I encourage each and every one of you (in Debates)

kevlar October 20 2009 2:49 AM EDT

I don't care if you are an extreme liberal, extreme conservative, libertarian, independant, Republican, Democrat or just unware of what is going on with politics... become educated, hear the truth.

Please watch FOX news (esp. Glen Beck), if you are able to. Please.

Listen to Michael Savage, if you are able to. Please.
(check your local radio listings for his show)

I'm not an extremist, but it doesn't take that much to realize the threat that is out there.. and it isn't just related to the US.

Don't let the media brainwash you. I'm serious... no matter what your stance, I dare you to watch a few hours of Glen Beck and listen to a few hours of Michael Savage and then tell me how you feel.

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 2:56 AM EDT

These two are a threat. Thank you for informing the public of this threat. I shall now curl into a fetal position and hope president Joker doesn't eat me in my sleep.

kevlar October 20 2009 2:57 AM EDT

explain why you think they are a threat. Please.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:02 AM EDT

And ftr Gunny... President 'Joker' is focusing his time on the truth rather than on all the other issues that are so critical for the nation. i.e. the government is more worried about what Fox news is exposing and the truth rather than the military in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. you name it. Reason? double digit Democrats tune into the Fox News. Pop quiz.... the President is offered to toss out the first ball of the world series or meet again with General McCrystal... which does he choose?

Lord Bob October 20 2009 3:04 AM EDT

"I dare you to watch a few hours of Glen Beck"

Sorry. My brain can't take that much stupidity.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:05 AM EDT

again, explain why you think it is stupidity. You guys... come on

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 3:11 AM EDT

So Kevlar, show us the rest of the Tsar's speech, besides the voice clips that were edited out to make up his arguement.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:12 AM EDT

Why don't you if you think it means something?

Lord Bob October 20 2009 3:13 AM EDT

Every single thing that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth is utter tripe. And before you start with "well, if you just listen to him.." I have. Not only have I listen to his radio program and watched his show, I've read his book. Well, parts of it at least. I couldn't make it all the way through. I started yelling at the pages.

He's an idiot. He's the worst kind of right wing scum, and I'm glad advertisers are pulling their ads from his show. He's good for comedy value maybe, but only for people smart enough to realize that his opinions are crap. Impressionable people should stay away from Glenn Beck.

I'm less familiar with Savage, but the few things I have heard from him likewise make me want to bash my head up against a wall.

So I won't be taking you up on your challenge. Instead, I offer you one: for one week, tune out Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of the far right wing of the media, and watch MSNBC, lots of Bill Maher, and read The Huffington Post. "Become educated, hear the truth."

kevlar October 20 2009 3:18 AM EDT

LOL Lord Bob... I guess we are at the far ends of the spectrum. The government 'controls' MSNBC, CNN, yahoo.com, etc.... Anita Dunn already admitted on controlling the press/media during the campaign...and what do you think they are tying to do now? Again.... Fox News... or Iraq, Iran, Palistan, etc.... when you think of priorities... one has to look back to Olympic bid... or troops in Iraq...

Lord Bob October 20 2009 3:19 AM EDT

So.. the government controls "that darn liberal media," but Fox and the sources you recommend are fair and balanced?

I can't take any more for the night.

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 3:21 AM EDT

I'm still waiting on the entire speech, not the edited voice fragments that you are using as proof of how vile and evil America is.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:21 AM EDT

... then explain why double digit demorcrats tune into FOX news daily... and also explain why the approval ratings have delved into double digit negative? You know, I know you do... the Democrats are worried about Fox breaking through to their own.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:22 AM EDT

Silva, I'm still waiting for the rest of what you proclaim to be relevant.... please provide the entire thing and let everyone see the truth.

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 3:28 AM EDT

Colbert's Doom Bunker holds more water, and has a manatee, that's why we can only laugh at your truth. How dare you accept such mediocre plagiarism before the light of truthiness and Doritos!

That reality check aside...Keith here, whom I also dislike, chuckles at your great journalist with me.


FTR I think you are joking. ;)

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 3:28 AM EDT

I have no need to post anything. You're the one posting arguements and demanding that we see them as the truth but yet you're not giving us both sides of the topic. All I'm seeing is a bunch of nutjobs complaining about what sounds like speechs edited together to make their point seem valid.

If -you- want us to believe something, then give the full evidence, not a pieced together chunk of nothing.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:37 AM EDT

"I think its hilarious that Olberman is allowed to be on the Sunday Night Football crew giving his opinions and coverage of all football events for the NFL while at the same time he is spouting off like this every weekday night on MSNBC. I just dont get it......Rush Limbaugh wasnt allowed to own the Rams because he was "too polarizing"......yet this idiot is allowed act like a know it all **** liberal slamming everyone doesnt have liberal values. talk about a double standard."

that is from a comment on your post, gunny. It's easy to to SNL it up but did you actually watch Beck's report before Olberman's response? ..

