Reid on the Ropes in Nevada

Gill · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No, I think I've stated clearly I think we should have done a better job getting better choices. I have clearly stated we don't seem to win regardles sof who wins the election. We, or Nevada, loses either way.

Nevadians had several choices in the Republican primary and they made their choice. They feel they will win with Angle.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

Gill said:
Nevadians had several choices in the Republican primary and they made their choice. They feel they will win with Angle.

What I read says they hate their choice over all. A few wild eyed tea party memebers don't make up the state. Sorry.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Good God man, stop with the Allensky stuff will ya? If Beck presents arguments that you just can't defeat, then admit it, I would hold far more respect than the childish tact you take here.

j-mac

He doesn't. He presents arguments that make me shake my head at the silliness. In any formal debate he would be laughed off the stage. He only gets away with it in a venue that doesn't demand much from him.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What I read says they hate their choice over all. A few wild eyed tea party memebers don't make up the state. Sorry.

Maybe if you could show us what you are reading?

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
He doesn't. He presents arguments that make me shake my head at the silliness. In any formal debate he would be laughed off the stage. He only gets away with it in a venue that doesn't demand much from him.

So here is your chance. If they are soooooo easy to defeat, then pick an assertion made by him, and refute it. I will use only Beck's own words to respond if you wish. Let's see you put you money where your mouth is.

j-mac

ptif219 · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What I read says they hate their choice over all. A few wild eyed tea party memebers don't make up the state. Sorry.

Is that why the polls have her so close and in some cases leading?

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
So here is your chance. If they are soooooo easy to defeat, then pick an assertion made by him, and refute it. I will use only Beck's own words to respond if you wish. Let's see you put you money where your mouth is.

j-mac

J, just follow any of hsi sociast rants. They're full on nonsense. And he has been rebutted countless times. His entire guilt by association nonsense wouldn't stand anywhere, let alone his mindless board connections that don't really exist. It's sad anyone ever listens to him. It really is.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, just follow any of hsi sociast rants. They're full on nonsense. And he has been rebutted countless times. His entire guilt by association nonsense wouldn't stand anywhere, let alone his mindless board connections that don't really exist. It's sad anyone ever listens to him. It really is.

So you can't? You are simply making broad assertions, and purposely not being specific so as not to be made to look foolish. I understand that. But everyone can clearly see here that your answer, or non answer as it is, is all one needs to dismiss your own postings on the subject.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
So you can't? You are simply making broad assertions, and purposely not being specific so as not to be made to look foolish. I understand that. But everyone can clearly see here that your answer, or non answer as it is, is all one needs to dismiss your own postings on the subject.

j-mac

J, it's been done before. He has used misinformation and used a little truth, like good liars do, to reach extaggerate conclusions. I've addressed more than a few. If you want a specific one addressed, again, as mindless as it is, please asked and be specific.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, it's been done before. He has used misinformation and used a little truth, like good liars do, to reach extaggerate conclusions. I've addressed more than a few. If you want a specific one addressed, again, as mindless as it is, please asked and be specific.

Heh, heh....Nice try....Truth is you are afraid to actually address anything specific, I asked you to pick anything out and address it, and I would use Beck's words to rebut you. Now you dance, and obfuscate, throwing out claims that it has all been done before, like we are supposed to take your word for it. Even more laughable you claim that you have done so before, so I would think it should be NO problem for such an intellect like yours to just pick a Beck topic and destroy the argument....But yet we have your dance.....

j-mac

Whovian · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, it's been done before. He has used misinformation and used a little truth, like good liars do, to reach extaggerate conclusions. I've addressed more than a few. If you want a specific one addressed, again, as mindless as it is, please asked and be specific.

j-mac said:
Heh, heh....Nice try....Truth is you are afraid to actually address anything specific, I asked you to pick anything out and address it, and I would use Beck's words to rebut you. Now you dance, and obfuscate, throwing out claims that it has all been done before, like we are supposed to take your word for it. Even more laughable you claim that you have done so before, so I would think it should be NO problem for such an intellect like yours to just pick a Beck topic and destroy the argument....But yet we have your dance.....

j-mac

So, you won't be specific because he won't be specific?

Erod · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
He doesn't. He presents arguments that make me shake my head at the silliness. In any formal debate he would be laughed off the stage. He only gets away with it in a venue that doesn't demand much from him.

Formal debate? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

There's your party's problem right there. A formal debate is code for a a bunch of people who've never done anything in their lives sitting in a room and talking conceptually about things they have no practical experience with.

Gill · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What I read says they hate their choice over all. A few wild eyed tea party memebers don't make up the state. Sorry.

A few ??? Last I heard, she won a majority of the vote in the primary. In a poll that came out today, she increased her lead statewide 50% to Reid's 47% after Reid's dismal showing in the debate. In the words of Bob Scheiffer, "Is that all you've got?"

I would really like to hear a real explanation of how Reid got to be one of the richest members of the Senate after growing up poor. His sorry answer that he was a good lawyer in private practice and made good investments doesn't fly. According to his website, he was only in private practice for a few years.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Whovian said:
So, you won't be specific because he won't be specific?

Ok, you're right.

Joe, let's go with an easy one. Beck's argument that Obama was not qualified to be President.

Ready? Go.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Ok, you're right.

Joe, let's go with an easy one. Beck's argument that Obama was not qualified to be President.

Ready? Go.

j-mac

Link his arghument, and I'll attack it when I get back.

Joe

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Link his arghument, and I'll attack it when I get back.

Joe

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Argument Against Idiots: Obama's Experience and Qualifications

j-mac

Erod · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Ok, you're right.

Joe, let's go with an easy one. Beck's argument that Obama was not qualified to be President.

Ready? Go.

j-mac

C'mon, he organized an ACORN-like voting movement once in south Chicago and learned the ropes from Rezko, Wright, and Ayers.

I mean, how much experience do you want?

Whovian · Oct 18, 2010

Whovian said:
So, you won't be specific because he won't be specific?

j-mac said:
Ok, you're right.

Joe, let's go with an easy one. Beck's argument that Obama was not qualified to be President.

Ready? Go.

j-mac

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Argument Against Idiots: Obama's Experience and Qualifications

j-mac

Not sure how you read this and not bust a gut laughing, but OK. One, Obama meets the minimum qualifications to be president. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been allowed to run. You may well argue he wasn't as qualified as McCain, and on strict qualifications I would agree with you. But you can't argue he didn't meet the minimum qualifications.

Now, let's go further:

3. Adolph Hitler could fire up a crowd too. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that's not necessarily the best recommendation for president.

Seriously, this is stupid. He is comparing the two, really. This is how a dishonest person works in a comparison. And many would argue that speaking well, being able to encourage and lead with words is important. But Beck seeks to minimalize this not with logic, but through a stealth comparison. This would be frowned upon in academic debate.

Notice how he moves on with the false comparisons:

4. Uh, wrong. Karl Marx wouldn't be better than Bush. Neither would Vladimir Lenin.

Again, he starts with a little truth, Obama doesn't have a wealth of experience and moves it into false comparisons, leading to a false impression. This works on people who either want it to work, or who don't think enough to recognize the dishonesty.

Obama had some experience. I wouldn't discount comminty organizing too much. It gives him grassroots experience and something outside Washingtion mainstream, someting twea party types give lip service to but seldom really value. And while many people may have been more experienced, they either didn't run, or fell apart due to partisan concerns like McCain did.

But I hope you see the point about how dishonest Beck wa in this. Somehow I fear you won't. But I'll read and address your response.

j-mac · Oct 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Not sure how you read this and not bust a gut laughing, but OK. One, Obama meets the minimum qualifications to be president. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been allowed to run. You may well argue he wasn't as qualified as McCain, and on strict qualifications I would agree with you. But you can't argue he didn't meet the minimum qualifications.

Wow, that is a glowing endorsement.....So the minimum requirements are all you need to vote for a candidate, especially in the times we were, and are faced with? No wonder he has failed.

Now, let's go further:

Ok...

Beck said:
3. Adolph Hitler could fire up a crowd too. I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that's not necessarily the best recommendation for president.

Boo Radley said:
Seriously, this is stupid. He is comparing the two, really. This is how a dishonest person works in a comparison. And many would argue that speaking well, being able to encourage and lead with words is important. But Beck seeks to minimalize this not with logic, but through a stealth comparison. This would be frowned upon in academic debate.

As to communication Beck would say, and did but you left out:

Beck said:
I went to a Barry Manilow concert with my wife once, he had the crowd (well, the WOMEN in it, anyway) pretty fired up. As for Obama's communication skills, I still like the fact that he communicated to us that we have 57 states, plus one he hasn't visited yet, plus Alaska and Hawaii...for a total of 60? Had he not communicated that information, I'd be under the mistaken impression we still had just the 50 states. Also the priceless tire inflation communication, just might save our nation, as well as the planet.

Now you are frowning on this satire because it makes you, and your ilk that voted for this empty suit look foolish, but Joe, you are all in favor of hack satirists like Stewart, and Colbert when they do it, heck you have even used their clips recently in debate in here. Am I to conclude that that is fair only when it is aimed at the political right?

Beck said:
Notice how he moves on with the false comparisons:

Beck said:

4. Uh, wrong. Karl Marx wouldn't be better than Bush. Neither would Vladimir Lenin.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Obama had some experience. I wouldn't discount comminty organizing too much. It gives him grassroots experience and something outside Washingtion mainstream, someting twea party types give lip service to but seldom really value. And while many people may have been more experienced, they either didn't run, or fell apart due to partisan concerns like McCain did.

Click to expand...

Community organizing? Are you serious? More like Community agitating if you ask me. So are you now willing to admit that sitting in Rev Wright's 'church' did have an impact on Obama? Grassroots, true grassroots movements are genuine, something liberal movements like ACORN and SEIU backed astro turf know little about.

And once again you leave out the substance of the paragraph and will not address it. It says.

Beck said:

Let's not forget his quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal a few months ago: "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. Equitable distribution of wealth talk should frighten to the core all American citizens who love life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The one big bill to Barack Obama's credit right now is another of his proposals to redistribute wealth. It's called the World Poverty Act. If passed into law, it would take $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers, and redistribute that money to other nations through the UN.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

But I hope you see the point about how dishonest Beck wa in this. Somehow I fear you won't. But I'll read and address your response.

Click to expand...

Sure, Beck can and often does use hyperbolic rhetoric to make his points, but it seems that is all you, and other liberals focus on, almost like thin skinned whiners. Look, I watch Stewart every night, some of the things he focuses on are quite funny, and some, those times when you can tell he is trying to be an actual interviewer in a serious tone, are absolutely absurd the stances he takes. Same with Mahr. But if you really think you have addressed anything of substance with your dismissive response, you haven't. You have only shown that I was right, and outside pure dismissal, you have no argument.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2010

j-mac said:
Wow, that is a glowing endorsement.....So the minimum requirements are all you need to vote for a candidate, especially in the times we were, and are faced with? No wonder he has failed.

Compared to the choice I had, yes. We failed to put up viable candidates. He was the better choice. Sorry. But that wasn't the issue here.

As to communication Beck would say, and did but you left out:

I read that, so?

Now you are frowning on this satire because it makes you, and your ilk that voted for this empty suit look foolish, but Joe, you are all in favor of hack satirists like Stewart, and Colbert when they do it, heck you have even used their clips recently in debate in here. Am I to conclude that that is fair only when it is aimed at the political right?

No, he's not a comedian. He's making an argument and doing so dishonestly. He knows his listeners will joump on the Hitler and Stalin references and go with it. Again, he is being dishonest. He is not making a rational argument.

Community organizing? Are you serious? More like Community agitating if you ask me. So are you now willing to admit that sitting in Rev Wright's 'church' did have an impact on Obama? Grassroots, true grassroots movements are genuine, something liberal movements like ACORN and SEIU backed astro turf know little about.

Your opinion is noted, but that too isn't factual or reasonable. Conservatives in the past also worked with ACORN. The entire tenor of your discourse here is exactly what I'm talking about. It is neither reasonable or honest. Beckish. Nothing short of hypebole to the extreme is acceptable to the Beckish argument.

And once again you leave out the substance of the paragraph and will not address it. It says.

Do you see a link to that quote? What to bet he left something out? Link the quote he uses and let's see. Good liars take a little truth and take it somewhere it wasn't intended.

Sure, Beck can and often does use hyperbolic rhetoric to make his points, but it seems that is all you, and other liberals focus on, almost like thin skinned whiners. Look, I watch Stewart every night, some of the things he focuses on are quite funny, and some, those times when you can tell he is trying to be an actual interviewer in a serious tone, are absolutely absurd the stances he takes. Same with Mahr. But if you really think you have addressed anything of substance with your dismissive response, you haven't. You have only shown that I was right, and outside pure dismissal, you have no argument.

j-mac

The hyperbole distorts. It isn't making points, it's distorting in order to make false points. Obama isn't a communist and no true communist or even socialist would ever lay claim to him. Failing to see this shows the point. Beck distorts in order to leave a false impression, making a false point. Instead of actually discussing his qualifications and arguing what is needed (the supposed point here), he moves on to the distortion. And, sadly, it appears to work for some.

