Not anymore. He was one of the first birthers. Now, he badmouths them, while continuing to use the same tactics of phrasing baseless accusations as questions.
Look harder. He was one of the first loudmouths to push the issue. He's since retracted his statements, and even badmouthed other birthers. But let's not get bogged down in details as to what Beck said when, we all know he uses the tactic of baseless accusations in many, many situations.
You are a liar. Obama has shown plenty of documentation. Every time he does, people like you lie and claim he hasn't. Doesn't change the truth, or what 99.999% of Americans believe.
But let me ask you something, seriously, do you believe Obama was not born in America?
And? Bush was a complete failure and should have been impeached. That isn't nearly the same thing that Beck does. That's being honest. Olbermann said what he wanted done. Beck lies and implies and calls names and never backs up anything with facts. Olbermann is an actual journalist, not a propaganda mouthpiece of the Republican party like Beck is.
Go ahead then. If you want to make yourself stupider, Beck will certainly do the trick. No one on the left even comes close to his level of sleaze, lies, and viciousness. On the right, though, there is a whole stable full of such creatures.
Find me one liberal commentator who pitches frothing, raging hatred like Beck does, and I'll eat my words.
Sure it is. Glenn Beck takes quotes completely out of context, for one thing. For another, the birth certificate question. It was answered. Te birth certificate was shown. The doctor who delivered Obama spoke up. The newspaper that printed his birth announcement showed their records. Yet Beck blathered on, asking Obama to prove something that had already been proven.
Should be easy to find an example of Rachel Maddow using those tactics, then. If she does. Which she doesn't, because she has too much class. Comparing Beck to MAddow is simply ludicrous, not only are they not in the same boat, they aren't in the same ocean.
New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion—including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850s. In parts of the district, the last non-Republican Representative was a Whig.[7]
BOOYA, bitches! You just lost a district that you owned for over 150 years! Sweet.
It takes a broad brush to paint a neck red. Seriously, Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans. The man is a traitor, a bully, and an idiot. He wants America to fail so that he can say, "I told you so." He wants you to fail so you'll blame Obama. Glenn Beck is a subhuman poo flinging primate.
Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again. Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long? No one.
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
Original post is an obvious troll
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
Huh? How do you arrive at that conclusion? He assumed no such thing. Of course scientists have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. Science is a tool for arriving at useful conclusions despite that fact. Science works despite the individual prejudices of any of it's practitioners. Gut instincts do not reliably arrive at useful conclusions. In science, the more ingrained the prejudices, the more prestige that comes from destroying them. Adding a bit to human knowledge won't get you in the history books. Creating a scientific revolution will.
The important thing to remember is that science is not a religion, and blindly believing in it won't get a scientist any respect. There is no dogma of science that all scientists are required to believe in. As a scientist, you get more out of overturning the status quo than supporting it. Any scientist who had clear, incontrovertible proof that global warming was false would go down in the history books, even his most vehement foes forced by the facts to admit that he was right. Scientific revolutions have happened many times before, and will continue to happen.
A discussion, hmmmm? Well, lets' dissect your posts for some clue as to why you've been treated the way you were.
In your original post, you said: "I think the difference is that you don't need the internet to live a normal life." You haven't qualified that by stating 'for most people' as you finally did after being slapped down, twice.
You went on to say, "Infact it usually contributes to leading an abnormal life or even not having a life to start with. " This is not self deprecating humor. You made no attempt to show this applies to you. Perhaps you wrote that with all intention of being humorous, perhaps you were just being a dick, the point is, we don't know your intention because it wasn't made clear, all we have to go on are your words, and your words are derogatory, not humorous.
Finally, you say, "Water is needed to drink and bathe and electricty is needed for at least heating homes." which is simply a non sequiter. We weren't talking about water and electricity, we were talking about municipal water and electricity.
You weren't modded down for being anti-Internet. You were modded down because, a.) you presented a poorly constructed argument unsupported by facts, and b.) you sounded, intentionally or not, like a condescending asshole.
Let me remind you that I didn't call you a prick, or a condescending asshole. I said you could prove you weren't a prick. And I said you sounded like a condescending asshole. See the difference?
Finally, let's demolish the smoking rubble that is all that is left of your argument, to whit, your statement, "I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have proof, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass like me. Those that do, should have a buisness type account and really should not be doing illegal things with it."
It doesn't matter if there are (currently) a majority of people who depend on the Internet. The question is, are there any? Yes, I think we both agree there are. So, shutting off their Internet would have at least the same impact as shutting off your electricity.
We can't simply make exceptions for people who's job depends on the Internet. That is not fair or equitable. It is not fair to say, "Well, business users shouldn't be doing bad things on the Internet anyway," as you did. How do we know they were? This whole thing is very extra-judicial, anyone could be falsely accused and have very little recourse to defend themselves, and no options for rebuilding their lives after their Internet connections were permanently shut off.
In short, it appears that you support and defend this three strikes legislation, and do not think of a permanent injunction barring people from using the Internet as any sort of cruel and unusual punishment because only dweebs and weirdos with no life use the Internet. That is why you were modded down, and why I was modded up for refuting your specious reasoning.
You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.
Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.
You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.
In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'
Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'
Slashdot Mirror
Parrots say things without understanding them. They don't arrive at conclusions based on logical thought. Kinda like Glenn Beck and his fans.
Citation?
Not anymore. He was one of the first birthers. Now, he badmouths them, while continuing to use the same tactics of phrasing baseless accusations as questions.
Look harder. He was one of the first loudmouths to push the issue. He's since retracted his statements, and even badmouthed other birthers. But let's not get bogged down in details as to what Beck said when, we all know he uses the tactic of baseless accusations in many, many situations.