"I think its hilarious that Olberman is allowed to be on the Sunday Night Football crew giving his opinions and coverage of all football events for the NFL while at the same time he is spouting off like this every weekday night on MSNBC. I just dont get it......Rush Limbaugh wasnt allowed to own the Rams because he was "too polarizing"......yet this idiot is allowed act like a know it all prick liberal slamming everyone doesnt have liberal values. talk about a double standard."


kevlar October 20 2009 3:46 AM EDT

Silva, Lord Bob... have either of you or anyone been able to read any of the 1500 page medical reform bill they are trying to pass?

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 3:50 AM EDT

From: kevlar (3:39 AM EDT)
I'm not telling you to believe something, I'm asking you to pay attention. I specifically said to objectively listen to the sources I mentioned, I wasn't shoving it down your throat... but it's funny you are having a hard time coming up wiht the rest of the speech you so passionately are defending........

I'm not replying to you in two different sources.

You state "I don't care if you are an extreme liberal, extreme conservative, libertarian, independant, Republican, Democrat or just unware of what is going on with politics... become educated, hear the truth." but then you want to tell me privately that you're not trying to force us to listen to anything? Really?

And I have already told you, I'm not the one telling the rest of CB to "become educated" or to "hear the truth" with a bunch of editted voice clips, thats you.

And by the way, I found something hilarious from one of your precious little "newscasters":

OH! Does that mean you're part of the whole "If its not in the Bible, it should be illegal" movement that is starting up?

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 3:51 AM EDT

kevlar 3:46 AM EDT
Silva, Lord Bob... have either of you or anyone been able to read any of the 1500 page medical reform bill they are trying to pass?

Nope. Have you? Because if you have, I'd love a breakdown on it. And don't try to post one of your precious little newscasters as a source, because they specifically state they give opinions, not news.

Ah, Glen Beck, the man who will say the things that make his own arguements invalid.

kevlar October 20 2009 3:54 AM EDT

um, lol? Don't you think it is important to be able to read something that is going through Congress? Since when did a veil become acceptable.

Silva, your posts are making me second guess some things....

kevlar October 20 2009 3:57 AM EDT

"Ah, Glen Beck, the man who will say the things that make his own arguements invalid."

Oh and it is SOOOO easy to say these kinds of things...but AGAIN please prove it! Back it up... christo mio.

Flamey October 20 2009 4:02 AM EDT

kevlar, hes asking if you've read the bill, you double posted and didnt answer it.

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 4:03 AM EDT

....Sorry I can't forward you a transcript of that much needed original Glenn Beck clip without my body becoming numb from truth intake and regretting ever bestowing his reasonable logic on to my government monitored web history. Because of you I am now part of the truth conspiracy.

And why does that youtube comment mean anything to you?

kevlar October 20 2009 4:09 AM EDT

Flamey, that was the intent, they won't let anyone read it.

Gun... you lost me. Just like chat when you get on your box... sorry man.

That clip means something because Anita Dunn praises a man who executed millions upon millions of people and used his name in the same sentence as Mother Theresa. I'm sorry, but if you can explain how that makes sense, you will seriously enlighten me... and a lot of other people.

ResistanZ2 [The Knighthood] October 20 2009 4:15 AM EDT

Cel...ebrate good Obama, come on! It's Obamaobama...

kevlar October 20 2009 4:21 AM EDT

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 4:27 AM EDT

1) What box? I'm a comrade. There is no box above the stage on which we command.

2) If exposing the MSNBC studios were designed by Sarumon is part of the Anita...thing...then yeah I can't enlighten anyone.

3) Watched your clip...Holy crap! That was Foamy the squirrel wasn't it!

kevlar October 20 2009 4:31 AM EDT

Comrade is all you needed to say, Gun. I thought that crap was a joke in here... lol. Just wow.

A Lesser AR of 15 [Red Permanent Assurance] October 20 2009 4:34 AM EDT

Oh no I've exposed myself again! Avert your eyes children!

kevlar October 20 2009 4:35 AM EDT

^take heed! Is still suprising.

kevlar October 20 2009 5:32 AM EDT

And Gun I'll be the first to apologize to your facepalm if that is indeed a joke (however misconstrued that may be)... but again I asked, and it is up to everyone to answer... why is the Government going after Fox news now, when there are soooooo many more issues at stake? The truth shall set you free, and I am one of those who believe that freedom (i.e. to investigate the truth) is the object of jeopardy these days.

Anita Dunn 'we controlled the media during the campaign'...

Anyone know what happens this coming Thursday?

ResistanZ2 [The Knighthood] October 20 2009 6:03 AM EDT

Yes, because of the opinions of the people on Fox count as truth.

kevlar October 20 2009 6:11 AM EDT

not saying they are the truth, but they are the only media network striving their best to uncover the truth, Voy. There is HUGE difference in your attempt at a sarcastic post.

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 20 2009 6:18 AM EDT

not saying they are the truth, but they are the only media network striving their best to uncover the truth, Voy. There is HUGE difference in your attempt at a sarcastic post.

Show me one issue these "truth seekers" have ever agreed with anyone who they normally disagree with. Heck, show me one issue where they've agreed with anything Obama has done. After watching a few hours of this, and many laughs later, I've realized that they spout the same amount of stupid that the "brainwashing media" spouts, its just from another perspective.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 20 2009 6:27 AM EDT

Lack of critical thinking skills makes bunny cry. Posting evidence of bad simple reasoning skills makes bunny stab his eyes out.

"Don't let the media brainwash you ... watch this media and see how they've brainwashed me, instead!"

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 20 2009 7:02 AM EDT

Everyone 18 or older should watch all the episodes of Penn and Teller and just laugh at all the stupid idiots out there on both sides of the political spectrum.

QBRanger October 20 2009 7:42 AM EDT



Aside from that Glenn Beck is one of the main people actually delving into the radical that permeate the Obama administration.

Liberals hate Beck because he actually tells the truth about the Obama administration.

He is the one who broke the Van Jones story and is on the cutting edge of this radical Kevin Jennings.


While Beck can be very sarcastic, he is one of the few that dares to stand up to the Obama administration. One of the least open administrations since Nixon.

An administration that ran on openness and yet the Health bill currently being made is behind closed doors. An administration that threatens insurance companies for disagreeing with their health care plan. An administration that admits to controlling the media.

Beck is needed right now. As a counter voice of truth.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 20 2009 7:49 AM EDT

And for heavens sake, the man's name is "Glenn Beck".

QBJohnnywas October 20 2009 8:04 AM EDT


Doesn't really matter who is in power when, much like the European Royal Families, they're all related to each other.

Anybody can become president it seems, so long as they're related to past presidents.

And not only to past presidents it would seem, but apparently to European royalty as well.

Real men of the people.

QBRanger October 20 2009 8:17 AM EDT

Opposed to Olbermann:


My limbic brain cannot take it anymore :)

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 9:57 AM EDT


I'll offer up an opinion.

I have watched neither of the folks you link to, and I don't plan to. Just because someone says I should, and then bases their argument on whether or not I have done, doesn't matter. I don't need to do what anyone says in order to speak about important things like consistency, critical thinking, and truth. In fact, there is not much worse than someone saying, "look at these other people that _I_ think are important, and then let's talk about what THEY said."

I'm much more interested in what YOU have to say, not what you might parrot-phrase from someone else.

So, that as a starting point, I'm going to go meta (big surprise!). We are in no way ready to go forward on specifics, it would appear. And there's no better place to start than bumper stickers!

I didn't notice the other day, at first, but I had pulled up behind a large SUV with three small (tasteful, actually, at least in aesthetics) stickers on the back. The first read:

"How's all that 'hope' and 'change' working out for you?"

An obvious, false pretense-based jab at those who support/supported Obama. My first thought was, "I'm not sure, how's being a loud-mouthed jackass working out for you?" (I'm just like everyone else, I tend to see red, first). But backing out, applying critical thinking skills, I realized I was dealing with simple ignorance. First, I didn't vote for Obama because I was starry-eyed about "hope" and/or "change". So, Mr. Bumper Sticker held no power over me. As an Earthsea wizard might quip, Mr. Bumper Sticker didn't know my real name. In that sense, it was up to me to find the strength to not let asinine commentary bother me.

The bumper sticker on the right said, "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money." Yes, another zinger. Again, saw red (pardon the pun) then settled into meta-deconstruction. And again, Mr. Bumper Sticker was apparently a blustery, ignorant person. In at least a couple ways:

-- What would Socialism have to do with anything? Once more, a false pretense is raised from the get-go in order to bluster through to make a secondary (inane) point. I could just as easily have had a bumper sticker that said, "Eating children is all well and good until you run out of them," and no one would get it. But because folks just drink the socialism kool-aid (that some sensationalist media outlets, usually from the right, prescribe to), the bumper sticker now supposedly has teeth. Not for me, of course. Mr. Bumper Sticker still doesn't know my name.
-- Socialism has nothing to do with spending other people's money, at least no more than capitalism, per se, has anything to do with exploiting consumers and the work-force for maximum profit and "innovation". So, Mr. Bumper Sticker doesn't even know what Socialism is, yet feels an authority enough to emblazon his large vehicle with "facts" about it.

Finally, the middle bumper sticker, which I missed until my lovely wife said, "That was the best part: it said 'Palin 2012'." Excellent. This one was much easier to pick apart without even going meta, since there are facts available.

-- Palin quit her job. Palin is a quitter. Mr. Bumper Sticker wants a quitter for President.
-- By plenty of members and media folks on both sides of politics, a lot of Palin's plays and antics were considered terrible during the 2008 campaign. Palin was bad at trying to gain the executive office. Then she quit her job. Oops, I covered that. Mr. Bumper Sticker wants a widely-considered buffoon to run for President. Good luck with that.
-- Judging by the bumper stickers as a whole, Mr. Bumper Sticker has concluded that the hope and change isn't working (and never could, we were fools to be so starry-eyed, even though I wasn't), that we are now a socialist country (which is simply not true, nor will it ever be true), and that what will cure what ails us is a clumsy quitter (though by many accounts that is exactly what we had for 8 years prior to 2009, and that didn't turn out all that well).

All politics, opinions, and seeing-red aside, the logical conclusion is that Mr. Bumper Sticker is simply not someone I need to concern myself with, other than to try to help other people be less ignorant, asinine, and righteous. Beyond that, it's nothing personal in either direction.

What do bumper stickers have to do with anything?

If you are asking that, you've made my job a lot easier. Because I would respond, "What do Beck and Savage have to do with it?" Why do you trust them, or their words? Have you applied internal consistency checks on their words/deeds? Are they considered experts based on some sort of empirical scale of...expertness? This and many other questions, until answered, reduce people like Beck to the level of (you guessed it) bumper stickers.

So, start by amending that. Start a couple steps back -- why should we listen to YOU? Talk to us. Charm us. Engage us. Tell us what parts of Beck's and Savage's views you like, and we'll word forward from there.

The opposite of that (which is what you have done), is to encourage us to look at a couple bumper stickers for no reason. That's all they are, bumper stickers with a microphone in front of them. They aren't smarter than you. They aren't smarter than me. They don't have expertise in "knowing stuff", and they certainly aren't consistent or trustworthy. They are nothing. The heavily edited words and stories they weave are not truth simply because they get broadcast to a large number of people or get linked on the internet. I could link a picture of feces in a cup -- would that be an important topic I should encourage others to invest their time and energy into? Feces in a cup would be about as trustworthy as anything.

There's an obvious question you could ask me at this point, but I'm not going to tell you (but will definitely answer if you ask).

If you want to discuss something, do it the way all problem-solving and discussion should proceed:

-- Think of an issue. Try to be specific.
-- Research the issue as deeply as you can, applying your OWN critical thinking skills and consistency checks first. If you lack critical thinking skills, learn those first. If you aren't interested in that, stop instantly, and don't bother anyone further.
-- Come up with a well-written piece on why you believe what you believe on the topic, utilizing the redux you've created with your well-engaged brain.
-- If you want, ask, politely, for others to consider your work/points. Be humble. We're all busy people, and, quite frankly, we've no compelling reason to even stop in our day to listen to you. This is the default. You are not entitled to a soapbox or microphone in front of you. Win us over, and proceed to discuss with us the topic you have brought to our attention. Again, specificity and brevity go a long way. Like I said, we're busy people.

If you'd like to do that on this thread, or via CM, I'd be happy to speak more with you on a topic of your choosing! Not much today or tomorrow, probably (have work and then other plans), but could pencil in time later in the week!

Lord Bob October 20 2009 10:11 AM EDT

Glenn Beck Slams Obama For Encouraging Volunteerism:

This is the moron you people on the right are defending.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 20 2009 10:43 AM EDT

</flamebait thread> I was a happier CB'er back when these arguments didn't happen here

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 20 2009 10:49 AM EDT

"As an Earthsea wizard might quip"



QBRanger October 20 2009 11:30 AM EDT

I will respond to 1 of Sut's points. I feel I have to in order to set the record correct.

Palin "quit" her job as governor of Alaska due to external factors.

There is a loophole in Alaskan law letting any idiot accuse the governor of something that has to be investigated. And the governor him/herself has to foot the legal bills in their defense.

