• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid on the Ropes in Nevada

Boo Radley said:
J, you give me mere rants, the Beck clip being some of the best satire I've heard in years, and talk about substance? Be serious. You fill your head with nonsense and expect others to treat it as if it were valid. I will no longer do that. Time is too short. If you want to put up something real and vlaid, and can support it properly, with valid sources, and with reasonable discourse, I'll go with you all day. But people like Beck and Obeman (it's not a party thing) have hurt us badly and we should not eat their garbage.
Click to expand...

When you want to actually show point by point where anything Beck said in that clip is wrong, then feel free, you have not done so, therefore you have lost this argument, now move on please.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
When you want to actually show point by point where anything Beck said in that clip is wrong, then feel free, you have not done so, therefore you have lost this argument, now move on please.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, it's too over the top. Taking that satire seriously is your error. There's no need. You'd see it to without your willing suspension of disbelief. Look at it this way. Someone says prove there isn't a Santan Clause or an Ester Bunny. Would you spend a lot of serious time on that?

If you have something valid, bring it. If not, don't expect anyone to dive into the garbage bin. It's that simple.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, it's too over the top. Taking that satire seriously is your error. There's no need. You'd see it to without your willing suspension of disbelief. Look at it this way. Someone says prove there isn't a Santan Clause or an Ester Bunny. Would you spend a lot of serious time on that?

If you have something valid, bring it. If not, don't expect anyone to dive into the garbage bin. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

LINK
Sunstein's views on animal rights generated controversy when Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blocked his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.
Click to expand...

LINK
Addressing ethical questions about ownership, protection against unjustified suffering, and the ability of animals to make their own choices free from human control...
Click to expand...

LINK
At a keynote speech given at Harvard University’s “Facing Animals” conference in 2007, Sunstein also stated, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also advocates eliminating greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating. He considers livestock rearing “a form of unconscious barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”
Click to expand...

All his own words... not Becks.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, it's Beck. What thinking person addresses Beck. if this is as valid as you claim, find a valid source. I won't play with Beckish games. .
Click to expand...

Most critical thinking [non liberal] people consider Beck a valid source on many issues.

You and your lib buddies go on and on slamming Beck while your own heros Maddox, Colbert, Maher...et al... are so far out of touch with mainstream voters,,, they make Beck look like a genius.
 
Obamanator said:
Most critical thinking [non liberal] people consider Beck a valid source on many issues.

You and your lib buddies go on and on slamming Beck while your own heros Maddox, Colbert, Maher...et al... are so far out of touch with mainstream voters,,, they make Beck look like a genius.
Click to expand...

I don't use them either. I wouldn't use any political entertainers. They are not good sources.
 
Boo Radley said:
Miss the point. Sunstein's views don't equal the action will be taken Beck pushes. It's flatly silly to reach the conclusion he does.
Click to expand...


:roll: like I thought, you have nothing, but simple dismissal. Which I would add is laughable. You have nothing, Beck wins again.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
:roll: like I thought, you have nothing, but simple dismissal. Which I would add is laughable. You have nothing, Beck wins again.


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, logic is in the conclusions reached. Poor logic equals poor conclusions. A good liar states with a little bit of truth and moves it past the facts, as Beck does in his clip. Again, silliness doesn't require a rebuttal.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, logic is in the conclusions reached. Poor logic equals poor conclusions. A good liar states with a little bit of truth and moves it past the facts, as Beck does in his clip. Again, silliness doesn't require a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Ok, I will ask again. Point this out in a detailed point, by point refutation. Otherwise you have lost this argument.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Miss the point. Sunstein's views don't equal the action will be taken Beck pushes. It's flatly silly to reach the conclusion he does.
Click to expand...

So, it's OK for a man in his position to have those views, because they will never happen? His world view doesn't matter? His views will not shape his opinions or actions?

Interesting philosophy you have there, Sparky.
 
it's called logic

LOL!
 
Barbbtx said:
That's why the republicans are promising to repeal and replace it.
When you are talking 2700 pages, there is bound to be a few good things in it. (although I disagree with your much of it)
Click to expand...

2698 pages is only lawyer blather, where as, where by, party of the first part, etc. That's what most politicians are, you know, "verbose pettifoggers"

ricksfolly
 
j-mac said:
Ok, I will ask again. Point this out in a detailed point, by point refutation. Otherwise you have lost this argument.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, it's a logic thing. He makes a leap, and unsupported leap. Nothing he suggests could happen can actually happen. it's the fallacy in his logic. Sunstein doesn't have the power to do anything claimed no matter what silliness he may have said. The tactic is to find a quote and make a leap that simply can't happen. That you don't see this is a concern.
 
Whovian said:
So, it's OK for a man in his position to have those views, because they will never happen? His world view doesn't matter? His views will not shape his opinions or actions?

