[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oh for crying out loud, the best you can do is yap about Beck because he’s not buying into the global warming scare? In the words of Tracey Ullman, “Go home,” dooood. This was pathetically lame and weak.[/quote]
Learn to read before typing a knee-jerk response. I have zero complaints about Beck’s opinion on global warming. My complaints were about his demonstrably false claim that the world is at a record low temperature right now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re arguing differences of opinion not citing verifiable facts of falsehood-spouting. [/quote]
Again, I have no problem with Beck’s opinion. He can love or hate Hollywood. And he can shout his opinion from the rooftops. If he said “I hate Hollywood. The people who make these movies are evil”, that would have been an opinion. But when he says that “Hollywood hates the troops”, he’s slandering a huge number of Hollywood people that either (A) Are troops, or (B) Put a lot of time and energy into supporting the troops.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
OK. Here’s one. These are going to trickle in because if I have to listen to him for too much at once my head will explode. Not because I don’t like him personally, and not because I think what he is saying is false all the time, but because mostly he is just fucking crazy (Citation: Jan 12, he is trying to argue that the government is going to ban table salt because it might be unhealthy, and with government health care there will be an incentive to do this to save money.[/quote]
I actually remember that program and what he was saying is that once we as citizens give government the power to dictate our health care they would also have the power to control what we eat.
Why is it a stretch to think that the government in the name of controlling obesity wouldn’t institute dietary restrictions on its citizens? If they (the government) believe that they are paying the tab for your health care then why not have laws to back it up?
Are you even aware of what Mayor Bloomberg has done in New York City? His health department has already banned trans fats in restaurant meals and forced food chains to post calorie counts on menus. They just recently set guidelines recommending maximum amounts of, are you ready? SALT!
You really have no idea where this absolutely horrible idea of national health care will end. Don’t be too quick to attack Beck as he’s probably right on with his prediction of government manipulation when it comes to foods if the government take over of health care comes to pass.
Beck is letting people know the possibilities are there and I agree with him 100%. Once again he’s spot on.
[/quote]
FYI, this bit on salt was not intended as an example of something false. Just an example of why I think he’s crazy.
I totally get the theory. If the government is paying for health care, they have a stronger incentive to try to force us to do things that they think will keep us healthy. That’s a fair concern. The way Beck argued it… That was crazy.
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
OK. Here’s one. These are going to trickle in because if I have to listen to him for too much at once my head will explode. Not because I don’t like him personally, and not because I think what he is saying is false all the time, but because mostly he is just fucking crazy (Citation: Jan 12, he is trying to argue that the government is going to ban table salt because it might be unhealthy, and with government health care there will be an incentive to do this to save money.[/quote]
I actually remember that program and what he was saying is that once we as citizens give government the power to dictate our health care they would also have the power to control what we eat.
Why is it a stretch to think that the government in the name of controlling obesity wouldn’t institute dietary restrictions on its citizens? If they (the government) believe that they are paying the tab for your health care then why not have laws to back it up?
Are you even aware of what Mayor Bloomberg has done in New York City? His health department has already banned trans fats in restaurant meals and forced food chains to post calorie counts on menus. They just recently set guidelines recommending maximum amounts of, are you ready? SALT!
You really have no idea where this absolutely horrible idea of national health care will end. Don’t be too quick to attack Beck as he’s probably right on with his prediction of government manipulation when it comes to foods if the government take over of health care comes to pass.
Beck is letting people know the possibilities are there and I agree with him 100%. Once again he’s spot on.
[/quote]
FYI, this bit on salt was not intended as an example of something false. Just an example of why I think he’s crazy.
I totally get the theory. If the government is paying for health care, they have a stronger incentive to try to force us to do things that they think will keep us healthy. That’s a fair concern. The way Beck argued it… That was crazy.
[/quote]
No, actually it was spot on and I think you understand that. Beck is a true performer. Not liking his performance is fine, but don’t confuse that with him not stating with clarity his point of view or the facts.
We both know that the salt example is accurate, my guess is you didn’t like how he said it.
Fair?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
OK. Here’s one. These are going to trickle in because if I have to listen to him for too much at once my head will explode. Not because I don’t like him personally, and not because I think what he is saying is false all the time, but because mostly he is just fucking crazy (Citation: Jan 12, he is trying to argue that the government is going to ban table salt because it might be unhealthy, and with government health care there will be an incentive to do this to save money.[/quote]
I actually remember that program and what he was saying is that once we as citizens give government the power to dictate our health care they would also have the power to control what we eat.
Why is it a stretch to think that the government in the name of controlling obesity wouldn’t institute dietary restrictions on its citizens? If they (the government) believe that they are paying the tab for your health care then why not have laws to back it up?
Are you even aware of what Mayor Bloomberg has done in New York City? His health department has already banned trans fats in restaurant meals and forced food chains to post calorie counts on menus. They just recently set guidelines recommending maximum amounts of, are you ready? SALT!
You really have no idea where this absolutely horrible idea of national health care will end. Don’t be too quick to attack Beck as he’s probably right on with his prediction of government manipulation when it comes to foods if the government take over of health care comes to pass.
Beck is letting people know the possibilities are there and I agree with him 100%. Once again he’s spot on.
[/quote]
FYI, this bit on salt was not intended as an example of something false. Just an example of why I think he’s crazy.
I totally get the theory. If the government is paying for health care, they have a stronger incentive to try to force us to do things that they think will keep us healthy. That’s a fair concern. The way Beck argued it… That was crazy.
[/quote]
No, actually it was spot on and I think you understand that. Beck is a true performer. Not liking his performance is fine, but don’t confuse that with him not stating with clarity his point of view or the facts.
We both know that the salt example is accurate, my guess is you didn’t like how he said it.
Fair?
[/quote]
Not really. I think you are reading more into my words than I am saying. When I say “crazy” I am not trying to use that as a bad word. I mean he literally sounds schizophrenic. Like he has a thousand different thoughts all coming into his head at once and he can’t sort them out quick enough.
There are some very brilliant people with the same problem, so this is not necessarily a criticism. But it is a reason that I don’t like listening to him. And I also never said he wasn’t very creative, and a good performer. He is clearly both.
I watched the episode from last night where he invited black republicans to speak. That was a good idea and a good show. I didn’t hear anything in that show that was directly false. (But if I stop writing here, you won’t have a reason to fly off the handle and call me an idiot. I would hate to deprive you of that opportunity.)
There was a lot of discussion of Harry Reid. In evaluating whether Obama had a chance at the presidency, Reid said something like “he’s a light skinned black man and he doesn’t have a negro dialect, so yeah, he could win.”
I’m pretty sure everyone in that room would acknowledge that the last 3 elections have come down to a near 50-50 split. And I’m pretty sure everyone in that room would admit that there is still at least maybe 1 to 2 percent of the population (if not more) that is racist enough to not vote for a black man regardless of his qualities. So most logical people would think that when you are asked if a black man could be elected in America, it might at least depend in part on how “black” he is perceived to be.
It would have been nice to hear that question asked of his panel. Instead, he asked really leading questions like “Is it the fact that he used the term negro, or is it more that he slandered black people by implying that a dark skinned black person couldn’t get elected?”
Do you see how, embedded in that question, is a statement Reid slandered darker skinned black people? In order to answer the question, you have to accept that statement as true. In fact, all Reid did (in really poor choice of words), was to imply that the few percent of racists in the country might be enough to make it really hard for a dark skinned black person, whereas it might be easier for a lighter skinned black person with a midwest way of talking.
And it’s not about whether you agree or disagree with that. It is about the fact that Beck uses tactics like that to create a show where honest and open discussion of issues can not take place. Anyone who might have wanted to defend Reid had the air sucked out of them before the discussion was started. (And it was a room full of republicans who pretty much hate Reid, so this was hardly necessary.)
He asked that question after they already said they were offended. I posted a link to the whole show right here on T-Nation, that I captured, edited (commercials only), encoded and published myself. The first one with the same group as well. So instead on leading them to a conclusion, as if those stupid sheep would sit there and let that happen, he was asking what about it offended them. Unlike the vast majority of hosts on either side who do exactly what you incorrectly allege of him in this instance. Lead with a conclusion and attempt to force answers supporting it. However, he did do that to Sarah Palin a couple times. Different situation.
You’re trying so hard, it’s a shame you haven’t scored yet. Next time Beck says something that leaves me scowling with a “come on man” look on my face, I’ll save it for you. He does here and there. I don’t require infallibility of people I believe are doing a fair job overall in the media.
On another note Sean Hannity does what you say all the time. Like every day, but to be fair to him many times it’s with somebody like Bob Beckel that he already knows is going to disagree.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re trying so hard, it’s a shame you haven’t scored yet. Next time Beck says something that leaves me scowling with a “come on man” look on my face, I’ll save it for you. He does here and there. I don’t require infallibility of people I believe are doing a fair job overall in the media.
On another note Sean Hannity does what you say all the time. Like every day, but to be fair to him many times it’s with somebody like Bob Beckel that he already knows is going to disagree.[/quote]
In order to know who scored, there would have to be someone impartial in the room. I’m not sure there is anyone who qualifies left in America, as everyone seems to have already picked a side. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. He took the themes he wanted (which was easy in an audience full of people who support his points) and supported and pushed for what he wanted to hear. He could easily have asked less leading questions. Whatever. Who cares.
I’ll give you one point though… Maybe that means you win, as it seems a 0-0 game so far. I had only seen him a few times, and it was in the context of also seeing Hannity, Dick Morris, etc. So I mentally lumped them together. I still think he is manipulative and deceptive. But not as often or in the direct ways that some of the other far-right or far-left commentators are.
You simply need to watch more if you want to hold a credible opinion. Seriously.
The whole point of that show, and the first one, was exactly to give air time to conservatives that the liberal world at large refuses to acknowledge so yep. They were a certain type of people. The type those 2 shows declared in the first 60 seconds to be dedicated to. Hence, “Time To be Heard”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You simply need to watch more if you want to hold a credible opinion. Seriously.
The whole point of that show, and the first one, was exactly to give air time to conservatives that the liberal world at large refuses to acknowledge so yep. They were a certain type of people. The type those 2 shows declared in the first 60 seconds to be dedicated to. Hence, “Time To be Heard”
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,102.0.html
[/quote]
Dude, I saw and understand that. What are you not getting about how that is just a big circle jerk. Do you think the point of a commentary show is to have a commentator come on with a bunch of people who agree with him, playing to an audience that also agrees, so everyone can pat each other on the back about how right they are in a world where everyone else is wrong?
I wanted to hear from those republicans. I (and everyone else) already knows the basic republican stances. I wanted to hear them challenged with some different ideas, so they could say “No, that’s full of shit because…” or “Yes, but I’m still offended because…” or “The reason that doesn’t work is…”
And you are still not addressing the fact that they spent like 15 minutes attacking Harry Reid over a distortion of what he did. Come on. Reid is so flawed. There are so many straight up things to attack him on. I don’t get why anyone would bother to twist the truth in attacking him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
Man’s impetus and incentive to do good is overshadowed by his impetus and incentive to do evil. This is hardly even debatable but if you so desire I will bury you with facts - six thousand years worth.
The Founding Fathers would concur. Guaranteed.[/quote]
I disagree. Man has done a pretty darn good job of assembling into communities and forming governments as a rational means of promoting survival and acknowledging the natural equality of man. Of course, competition for resources leads to conflict, but not necessarily outright evil.
The evil tends to come from a minority of humans who assemble their own community of like-minded evil doers. Being evil doers, it is rational for the rest of humanity to oppose them. On the personal level, some men might consider it rational to avoid the evil doers and do nothing. I’ll agree the Founding Fathers were rational enough to understand that positions of power can easily tempt the most rational men into doing bad, even evil.
Consider that there are 300 million plus people in the United States alone, more in China. In either country, what percentage of the population are cooperative and rational, and what percentage are evil doers?
Unfortunately, your 6000 years of history is written about the very few, not about the vast majority.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do I really need to use the bandwidth to respond to this? You really want to go out on a limb and press this?[/quote]
Don’t waste your time responding. You’re a true believer in the evil of mankind and there’s nothing I can do to change your mind, so I shouldn’t even waste my time responding to you. Unfortunately I know there’s some good in you somewhere, otherwise you would have committed suicide by now, or been executed, since you are by your own admission inherently evil.