Out of all the 20+ complaints against Palin, which mysteriously only come about after she was nominated for the VP job, only 1 was confirmed. It was a very low level complaint for which nothing was done. However, the legal bills were too much for her to handle.

Mysteriously all these complaints were from ultra liberals who did this just to mess with her.

So while she did "quit" it was that or go bankrupt.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 11:57 AM EDT

Sure, that's a possible scenario. I'd rather not start exchanging links as to why or why not she quit, though. But as one counterpoint to your point, she also mentioned wanting to get back to family, and yet it appears she is flying all over the place doing speeches and stuff. Not sure how much time she can be giving to Trig, Calc, English Lit, Cobalt, Frigtard, and Blue Steel Magnolia due to that.

Doesn't really matter, she still quit. If one cannot handle the full duties of an office, one shouldn't be in that office. The Alaska governorship doesn't have any more "gotchas" or loopholes than the U.S. Presidency, so my point is still exactly valid -- if she couldn't handle being governor of Alaska, there is no route of logic that can assume she could possibly handle the Oval Office.

QBRanger October 20 2009 12:15 PM EDT


The Alaskan loophole I discussed is the only one of the 50 states to have it.

So while she did "quit", it was quit or go bankrupt.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 12:22 PM EDT

I don't disagree. But I'm saying the highest office in the land is also going to have a lot of unique loopholes, pitfalls, and trials for a person to go through. Quitting is quitting, no matter how cornered things ended up getting. We are still talking choices:

-- Palin could have researched that Alaskan law and stayed out of politics there.
-- Palin could have decided to stay out of the limelight while in office, i.e., declined the VP nomination.
-- Palin could have tried to find a way to stick it out (probably not an easy thing, but this is how true character is built).

And yes, this is all easy for me to say. Because I didn't become the governor of Alaska and did not then accept a vice-presidential nomination and proceed to show the whole planet how ridiculous, yet power-hungry, I was. Those were my choices. Palin chose differently and is now living with them as a political-office quitter.

Cube October 20 2009 12:27 PM EDT

I was hoping that was a joke. Both of those guys literally sound insane most of the time.

"He is the one who broke the Van Jones story and is on the cutting edge of this radical Kevin Jennings." That was a non-story.

The coverage of McCain versus Obama was only even because Fox didn't like McCain either.

If you want to inform yourself, read relatively impartial sources. If you want to feed your primal desire for political angst, listen to these two. It's entertainment not news. Even watching MSNBC will not keep you fully informed, so I don't know why Ranger keeps bringing it up. Watching both won't help you either, it will just give you two polarized opinions, and you'll inevitably side with one eventually.

I read Reuters mostly, you can hardly find any partial-ness in there. Literally, anything that's written in Reuters is simply a reported fact, or a quoted opinion, just straight up reporting... no screaming like a nutcase. Though that may not be entertaining enough.

Section of criticism and controversy from Reuters article via Wikipedia
The entirety of this is violating their own policy using the word terror, and accidentally using a doctored photo given by a journalist not employed by them.

An entire wikipedia page devoted to Fox News controversies

A very long section on wikipedia about criticism of Michael Savage

If you're going to tell me wikipedia is too biased now, I just don't know what to say to you.

QBRanger October 20 2009 12:30 PM EDT

You are very welcome to your opinion that she is a quitter.

For me, the issue is not as black or white as you make it out.

I see the grey areas of what she did and why. I do not know if in the same situation I would have done the same.

I doubt she know about this loophole when she agreed to be the VP candidate.

I doubt she wanted to "stick it out" and bankrupt her family.

I doubt she or any other person in political office researches each specific law about their office before they campaign.

I guess if the US goes out of Iraq, we can be called quitters also? There are grey areas in all discussions. This is one that makes me think, would I have done the same thing in her shoes? I really have no idea, it is not that black/white to me.

QBRanger October 20 2009 12:35 PM EDT

""He is the one who broke the Van Jones story and is on the cutting edge of this radical Kevin Jennings." That was a non-story. "

It seems to be a "non-story" to those who love Obama and wanted it to go away. However, to a lot of people, it was very important.

"The coverage of McCain versus Obama was only even because Fox didn't like McCain either. "

Fox was the only station to even attempt to be equal. MSNBC had a lovefest with Obama from the moment he started his campaign, as evidenced by the lack of negative stories. Even the Rev. Wright story got little or no airplay on MSNBC. I still see the chills running down Chris Matthews leg.

"If you're going to tell me wikipedia is too biased now, I just don't know what to say to you. "

Hello McFly!!! Have you seen the recent Rush stories? His bid for the Rams was poleaxed in some part by comments in the wikipedia that have been since disproven. That the people using them have retracted.

The wikipedia is not entirely accurate as we all know.

Out of all the major new stations, Fox is the only one that had any sembelance of equality in the positive/negative stories during the recent presidential election.

Cube October 20 2009 12:52 PM EDT

"It seems to be a "non-story" to those who love Obama and wanted it to go away. However, to a lot of people, it was very important."

You are so so.. ridiculous. I made my points on this in the last thread, which you completely ignored. If you want to make a big deal out of nothing because cable news tells you to, then fine go ahead, but don't try and kid yourself.

I never defended MSNBC, so stop using that as a rebuttal. It isn't one. You have quite a way of putting words in other's mouths.

Wikipedia is not the most accurate yes. I've heard statistics that it has about 3 times the errors of normal encyclopedias, which isn't that bad considering the standards that normal encyclopedias are held to. But it has more content than any other encyclopedia, making it far more useful.

As for bias, wikipedia is probably one of the best police of bias, certainly far more so than CNN, MSNBC, or FOX. A page may get defaced, but you can be sure as hell, it will be fixed soon.

"Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia" -Rush

That seems more telling about CNN and MSNBC, which I agree aren't good sources for news either.

QBRanger October 20 2009 1:00 PM EDT


I never stated YOU love Obama.

However, for me, the Van Jones situation was important.

One is partially defined by who one associates with. Van Jones is just part of the radical people with whom Obama associates.

From Rev. Wright to Bill Ayers to the current radicals in his administration, some as czars who have no congressional oversight, he is constantly around these ultra left wing radicals.

Van Jones was one of them, and to me, as well as many others, it was a big story. However, it was just the tip of the iceberg.

To state it was a non-story is just foolish.

I hope you do not think the story of Keith Jennings is a non-story as well?

If someone as radical as Van or Keith were in W's administration do you not think it would have been front page news on the Washington Post or the NY Times? Or MSNBC/NBC/ABC/CBS?

AdminQBVerifex October 20 2009 1:02 PM EDT

Oh.. kevlar, kevlar.. I thought you were being sarcastic.. I was waiting for the punchline.. :(

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 20 2009 1:03 PM EDT

"</flamebait thread> I was a happier CB'er back when these arguments didn't happen here"

i too wish we could go back to a no religion/politics policy in cb. it was nice to see one area of the interweb where it just wasn't part of the discussion.

QBRanger October 20 2009 1:05 PM EDT

You can choose not to view off-topic posts routinely.

Or we can just continue to argue about the elb or exbow or rbf awaiting something from Jon or NS to get excited about.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 20 2009 1:12 PM EDT

there are some off-topic posts that i do like to view though.

if we had a forum section for political and religious, i would hide it in a heartbeat!

QBRanger October 20 2009 1:15 PM EDT

I personally like political discussions.

As most of the people I associate with are conservative, I like seeing the other points of view.

Sometimes I get a laugh, other times I get keen insight to the other side of the political spectrum. And other times, I do change my point of view.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 1:16 PM EDT


You state:
"I doubt she or any other person in political office researches each specific law about their office before they campaign."

Sure. But then the politician needs to live with the ramifications of that. I thought you were all about people having to make their own decisions and then live with the consequences? Anything less than that on an economic front, for example, would be socialism in your eyes. So, if Palin didn't know what she was in for, too bad, so sad. To continue the economic example, do you think if a business incorporated in a state where laws were against them, and they got burned by that, that shareholders would be so forgiving? If a small business owner made an error in judgment/research and then went under, should they get a bail-out? Don't hold feet to flame in some scenarios but not others. Palin didn't do her homework, proceeded to act ridiculous on an international stage, and then got burned for it. Choice, cause, and effect.

I agree it isn't always black or white. No choice is. I think she's a quitter, and you think, well, that's it's more complicated than that. Fine by me. But the next time you rail against welfare recipients or someone getting a bail-out, you know exactly what I am going to say.

Later, you state:
"I guess if the US goes out of Iraq, we can be called quitters also?"

Oh, it's like fish in a barrel... Your question above perfectly exemplifies the problem with Iraq: we weren't sure what we were going in for, or what we were going to do after whatever we were going to do was done, in the first damn place!

So I don't know if you would call the US a "quitter" if troops were pulled out. What were we trying to accomplish, exactly, at the outset? If we did whatever _that_ was, then no, we didn't quit. If we didn't succeed, then we would be one of two things: quitters, if simply throwing "more" at it would help, or simple failures, if we couldn't accomplish what we were trying to do regardless of time, resources, and deaths. Sometimes nations do fail. Are you saying the USA has never failed in the past, nor can in the future?