Interesting philosophy you have there, Sparky.
Click to expand...

it's meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. Even if he wanted to, he simply wouldn't have the power to do so.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, it's a logic thing. He makes a leap, and unsupported leap. Nothing he suggests could happen can actually happen. it's the fallacy in his logic. Sunstein doesn't have the power to do anything claimed no matter what silliness he may have said. The tactic is to find a quote and make a leap that simply can't happen. That you don't see this is a concern.
Click to expand...


BULL! It is happening right now under our noses, it is only you and people like you trying to say don't believe your lyin' eyes.....

As far as I am concerned you have lost this round badly. Now run along and re educate yourself before you continue please.....:mrgreen:


j-mac
 
Whovian said:
So, it's OK for a man in his position to have those views, because they will never happen? His world view doesn't matter? His views will not shape his opinions or actions?

Interesting philosophy you have there, Sparky.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
it's meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. Even if he wanted to, he simply wouldn't have the power to do so.
Click to expand...

So, you're essentially saying that someones point of view or opinion on a given subject should not matter... should not be taken into consideration when considering them for a job? If someone said they believed aliens were stealing their luggage and they thought there should be a law against it, you'd be ok with hiring that person because it doesn't really matter? At what point does someones views actually matter to you?
 
Whovian said:
So, you're essentially saying that someones point of view or opinion on a given subject should not matter... should not be taken into consideration when considering them for a job? If someone said they believed aliens were stealing their luggage and they thought there should be a law against it, you'd be ok with hiring that person because it doesn't really matter? At what point does someones views actually matter to you?
Click to expand...

No, not when it doesn't effect the job. If I'm going to ask him to revampt the judical system, and give them the power to do so, maybe. But as he doesn't have that kind of power, it is meaningless. And in this case, it's really of the hypothetical nature and not anything that could or will ever come to pass. My wife agrees with him, but she wasn't asked about it when she was hired as a nurse. I know a court reporter who agrees as well, nice person, but it didn't disqualify her. Using the illogic Beck uses, we would have no one holding any job because we can always find some thought some one finds silly.
 
cas sunstein is a nut, as such he's the wrong man for any job in the white house

van jones was a hater

kevin jennings, as producer of the various fistgate seminars at tufts, exhibits qualifications exactly the opposite of what logical (LOL!) people would require from a SAFE SCHOOLS czar

john holdren, one time advocate of forced abortions to curb population explosion, is a radical

secretary of education arne duncan, former ceo of the chicago public schools, couldn't even get the kids to and from class alive

google "wave of violence, chicago public schools," if you dare

it's tragic

obama is so INSULAR, so ISOLATED (as time's mark halperin described him yesterday on behalf of the entire professional political class except for "hard core obama administration supporters"), he doesn't understand that the kind of people who can rise to stardom in a harvard faculty lounge or at the university of chicago are exactly those that make mom and pop drop their jaws in astonishment

party on, progressives

logically

LOL!
 
you're more than welcome to that opinion Prof, but, frankly, that doesn't justify hyperbolic exaggeration like we see in the Beck clip. Sorry. ;)
 
i'm welcome to my opinions, promises the emperor of empty thoughts

LOL!

most americans don't care about beck, to most americans he's a funny little guy in tennis shoes who cries

all serious americans, however, care about the weirdo czars the president has surrounded himself with

a safe schools czar who sponsored fisting seminars for 14 year olds

a racist truther who was forced to be fired about a week after the funny dude in tennis shoes exposed him

remember, shirley sherrod too was forced to pull over on the side of the freeway NOW and quit cuz the white house was scared she'd be on beck

the science czar wrote a text book advocating forced sterilization and abortion to control population growth, a big fear back in the day the text was written

the regulatory czar says fido should be able to sue you

the czars are the czars but their greater significance is what they reveal about any weirdo who would hire not one but all of them

that'd be the same guy who's so scared of the little oddball in tennis shoes

america sees all this stuff and we've never seen anything like it before out of any white house

it's totally bizarre

and mr 100 posts per link objects that the video is outta focus, or something

party on, poser

keep flappin

make your comebacks faster, tho, let's try to get that full expression of ghostly thought out in 10 seconds or less from now on

you're fascinating
 
Prof, your misinformation is impressive, and while you claim Americans don't care about Beck, it is shocking how much you parrot him above. Your misreading of things, impressive as it is, only shows that all your linking disguises the fact that you get a lot wrong. Judgment is far more important than being able to link things.

Just saying . . . .
 
Chappy said:
“The Republicans have lost their standards, they’ve lost their principles…..Really that’s why the machine in the Republican Party is fighting against me…..They have never really gone along with lower taxes and less government.” — Sharron Angle​

The OP poll was completed before Sharron's latest revelations.
Click to expand...

you do realize that this is likely to bring out the Republican base to vote for her? this is exactly what the populace believes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom