Okay good I'm glad we're in agreement.
50 charactersssssssssssssssss
http://www.youtube.com/
"Why don't you just shut up" = "Shut up"
They have the same meaning and he used them with the same intention.
Well then apparently you define insane as anyone who disagrees with Bill O'Reilly and is trying to make their point. As I have said before, I have never seen a guest's mic be cut on any other channel except for Fox. It's because Fox doesn't do actual interviews. Like I said the purpose of having guests on Fox is to make ridiculous accusations and then yell over them and prevent them from responding so they look bad.
I wouldn't put it past Beck he has no integrity. Until you provide a citation for that, I am not even going to address it. You can't just say things like, "Even that one guy who works for Fox in LA or something says that Fox News is run by the Republican Party." Until you have been a guest on Glen or Bill's show you have no idea how difficult it is to actually respond to questions. It isn't a normal interview where they ask you a question and then yet you respond. From the get-go they are trying to make the guest look bad. Like I said they make unfounded accusations, distort facts, and even lie and don't give you a chance to respond. It is incredibly frustrating to try and defend yourself when being attacked by someone who can adjust the mic volume and controls the show.
1. Yes I completely refuted what you said. Socialism has nothing to do with where you fit best. You are describing a warped view of communism, but that is irrelevant because we are talking about socialism. We already have socialism elements in this country. Police, fire department, utilities, and roads are a few examples. As I have said to you maybe 4 times, socialism is just government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. This has nothing to do with "preventing progress."
2. No, you just have a warped view of individualism. And I'm not going to argue this point anymore because you are clearly lying. If your friend fell down and was hurt and needed to be helped up, I guarantee you would not say "Get up on your own."
3. I just described why their method of sampling the knowledge of the participants in the survey was flawed.
1. What are you talking about? Go back to high school if you don't know what socialism. Socialism =/= communism.
2. That's not being an individualist it's just being an asshole. If you wouldn't help a friend who had fallen down and wanted help, you probably don't have very many friends. But it's irrelevant because I know you're full of crap anyway.
3. The points you are arguing against my analogy on are absurd. Most people don't what caused their fire at the time? That's what you are going to respond with?
No I got my statistics from a study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes published in Political Science Quarterly.
The Pew Research poll found that a higher proportion of Rush Limbaugh listeners answered all three of the following questions correctly.
"The three questions asked respondents which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (Republicans); the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice); the name of the current president of Russia (Vladimir Putin)."
This isn't really a good metric for knowledge of the audience because theoretically if Rush had 100 listeners 5 of whom got all three questions right, and 95 of whom got none right, and every listener of another news source got 2/3 right, Rush Listener's would be declared much more knowledgeable. So it's kind of bad surveying technique.
In none of situations were the guests "insane." In every one they were trying to answer a question.
The only person who was lying was Beck. He said ACORN make 20000 fraudulent votes in Nevada, when that was just the total number of voters they registered. However Beck just yelled over the guy and shut off his microphone so he couldn't even correct him.
And there is no evidence that he actually said that. Just the word of Beck and one of his workers on the show. Not exactly an impartial witness. Why did no one else say they heard it when Beck asked except for one person?
He wasn't ranting he was trying to respond to Beck's point. And the point of having a guest on is to allow them to answer questions, not to allow the host to get their views across. Well not with Fox News, but normally.
It's funny because I watched the entire video and I never heard him say "You're just afraid of black people". So basically you just misquoted him.
1) I don't believe someone who works on the set of the Glenn Beck Program to be an impartial witness.
2) How come only one person said they heard if he "went off"?
You totally missed my point though. The alleged statement was made during a commercial break. I was referring to when Glenn asked the sound engineer turn off the feed from his microphone much earlier. That is the ultimate case of not letting your guest to get their point across. Once again I have never seen it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it never happens, on any other news channel.
Glenn Beck is so rude. Fox News is the only channel I have ever seen where the hosts asked for the guests mics to be cut off. I have seen multiple times with Bill O'Reilly and now Glenn Beck. It's rude and bad journalism to not allow your guest to get their point across. Once again we see the typical Fox News modus operandi of shouting over their guests and preventing them from talking. The accuse them of false things and then don't give them adequate time to respond so they look dumb. Glenn Beck is a dishonest asshole. Why would anyone, even a Republican watch him? "Pipe down sir." That is ridiculous. I don't care who your guest is that's not okay. Also when he turns to the camera to start talking to the audience you can see the intent of the program. A real news program has guests on to try to glean their insight or opinions. Glenn just had him on to entertain Republicans by making this guy look dumb.
"Are you so afraid of the Republicans that you have to invent voters? Are you that afraid? I mean the Republicans can be beaten without voter registration fraud."
The people who were convicted of voter registration fraud were registering fake voter registration forms. This did not result in fraudulent votes. If I register Mickey Mouse to vote, it doesn't matter because Mickey Mouse isn't going to show up to the polls with his valid identification showing he is Mickey Mouse. Because Mickey Mouse isn't a person. Such a dishonest entertainment program.
Right, I wasn't saying war movies shouldn't be dark, I was kind of saying the opposite. I was saying most war movies portray war as glorious and melodramatic. The reason I like Apocalypse Now is that is shows how war is not a perfectly orchestrated and choreographed event. And Apocalypse Now was definitely very dark; it was based on a book called Heart of Darkness.
Well then I will answer your new question. Those communist leaders killed to maintain political power. Just like why the leaders of fascist states like Hitler and Mussolini killed. The mass murders to maintain power had nothing to do with communism.
The reason people are accusing you of equating liberalism with communism is that in a debate about right-wing terrorism you said "you've inspired me to ask why Left Wing extremism has killed more people than any other radical extremism... ."
You then made a debate about communism. Therefore this implies that unless you decided to make a different debate than you stated, that you are saying left-wing ideology is communism.
Also it seems like you are saying communism is a far left-wing ideology which it isn't either. Communism isn't far left-wing any more than fascism is far right-wing. Like I have said earlier a one-dimensional political spectrum is really myopic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
If you look at a bi-axial political spectrum you can see the far left-wing is just increasing liberalism. You have to move toward the authoritarian side of the vertical axis for communism.
I said my reason was that it is historically inaccurate and melodramatic. I then cited a historian and movie critics. I provided a reason and evidence.
You tend to have an aversion to reason so I thought I'd spare you. But as you wish.
Here is an op-ed article in the New York Times by David Hackett Fischer a history Professor at Brandeis University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/01/opinion/hubris-but-no-history.html?scp=8&sq;="The+Patriot"&st;=nyt
Letter to the editor regarding the piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/07/
According to rottentomatoes.com which you will probably accuse of having a liberal bias or something: "The Patriot can be entertaining to watch, but it relies too much on formula and melodrama."
If you read critical reviews of The Patriot they have a pretty consistent message that it is melodramatic and vacuous.
Thanks for the good argument.
"No, the only explanation I can think of is that people are woefully misinformed about the individual circumstances that has lead these poor girls to these doctors, and it's important people learn so that hopefully more of these doctors are not killed."
You're definitely right that we have to educate people that the few late-term abortion doctors are not simply baby killers, but are actually really courageous people who are helping people. They knowingly risk their lives to help ensure women who need late-term abortions can get them.
For everyone who thinks that abortion doctors are simply evil baby killers, please read this article by an abortion doctor on why he performs abortions despite two attempts on his life.
The Patriot is an example of the kind of historically inaccurate melodramatic war movies that are essentially just propaganda.
You can see then how this is a decision best left up to doctors not politicians right?
Communism is not left-wing extremism. It may be an extreme position, but left-wing extremism would be things like eco-terrorism or The Weather Underground Organization during the sixties.
Also the things that caused these leaders to kill many people was not their political ideologies, but their styles of government. The authoritarian, oppressive style of government has existed in governments of all ideologies and is truly independent of political theories. Also Communism was intended to be the epitome of democracy that would result in a truly oppression free society. Unfortunately I think the greed and lust for power of man is too great to ever allow a truly communistic state to ever exist. The point is that the oppressive and murderous style of the communist leaders you cited had nothing to do with their communism.
And also as davidh said liberalism =/= communism. So you kind of lose on all counts.
Well I think many war movies portray war in a glorified Hollywood manner. This is why I really liked Apocalypse Now. I think it was a realistic and chilling portrayal of the Vietnam War. I also enjoyed that the movie was about more than the Vietnam War, while at the same time really transporting you there emotionally.
I agree with agnosticism. I am agnostic, but I am atheist as well. I was trying to explain that the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact both are kind of necessary for the other. But I see I can't really get you to see what I am trying to say to never mind.
All abortions no matter when they occur are very sad affairs. It is really sad when circumstances have come together such that a life must be ended or stopped from coming to fruition. Abortions are very emotionally trying to mothers and their families. That said, abortions are completely and absolutely necessary even late term abortions. I am going to argue this from a few angles.
If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy bad enough, she will do so regardless of whether she has to go to a clinic or get one from an unlicensed back alley "doctor" or perform one herself. Before Roe v. Wade thousands of women died every year from complications from these abortions. By allowing abortions and late-term abortions to be legal, we allow women to go through safe and regulated channels to do something they are going to do anyway to be frank.
There are many circumstances in which late-term abortions are quite necessary, but I'll just name a few common situations. Often when young girls are raped, they will not tell anyone because they are afraid or a multitude of other reasons. Sometimes no one knows these girls are pregnant until they start getting big in their third trimester. These girls never got a chance to abort the rape-child in the "proper" time window because they are too afraid or immature to tell anyone or they don't even understand what pregnancy or sex is. Is it really fair to force an 11 year old girl to give birth to the child of her rapist because she didn't want to tell anyone she was raped?