You're exactly right about things often being gray. I just don't think you and I are coloring in the same lines.

Daz October 20 2009 1:41 PM EDT

""I doubt she or any other person in political office researches each specific law about their office before they campaign."

Sure. But then the politician needs to live with the ramifications of that. I thought you were all about people having to make their own decisions and then live with the consequences?"

So sute, do read every single EULA for every single thing you install? If there were one that meant you had to pay ten bucks every time somebody sent you a spam email, would you keep using the software? If it were something on page 55 of some stupid eula, would you know about it? Its infeasible for people to know every law. I know some law students. None of them know all the laws here. Neither do their teachers. For some reason, i don't see the American judicial being simpler...

(sorry, for my typing, I'm on an eee :\)

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 1:46 PM EDT

No, Daz, it isn't simpler. And claiming ignorance of the law isn't a defense. If I break the law, get caught, and get convicted, I am forced to face the ramifications (as I mention above).

As far as EULAs, no one really knows how legally-enforceable those are yet. Other than ancillary cases, nothing has come straight up against them, that I know of. Back to choices -- I hedge my bets in regards to EULAs too: I support the EFF in mind and wallet.

In summary, no. I don't read every agreement or understand every law. And if I am ever forced to quit something do to that, and someone calls me a quitter, they will have every logical reason to do so.

Cube October 20 2009 1:47 PM EDT

There are many people that one associates with throughout their career especially if they are president. While Bush may not have associated with 'radicals', there certainly were people he was criticized for appointing. Many people blindly blanket-criticize Bush for corrupt corporate ties, and I view this in the same light.

As for Palin, I'm still puzzled as to why she stepped down. It doesn't seem right to just brand her a quitter. There are many possible reasons that she could have stepped down, and I really doubt it was as simple as she was tired.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 1:54 PM EDT

To clarify, I am not saying Palin, as a person, is a "quitter" any more than I would brand, forever, someone who fibs a "liar".

But these are facts:

-- She held executive political office.
-- She terminated her political term, and not due to assassination or any other bodily or mental incapacitation (like the kind of stuff that would require the Lt. Gov to take office for her, by law).
-- Therefore, she quit the governorship, knowingly and willingly.

Does that mean if I needed a softball player, and she was good at softball, I would bring her on then expect her to quit? Of course not. But the more similar the scenario, as in, "While in an executive office, things got hard, and Ms. Palin did not complete her term," the more attention I will pay to her possible quitting tendencies.

This discussion started in regards to a bumper sticker that read "Palin 2012", not "Palin Is Good At Softball" This is important stuff.

I don't want someone who quits their executive-office political term being President of the United States of America. And I think that is an very reasonable stance to take.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 1:56 PM EDT

"an very" is the new black.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 20 2009 2:05 PM EDT

the drugged up liberals are vomiting their souls to Obama :)

IndependenZ October 20 2009 2:07 PM EDT

*must... resist... the urge... to post... picture... of bumper sticker... for trolling purposes*

Sorry, I know I'm not contributing. Just wanted to say thanks for the interesting read. You guys are awesome, albeit in different ways.

Cube October 20 2009 2:15 PM EDT

True, that the simple act of quitting her governorship, probably cost her any chance that she'd run for presidency. She still does have quite a following, but I never really saw her becoming president any time soon, and I don't think that was her intention anyway.

I'd like to add that like Ranger, I like the political/religious discussions on CB as well for the same reasons. It's nice to hear a diversity of opinions. I think the overpowered threads have been beaten to death as there haven't been many changes. If it truly bothers you, you can usually tell that it will evolve into a 'debate' by the title.. and simply not click it. Otherwise, maybe we should rename debates, so that more of this stuff get's funneled in there, or admins could be more liberal about moving the threads.

QBsutekh137 October 20 2009 2:16 PM EDT

Agreed, I'm enjoying the discussion...

BootyGod October 20 2009 2:25 PM EDT

Glen.... Beck....

Sorry. I stopped there. He's a nutjob. I've heard more intelligent and thought out ranting from the crazy, smelly guys who sometimes ride the buses.

QBRanger October 20 2009 2:44 PM EDT

I agree Glenn Beck is an extreme example of the right wing. And he is very sarcastic. It is remarkable that he can go on and rant for 5 minutes without pause in this day and age of quick stories and short attention spans.

However, something must me said/stated that his viewship on his 5pm show exceeds anything MSNBC or CNN has at anytime.

Whether the US is degenerating into chaos, or people are just sick and tired of the extreme view of Obama, I have no idea.

