A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[TemplarKormac]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

We know what you're about..

{Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."[5] }

William Ayers - Conservapedia

Got proof he said that?

Most of the conservapedia links to their references don't work. Well except for the one to the WND opinion piece......which is typical.

Here is their Declaration.

Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library: Other Social Activist Movements & Activities Social Activism Sound Recording Project: Anti-Vietnam War Protests, Berkeley and San Franciso: Weathermen - First Communique, July 31, 1970

Check this out.

Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist - Bill Ayers

 

[Moonglow]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Funny how you just came here to troll.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently you're the one invoking Danth's law by insisting that my entire argument is fallacious, which therefore means yours by default is superior. That within itself is a fallacy in logic. I did provide arguments to your fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them. You're wrong. Accept it. Your entire argument is based on the appeal to coincidence fallacy, in which you fail to acknowledge clear reasons behind an effect. On top of that, it is an argument by dismissal; in which you simply dismiss my argument without stating clear and cogently why. It is also an argument from inertia, insisting on an incorrect view despite given facts to the contrary.

Do I have to explain everything?

"Danth's Law" means declaring yourself the winner (or your opponent the loser), which is what you did. Making an argument is not in itself a fallacy. Obviously if I have a different view I need to make my case. What, you're saying only you can make a case and I have to shut up?? Nor is having confidence in my position. SMH...

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, are you sure you want to study law?

Dude. You're the one who lost his point by turning this into a discussion about "fallacies." So yes, I think it serves you better to quit while you're behind. Cease with this tautology of yours. Your arguments beg the question, they don't answer it. You make the argument of petitio principii. Once again you use argumentum ad hominem to attack my credentials, not my argument. This is over.

Dude. This is your thread and it's built on a discussion of this very fallacy, to wit: "is it reasonable to attack Mike Rowe on the basis of association with Glenn Beck?"

Actually your OP itself contains, if not an argumentative fallacy, an erroneous line:
>> According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. <<

Actually the First Amendment controls what government can do, not private citizens, with or without Nosebook. So this passage is inoperative. What remains is a debate over whether this person was justified in attacking Mr. Rowe on the basis of his associations.

You do have balls to mention petito principii, since you're the one doing it here. But there's a certain desperation in pulling out every Latin phrase you ever heard of in an attempt to suggest my simply making an argument is itself a fallacy.

Btw I don't know jack squat about your "credentials". They're not relevant either. Logic is logic; it's bigger than both of us. We can't change the rules any more than we can change the laws of physics.

That reminds me, speaking of credentials -- I just got off the phone with Aristotle and he says you're full of shit. I'm paraphrasing; you don't want to hear what it sounded like in classical Greek...

 

[Uncensored2008]

glen beck claims

Why would anyone believe a single word of what Mr. Soros had you post?

You don't even offer a link to the Soros hate site you cut and pasted from....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Glenn Beck: No Excuse for Making Fun of Obama's Daughter : Glenn Beck

Yea, what a nice guy.

Are you sure you read the title right? Or are you just looking for a bone to pick?

It is an rdean post, it has a 6% chance of making sense. This one didn't get lucky.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do I have to explain everything?

"Danth's Law" means declaring yourself the winner (or your opponent the loser), which is what you did. Making an argument is not in itself a fallacy. Obviously if I have a different view I need to make my case. What, you're saying only you can make a case and I have to shut up?? Nor is having confidence in my position. SMH...

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, are you sure you want to study law?

Dude. You're the one who lost his point by turning this into a discussion about "fallacies." So yes, I think it serves you better to quit while you're behind. Cease with this tautology of yours. Your arguments beg the question, they don't answer it. You make the argument of petitio principii. Once again you use argumentum ad hominem to attack my credentials, not my argument. This is over.

Dude. This is your thread and it's built on a discussion of this very fallacy, to wit: "is it reasonable to attack Mike Rowe on the basis of association with Glenn Beck?"

Actually your OP itself contains, if not an argumentative fallacy, an erroneous line:
>> According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. <<

Actually the First Amendment controls what government can do, not private citizens, with or without Nosebook. So this passage is inoperative. What remains is a debate over whether this person was justified in attacking Mr. Rowe on the basis of his associations.

You do have balls to mention petito principii, since you're the one doing it here.

Btw I don't know jack squat about your "credentials". They're not relevant either. Logic is logic; it's bigger than both of us. We can't change the rules any more than we can change the laws of physics.

That reminds me, I just got off the phone with Aristotle and he says you're full of shit. I'm paraphrasing; you don't want to hear what it sounded like in classical Greek...

Now you're being sarcastic. Hmm, you were the one who introduced the "guilt by association" fallacy here. Not me. Your do well in practicing contextomy. You continue to employ Fallacia oppositionis (fallacy of opposition).

 

[BlindBoo]

My argument was that she needed to acknowledge that fact. Somehow she doesn't like him associating with Glenn Beck. So what? He isn't a terrorist or a murderer like Bill Ayers. Obama was literally shielded from his past ties. So there you have it.

Just like you, ElRushbo, Hannity and Beck all have the right to accuse Professor Ayers of Murder, this woman has every right to express her opinion of Beck and Rowe association with him.