FederalRepublic · Oct 19, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Do you see a link to that quote? What to bet he left something out? Link the quote he uses and let's see. Good liars take a little truth and take it somewhere it wasn't intended.

Here's a link to the interview in question. Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift' - WSJ.com

From Beck's page: "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

Obama makes it clear in the interview that he intends to use the tax code to redistribute wealth. So what is inaccurate or distorted in the text from Beck?

From the interview: "...I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers..."
"...I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy..."

On a related note, also Barack Obama from the interview:
"...I have no vested interest in expanding government..." Who's distorting reality here?

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
Here's a link to the interview in question. Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift' - WSJ.com

From Beck's page: "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

Obama makes it clear in the interview that he intends to use the tax code to redistribute wealth. So what is inaccurate or distorted in the text from Beck?

From the interview: "...I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers..."
"...I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy..."

On a related note, also Barack Obama from the interview:
"...I have no vested interest in expanding government..." Who's distorting reality here?

I know, and if you read the article honestly, you see he's discussing cutting taxes for small business. There's no effort to push anything socalistic. He has a concern for workers, a terrible, terrible thing I know. But not what Beck distorts this into, which is why I asked j to link the article and look for what is missing. Only an idiot takes a quote without looking at the context of the discussion.

Let's look at other quotes Beck choose not to use:

It's not clear to me that we want a larger government, but we certainly want a government that is setting more intelligent priorities and using taxpayer dollars more wisely and structuring tax policies that are conducive to long-term economic growth.

(snip)

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question.

(snip)

You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

(controvestial stuff)

j-mac · Oct 19, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Compared to the choice I had, yes. We failed to put up viable candidates. He was the better choice. Sorry. But that wasn't the issue here.

From what I can tell of it, from your perspective, he probably was the better choice. After all I don't think you would stray from the (D) column even if you agreed with the repub.

Currently though, he is ruining the economy. To the point where even his own staff have kicked around the 'one term President' thing. All he, and liberals do at this point, is smear their political opponents, and continue to take every measure possible to evade ownership of their choices by casting blame where ever they can other than themselves. It is truly childish.

No, he's not a comedian.

Actually he is in part. His road shows before this latest one was about half comedy. But I know, he's not a comedian you approve of, so it doesn't count.:roll:

He's making an argument and doing so dishonestly. He knows his listeners will joump on the Hitler and Stalin references and go with it. Again, he is being dishonest. He is not making a rational argument.

Have you been paying attention to what he, and his administration, hell, the uber liberals in congress for that matter have been doing the past two years? Have you noticed whom he has surrounded himself with? Do you not, at least in private consider the authoritarian bent he takes against those who buck him? It ain't that much of a stretch there Joe.:shock:

Your opinion is noted, but that too isn't factual or reasonable. Conservatives in the past also worked with ACORN. The entire tenor of your discourse here is exactly what I'm talking about. It is neither reasonable or honest. Beckish. Nothing short of hypebole to the extreme is acceptable to the Beckish argument.

We give you facts, you ignore them. We try reason, you ignore that. Instead you continually come back with schoolyard complaints and name calling as if that were enough. I am only glad I haven't paid for this course from you. I'd demand my money back.

Do you see a link to that quote? What to bet he left something out? Link the quote he uses and let's see.

Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift' - WSJ.com

Good liars take a little truth and take it somewhere it wasn't intended.

Self insight Joe? Thanks for that bit of projection.

The hyperbole distorts. It isn't making points, it's distorting in order to make false points. Obama isn't a communist and no true communist or even socialist would ever lay claim to him.

Is that right? Maybe you missed the 10-2-10 circus show....Take a look at who backed it....

Part two:

Watch these Joe, I will know if you didn't.

Failing to see this shows the point. Beck distorts in order to leave a false impression, making a false point. Instead of actually discussing his qualifications and arguing what is needed (the supposed point here), he moves on to the distortion. And, sadly, it appears to work for some.

Oh, so you don't have to actually prove wrong the claims of Beck or anyone that opposes the President....Hmmm...I see. But if it is Obama, or supporters making any claims, they don't have to provide evidence of their claims, it is then up to the target of their smears to prove the claims wrong. Ask Chamber of Commerce.....I see.

Read:

To get up to speed with liberal tactics today.

j-mac

Whovian · Oct 19, 2010

So far, I gotta give this one to J.