Another situation is sometimes mothers are diagnosed with cancer late in their pregnancies beyond the date of normal abortions. These women often need chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper by the Department of Radiology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine
"Malignant disease requiring radiation therapy during pregnancy presents an enormous challenge for the clinician. The optimal radiotherapeutic management of the patient and the optimal management of the pregnancy involve directly opposing demands. Ionizing radiation should be avoided during pregnancy whenever possible. Doses in excess of 0.1 Gy (10 rad) delivered during gestation have been associated with various detrimental effects, and therapeutic abortion has been recommended."
Often the cancer is so fast spreading that to wait the duration of the pregnancy to administer treatment that will most likely kill or maim the fetus is very dangerous and possibly fatal for the mother. In these situations the most humane thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and treat the mother.
My last hypothetical is that sometimes it is not apparent until late in the pregnancy that the baby has life-threatening deformities that threaten the mother as well. Is it really fair to tell a mother she must risk her life to give birth to baby that will or likely will die?
As you can see there are multitude of possible situations in which a late-term abortion is the best option. There are such diverse situations that can occur and they are so sensitive and dependent on context, that this is not an issue that is done proper service by a blanket rule by politicians. These decisions are best left up to doctors and their patients. Women who want late-term abortions should ask their doctors and if their doctors agree that a late-term abortion is the best medical option, they should seek the approval of other doctors. Furthermore all of these decisions should be overseen by a governing board of doctors.
Late-term abortions are not used because mothers changed their mind or procrastinated and this is not the intended use. Like I said the decision should be up to the discretion of doctors to determine the necessity of the procedure.
Sigh. I see you have never actually talked to an atheist before in your life and all you know are stereotypes. I tried to help you, I even showed you how according to the dictionary you are wrong, but to no avail. I see propaganda has once again won the day. I surrender.
"Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. "
No they don't. They do need proof, which is why they don't believe in god.
This is the last attempt I am going to make and then I give up trying to explain this to you.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? My guess is that you will say no. But can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? No you can't prove it. Sure some parents may be putting the presents under their tress, but you can't know for a fact Santa Claus doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. But because of a lack of evidence, you don't believe in him. It is possible to not believe and not think it is possible to know for certain at the same time.
But don't take my word for it.
http://atheism.about.com/od/
http://www.youtube.com/
Like Penn said in his video theism vs. atheism is not about is there a god? Anyone who claims to know that god exists or doesn't exist is lying. It's an impossible thing to know. Atheism vs. theism is about is there a god in whom you believe. If you asked a Christian if there is a god they believe in, they would say "Yes Jesus Christ." If you asked a Muslim if there is a god they believe in they would say "Yes Allah." But if you asked an atheist or what you think is an agnostic if there is a god they believe in, they would say no.
If the answer to the question is there a god in whom you believe is no, you are an atheist. And I don't know is not an answer to the question. There either is a god you believe in or there isn't. Thinking a god possibly exists is a totally separate issue.
Alright I'm glad we agree that the Fair Housing Act was necessary at least at one point in time. I still think it needs to exist now just in case to ensure people don't have difficulty finding a place to live due to their race though.
No actually most atheists I have met understand the terms.
Atheism is not rejecting the idea that there is a designer or superior energy force. Atheism and theism are the only two possibilities. There is no other option. For some reason you think there are all of these atheists running around who think it is impossible and provable that god doesn't exist. Here is a neat experiment you can try. Attempt to find an atheist who does not believe in a god, and thinks that it is possible to prove and know absolutely that god doesn't exist. Hint: You won't be able to find one.
I completely agree with you about thoughtcrimes being bad and about how the government should not run our lives. Being a pretty strong liberal I am libertarian about all social issues ( Abortion, drugs, gay marriage, gambling, prostitution.) Like you said the government's role is not to legislate morality or try to government our everyday lives as long as we do not hurt other people. In my opinion the government's role is to protect us from other people, but not from ourselves. And in this case because many blacks could not get housing they needed to be protected from the tyranny of racist whites. We're probably not going to agree on this because you're just a bit more libertarian than I am, but I do agree with you that the government should not run people's lives.
And yes you did essentially have to prove discrimination with the Fair Housing Act. It was just like how workplace discrimination laws work today. If you are fired and you are black, that is not good enough. But if you can prove to a jury using evidence that you were fired solely because of your race you can win the case.
I actually have a pretty cool story about the Fair Housing Act. My high school government teacher, who is a great guy as you will see, told us this. When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated my teacher, was in college at the time, went to the black students' union at the school and asked if there was anything they could do to help. The students said that many of the black students on campus were not able to get housing in the area because the white owners were refusing to rent apartments. Many colleges only guarantee on-campus housing for two years, so many of these students were getting screwed. So my teacher, his friends, and some of the members of the black student's union would basically perform sting operations on the local building owners. One of the black students would walk into a building and ask to rent an apartment. When the owners told them there was no vacancy they would leave and signal to one of the white students waiting outside who would then go in and ask for an apartment. If the owner then said there was vacancy they would compile the evidence and report the owner to the district attorney with their testimony. Regardless of if you feel the Fair Housing Act should be legal, it should be a pretty touching story.
