you did. "You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you?"

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I did say that, because the same holds true for anyone really in the media today. If their lips are moving, they are biased. However, Savage is a hate monger, Hannity is a liar as I just made a thread about, Beck has no true values as previously mentioned, and Rush is Rush.

I'm not attacking the messenger, because that would mean I don't address their points. I address them constantly. This thread is about the messenger, therefore I'm addressing the messenger.

As for BBD suppose question, the answer is obvious. This is just a excuse to say "Well they're all right and you're just being ignorant by not believing every thing they say."

There's three sides to every story: The left side, the right side, and the truth.

Actrually, Most such as myself do not autopmatically believe anything a TV personality says.....But many of the things they say open the door to debate...and that allows me to make an educated decision as what to believe and notbelieve.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any concrete opposition to what Beck has been saying. All I keep hearing is people saying he is a loon....but I have yet to hear the other side of his accusations. Did Van jones NOT call himself a communist? I read it...in his own words....DId Anita Dunn NOT say that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers? She did. I heard her say it.

So until I hear WHY they were chosen to assist the Presoident BY the President, what choice do I have? Ignore these things? Is that healthy?

May I suggest you visit YouTube.com and pull up all the Glenn Beck videos, listen to his rants, then get back to us.

Yes, Glenn Beck was right in saying that Van Jones once called himself a Communist. But then Beck took it to one level after another and before he was finished, had Jones running ramrod over Obama and dictating policy, Stalinism redux in America. THAT'S his problem.

 

[slackjawed]

You disagree with his opinion that her book was the best on policy he ever read. That is as much your right as it is his to express his opinion.
I don't listen to rush, but I have heard him several times. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he said this during a 'commercial". He plugs everything on his show, after all he is a PERFORMER and must answer to his sponsors. If his sponsors tell him to sell books, he sells books, and says what he needs to to do so.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that an allegedly educated, well-read, intelligent, political talk show host such as Rush Limbaugh has found THE best book on policy in Sarah Palin's picture book!?!?!

WoW!!

On top of that, are you saying that you promote outright LIES just to sell a book and/or placate the sponsors?

Considering you are a Right-Winger, I can understand why you hold that position.

Observing what is happening and promoting it are two different things. Rush is an entertasiner, the more controversy he make the more money he makes. That's pretty much all he cares about IMHO.
Since your a leftwingloon I guess that doesn't make sense to you. The leftwingloons
Thanks for proving the tactics that i posted prior to the post you commented on in this thread. It's much easier to attack someone on a point that you make up yourself than to actually debate.
ignore list for you, thats what i have to say to you and everyone else that prove themselves to be such loons that I simply don't care what they have to say. that's you, I don't care what you have to say and simply put-won't have to look at what you post anylonger......loon
We really need to fix our schools so we stop turning out uneducated fools like you.
bye now

 

[Zoom-boing]

Sure you did. "You're not going to sit there and tell me Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Savage tell the truth even the majority of the time are you?"

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I did say that, because the same holds true for anyone really in the media today. If their lips are moving, they are biased. However, Savage is a hate monger, Hannity is a liar as I just made a thread about, Beck has no true values as previously mentioned, and Rush is Rush.

I'm not attacking the messenger, because that would mean I don't address their points. I address them constantly. This thread is about the messenger, therefore I'm addressing the messenger.

As for BBD suppose question, the answer is obvious. This is just a excuse to say "Well they're all right and you're just being ignorant by not believing every thing they say."

There's three sides to every story: The left side, the right side, and the truth.

Still not answering the question, bolded above, still talking messenger vs. message.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Okay, to answer the "what if" question, if those right-wing commentators had irrefutable evidence that everything they've been saying is in fact true, I would send each of them a bouquet of roses, together with a personalized locked whine box with my name engraved on it, and a card with my humble apologies for ever doubting them.

Now seriously, doesn't that sound silly knowing what we know about their respective agendas?

You didn't answer anything you just gave a smarmy response.

I posted this earlier. Would this be ok with you?

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

 

[Modbert]

Still not answering the question, bolded above, still talking messenger vs. message.

The answer is obvious that the majority of Americans would not like that including myself. However, Beck and Co. go way beyond that. Plus, BBD seems to be saying that they are right about Obama leading us the road of socialism. Either way, I just see this thread as a way to attack Obama and put higher the right wing commentators.

This is no different than asking what if Keith, Rachel, Chris, and Ed were right about everything. It's pointless and stupid.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

What I'm talking about is the Lockean philosophy on natural law...

Locke was an idiot and his philosophy has been shown to be deeply flawed.

"unalienable right"s, 'men overthrowing abusive rulers'... because that's human nature

Human nature =/=> 'inalienable rights'; human nature = human nature.

It is because of human nature that we must form societies to defend ourselves from our fellow man. Human nature is an ugly and wicked thing.

. We have the right to free speech because we're human and able to talk.

Using that 'reasoning', we have a right to kill because we are human and able to throw a spear or a rock or a punch.

We will overthrow tyrannous rulers because we're human and it's our nature to live freely.

In history, men have rarely overthrown and oft obeyed.

Think about it. It doesn't matter how rich a man is, or how influential, he can't just TAKE government office. Together, WE decide if he's worthy or not.

Maybe in your fantasy world

What do you think kings and warlords and politicians with brothers in critical states do?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

Good Lord, where did you find that interpretation?

I see the real world, not the Locke's pipedream.