It is remarkable the growth of his viewship.

About Palin,

I do agree her withdrawl from the governorship of Alaska has cost her any chance at a run for 2012. However, does anyone really think if she stayed in that post it would have been any different? C'mon.

At least for conservatives she is in the news more frequently and is able to travel giving hope to conservatives all over the US. People who agree that you can succeed without the government getting involved in every aspect of your life. That you can succeed if you try hard enough and the US should not be an entitlement state.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 20 2009 4:24 PM EDT

could an admin move this thread to debates please? ; )

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- October 20 2009 4:27 PM EDT

I didn't read maybe the last 10 posts or so (time crunch) but so far from what I've read, I have to give Sut some respect points.



AdminQBVerifex October 20 2009 4:33 PM EDT

Sutekh, I think your little rant on the merits of the entire discussion needs to be copied and pasted into internet debates everywhere. Seriously, you really nailed it. You took everything I was thinking and put it out there clearly and concisely for everyone to read.

On a side note, I don't think the other people here are as skilled in the rhetorical arts as you, and it shows quite plainly.

BootyGod October 20 2009 7:12 PM EDT

How to put this....

Well, I guess I should say that this thread was more interesting than I thought it would be. I mean, Glen Beck? Really? But, for some reason I can't really remember, I decided to actually read it. Then, BAM, Sutekh out of nowhere with a dose of realism and cold, hard, ever so cruel logic for everyone

My point is pretty much the same as one Sut made.

Some here say Beck is the voice of truth, and I ask you how you know that? Because I would deeply hope you don't consider it truth just because it's closer to what you believe. The media, in general, lies. Hell, everyone lies. It's human nature, it would seem. To say that some don't (who just happen to agree with you) and others do (because they don't agree with you) well.... Come on. Pretty convenient for you, don't you think?

Look for the facts as they lay, not the facts someone sets out in front of you. If you don't have to think, if you don't have to work it out logially in your head to understand their points, their whys.... Maybe it's a bit too easy. And I don't think it should be. When ANYONE tries to answer all the questions for you, ask why they're doing it. Why are they trying to think for you? Perhaps because they're worried that maybe, just maybe, if you thought about it for yourself you'd notice things they don't want you to. Try it out.

In the meantime, avoid any channels on TV with anyone who thinks they're the only one telling you the truth.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 20 2009 8:08 PM EDT

'fex, it's not his rhetorical deftitude alone but the common sense that comes with it that leaves you barefoot.

kevlar October 21 2009 5:12 AM EDT

Sut, I respect your post, and it draws a lot of respect from the crowd... but to compare people to bumper stickers is beyond me. It's cute, but I don't buy it. And, it's not what I draw from it and should convey to you, it was a request that you listen to it and see what you draw from it yourself. It's the fact that there is a lot of the same out there, those who haven't heard anything and don't care to, but have an overwhelming understanding of things...
Is it the truth? Who knows. But I'll tell you what... the Government is going after the only Right news station out there like Meatloaf after an A-1 bottle... and if you use logic, why would that be? Because the big bad government is intimidated by a group (a couple actually) that convey theories about them? My God, the liberal media talked conspiracy, negativity, blasphemy the entire time Bush was in office... but the Government never went after the liberal stations. I beg to differ, and go out on a limb, that the reporting at Fox is hitting a nerve in the administration... a big, fat, juicy nerve.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 21 2009 8:10 AM EDT

So if what we draw from it is that blowhards will say anything for ratings, your sharing intention has been satisfied. Good to know.

If you think ignoring them comes from fear and intimidation, it's time to rethink your understanding of the dynamics of power.

Blasphemy might be one of those "I don't think that word means what you think it means" words.

They get on my last nerve, too. All that dropping the national discourse down to the lowest common denominator, and then shouting about it as if the complexities of social policy can really be reduced to "Dude! Come _on_"? Spoonfeeding it to people who don't have any critical thinking/listening/reasoning skills, hiding the agenda (see R. Murdoch), and exhorting the uninformed to act on their ignorance? This is _bad_ for me and bad for my country.

QBRanger October 21 2009 8:13 AM EDT

So because it runs counter to your point of view, suppress it?

I would love to see the same with Olbermann and MSNBC, however, I realize we live in a free country.

FailBoat[SG] [Forever Alone] October 21 2009 8:33 AM EDT

So, after looking around, I have yet to see them suppress Fox in any way. Someone walks around, insulting you, taking potshots and using sound clips or only portions of a speech and you want them to still be allowed to sit there and be given more shots?

All they've done is take a thorn out of their side.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002uIa">I encourage each and every one of you</a>