I guess I need to “press it” otherwise evil will win.
Actually, there’s nothing to win. This appears to be no more than a rant on your part, or perhaps a troll job.
You continue your rant by insisting “government” is the same as the general population. (Perhaps you’re living in some Star Trek alternate reality. Let’s fix the transporter and get you back to this universe.) Of course, history is filled with examples of evil, but no proof of inherent evil. If you can prove inherent evil, I’d love to see the proof. Not more ranting, but solid proof.
Here’s my proof…the population of the earth is 6.7 billion people and we haven’t killed our species off (yet.)
Government is evil. Mobs are bad. Power corrupts. People are naturally good. Evil is a learned trait.
Why do you ask so many questions? Try this glass hoppa.
Why is the burden of proof on me? You have the same burden of proof for your position, yet you continue to merely rant. You must have no proof whatsoever for your viewpoint, otherwise you would have presented it.
Why is it “drivel” when I say it, but some astounding fact when you say it?
I will end with this:
Postulated: By nature of his or her existence, every human inherently seeks to survive.
Postulated: Humankind has the ability to think and reason.
Postulated: Humans manipulate their resources and adapt their behavior in order to survive.
Hypothesis: Humans are inherently evil, that is, each human acts to maximize their own potential to survive to the detriment of other humans.
Therefore, inherently evil humans act against the survival of other humans.
Therefore, the behavior of humans is inherently against the survival of other humans.
Therefore, in order to survive, humans will take action against the behavior of other humans that threatens survival.
Therefore, rational humans will take action against evil, because it threatens their survival.
Therefore, evil is a behavior that humans will act against.
Therefore, evil reduces the potential of survival of the evil perpetrator.
QED, acting to maximize your own potential to survive to the detriment of others is acting to REDUCE your potential to survive. The hypothesis is contradicted, therefore the hypothesis is false.
The trouble is that evil never seems to know when it has been defeated.
[quote]yorik wrote:
Why do you ask so many questions? Try this glass hoppa.
Why is the burden of proof on me? You have the same burden of proof for your position, yet you continue to merely rant. You must have no proof whatsoever for your viewpoint, otherwise you would have presented it.
Why is it “drivel” when I say it, but some astounding fact when you say it?
I will end with this:
Postulated: By nature of his or her existence, every human inherently seeks to survive.
Postulated: Humankind has the ability to think and reason.
Postulated: Humans manipulate their resources and adapt their behavior in order to survive.
Hypothesis: Humans are inherently evil, that is, each human acts to maximize their own potential to survive to the detriment of other humans.
Therefore, inherently evil humans act against the survival of other humans.
Therefore, the behavior of humans is inherently against the survival of other humans.
Therefore, in order to survive, humans will take action against the behavior of other humans that threatens survival.
Therefore, rational humans will take action against evil, because it threatens their survival.
Therefore, evil is a behavior that humans will act against.
Therefore, evil reduces the potential of survival of the evil perpetrator.
QED, acting to maximize your own potential to survive to the detriment of others is acting to REDUCE your potential to survive. The hypothesis is contradicted, therefore the hypothesis is false.
The trouble is that evil never seems to know when it has been defeated.[/quote]
Ha ha, this stuff is priceless.
Thanks.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
<<< Ha ha, this stuff is priceless.
Thanks.
[/quote]
Indeed.
Nobody who has kids or has even observed young kids could possibly claim that the human race is intrinsically inclined to good by just about anybody’s definition.
You put 10 un thoroughly disciplined kids in a room unsupervised and they will fight over toys and everything else in sight drawing blood in pretty short order until forcibly restrained.
MINE MINE MINE, GIMME GIMME GIMME, NO NO NO, WHACK BOOM POW!!!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because if to you evil means, “each human acts to maximize their own potential to survive to the detriment of other humans,” then I can see why we have a matter of disagreement.[/quote]
You surmise incorrectly. I defined it. You didn’t or can’t.