Maddow has class? I didn't notice, what with all her revisionism history lessons and overinflated sense of self worth commentary.
Examples?
You are a liar. Obama has shown plenty of documentation. Every time he does, people like you lie and claim he hasn't. Doesn't change the truth, or what 99.999% of Americans believe.
But let me ask you something, seriously, do you believe Obama was not born in America?
Sure, now he refutes the Birthers. Sort of. While saying, "But if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it?"
And? Bush was a complete failure and should have been impeached. That isn't nearly the same thing that Beck does. That's being honest. Olbermann said what he wanted done. Beck lies and implies and calls names and never backs up anything with facts. Olbermann is an actual journalist, not a propaganda mouthpiece of the Republican party like Beck is.
Government is meant to be challenged, authority to be held accountable, and the people to be informed.
None of which Beck does. Show me when he questioned anything the Bush administration did. Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican party.
Go ahead then. If you want to make yourself stupider, Beck will certainly do the trick. No one on the left even comes close to his level of sleaze, lies, and viciousness. On the right, though, there is a whole stable full of such creatures.
Find me one liberal commentator who pitches frothing, raging hatred like Beck does, and I'll eat my words.
Liar.
Sure it is. Glenn Beck takes quotes completely out of context, for one thing. For another, the birth certificate question. It was answered. Te birth certificate was shown. The doctor who delivered Obama spoke up. The newspaper that printed his birth announcement showed their records. Yet Beck blathered on, asking Obama to prove something that had already been proven.
The comparison is more than fair.
Should be easy to find an example of Rachel Maddow using those tactics, then. If she does. Which she doesn't, because she has too much class. Comparing Beck to MAddow is simply ludicrous, not only are they not in the same boat, they aren't in the same ocean.
From the wiki article on the race:
New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion—including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850s. In parts of the district, the last non-Republican Representative was a Whig.[7]
BOOYA, bitches! You just lost a district that you owned for over 150 years! Sweet.
Wow. Glenn Beck makes you think. So, uh, does coffee put you to sleep?
It takes a broad brush to paint a neck red. Seriously, Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans. The man is a traitor, a bully, and an idiot. He wants America to fail so that he can say, "I told you so." He wants you to fail so you'll blame Obama. Glenn Beck is a subhuman poo flinging primate.
A month ago.
Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again. Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long? No one.
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
Huh? How do you arrive at that conclusion? He assumed no such thing. Of course scientists have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. Science is a tool for arriving at useful conclusions despite that fact. Science works despite the individual prejudices of any of it's practitioners. Gut instincts do not reliably arrive at useful conclusions. In science, the more ingrained the prejudices, the more prestige that comes from destroying them. Adding a bit to human knowledge won't get you in the history books. Creating a scientific revolution will.
The important thing to remember is that science is not a religion, and blindly believing in it won't get a scientist any respect. There is no dogma of science that all scientists are required to believe in. As a scientist, you get more out of overturning the status quo than supporting it. Any scientist who had clear, incontrovertible proof that global warming was false would go down in the history books, even his most vehement foes forced by the facts to admit that he was right. Scientific revolutions have happened many times before, and will continue to happen.
You can pull the holier than thou act all you like, but you were the one that started the insults, so it rings a bit false. Allow me to remind you:
"Let me know when you join us in this century and come back from the land of overly optimistic baseless hypotheticals."
I said nothing remotely insulting before that point. So, I also forgive you and hope you resolve your girlish passive aggressive tendencies, princess.
A discussion, hmmmm? Well, lets' dissect your posts for some clue as to why you've been treated the way you were.
In your original post, you said: "I think the difference is that you don't need the internet to live a normal life." You haven't qualified that by stating 'for most people' as you finally did after being slapped down, twice.
You went on to say, "Infact it usually contributes to leading an abnormal life or even not having a life to start with. " This is not self deprecating humor. You made no attempt to show this applies to you. Perhaps you wrote that with all intention of being humorous, perhaps you were just being a dick, the point is, we don't know your intention because it wasn't made clear, all we have to go on are your words, and your words are derogatory, not humorous.
Finally, you say, "Water is needed to drink and bathe and electricty is needed for at least heating homes." which is simply a non sequiter. We weren't talking about water and electricity, we were talking about municipal water and electricity.
You weren't modded down for being anti-Internet. You were modded down because, a.) you presented a poorly constructed argument unsupported by facts, and b.) you sounded, intentionally or not, like a condescending asshole.
Let me remind you that I didn't call you a prick, or a condescending asshole. I said you could prove you weren't a prick. And I said you sounded like a condescending asshole. See the difference?
Finally, let's demolish the smoking rubble that is all that is left of your argument, to whit, your statement, "I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have proof, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass like me. Those that do, should have a buisness type account and really should not be doing illegal things with it."
It doesn't matter if there are (currently) a majority of people who depend on the Internet. The question is, are there any? Yes, I think we both agree there are. So, shutting off their Internet would have at least the same impact as shutting off your electricity.
We can't simply make exceptions for people who's job depends on the Internet. That is not fair or equitable. It is not fair to say, "Well, business users shouldn't be doing bad things on the Internet anyway," as you did. How do we know they were? This whole thing is very extra-judicial, anyone could be falsely accused and have very little recourse to defend themselves, and no options for rebuilding their lives after their Internet connections were permanently shut off.
In short, it appears that you support and defend this three strikes legislation, and do not think of a permanent injunction barring people from using the Internet as any sort of cruel and unusual punishment because only dweebs and weirdos with no life use the Internet. That is why you were modded down, and why I was modded up for refuting your specious reasoning.
You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.
Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.
You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.
In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'
Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'