Did I say she didn't? Where are you deriving these contrived arguments from? People under Ayers influence did commit murder, by the way, such as the 1991 Brinks Robbery, and the Bombing of Fort Dix. So there you have it.

What did you mean when you said " without fear of reprisal"?

Ayers turn himself in in 1980 and can hardly be held accountable for what his former associates did in 1991. (I think you mean 1981 but....still they did raise whatshernames son so )

Like all their other bombings, Fort Dix would have received a warning. But the bombmakers must have been smoking some really good hash that day and well......Boom.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Apparently not, since Obama was elected anyway.

Yet another logical fallacy.

People didn't care that much

Of course they didn't care, that's why they elected him. Dimwit.

But YOU said they elected him because Republicans weren't allowed to tell them about it.
Now, you say what? Republicans WERE allowed to tell, but people didn't care?

Man - you get so twisted up in your hypocrisy - oh what a tangled web we weave ......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

Is this how you revised history?

Ayers did not leave the Weather Underground because he disagreed with their tactics, he was kicked out for being white. He actually endorsed the violence himself, and only got off because the police obtained the evidence aganinst him using tactics that were illegal at the time, but perfectly legal now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This Glenn Beck is one great American, huh?

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –"The Glenn Beck Program," Sept. 9, 2005

That is great where Wright quoting someone on Fox news saying "chickens coming home" to roost is terrible.

See the pattern....A dem does it its terrible and no explanation is accepted. A repub does it and suddenly explanations are good and just.

That's what you call principles ladies and gentlemen

I have another word for it

 

[Uncensored2008]

Looking for the person who claimed Beck has never endorsed violence to admit he/she is dead wrong.

In light of this quote:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?"
- Glenn Beck

Even for a communist - you're fucking stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what you're about..

{Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."[5] }

William Ayers - Conservapedia

Got proof he said that?

Most of the conservapedia links to their references don't work. Well except for the one to the WND opinion piece......which is typical.

Here is their Declaration.

Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library: Other Social Activist Movements & Activities Social Activism Sound Recording Project: Anti-Vietnam War Protests, Berkeley and San Franciso: Weathermen - First Communique, July 31, 1970

Check this out.

Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist - Bill Ayers

Thank you. I should have been more specific. The quote about killing your parents and rich people was not published and is hearsay.

 

[Pogo]

Dude. You're the one who lost his point by turning this into a discussion about "fallacies." So yes, I think it serves you better to quit while you're behind. Cease with this tautology of yours. Your arguments beg the question, they don't answer it. You make the argument of petitio principii. Once again you use argumentum ad hominem to attack my credentials, not my argument. This is over.

Dude. This is your thread and it's built on a discussion of this very fallacy, to wit: "is it reasonable to attack Mike Rowe on the basis of association with Glenn Beck?"

Actually your OP itself contains, if not an argumentative fallacy, an erroneous line:
>> According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. <<

Actually the First Amendment controls what government can do, not private citizens, with or without Nosebook. So this passage is inoperative. What remains is a debate over whether this person was justified in attacking Mr. Rowe on the basis of his associations.

You do have balls to mention petito principii, since you're the one doing it here.

Btw I don't know jack squat about your "credentials". They're not relevant either. Logic is logic; it's bigger than both of us. We can't change the rules any more than we can change the laws of physics.

That reminds me, I just got off the phone with Aristotle and he says you're full of shit. I'm paraphrasing; you don't want to hear what it sounded like in classical Greek...

Now you're being sarcastic. Hmm, you were the one who introduced the "guilt by association" fallacy here. Not me. Your do well in practicing contextomy. You continue to employ Fallacia oppositionis (fallacy of opposition).

I didn't introduce it. You did.

Read this reeeeeeaal slowly, TK:

Without the Guilt by Association fallacy, this thread does not exist.

Think about it.

 

[FJO]

glen beck claims

Why would anyone believe a single word of what Mr. Soros had you post?

You don't even offer a link to the Soros hate site you cut and pasted from....

Gyorgy Soros makes every decent person of Hungarian descent be ashamed of being Hungarian.

Gyorgy Soros makes every decent person of Jewish heritage be ashamed to be a Jew.

And that Nazi-loving treasonous backstabber makes every decent non-Jewish person an anti-Semite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet another logical fallacy.

People didn't care that much

Of course they didn't care, that's why they elected him. Dimwit.

But YOU said they elected him because Republicans weren't allowed to tell them about it.
Now, you say what? Republicans WERE allowed to tell, but people didn't care?

Man - you get so twisted up in your hypocrisy - oh what a tangled web we weave ......

There you go misreading what I said. I get the feeling you don't want to argue the point at all. And how does calling me names help your point?

None of Obama's weaknesses were acknowledged by the liberal media. None. In fact they did all they could to downplay them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your first comment didn't appear to equivocate so much:



So what you're really saying is that people have no business questioning associations as long as YOU approve of them????

How very open minded of you.

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch. (For the record, it isn't).

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up this obscure figure Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain how that works to The Beck too.

That is not the point of the OP.

The point, for the intellectually challenged, is not that it is wrong to hold people responsible for their friends, it is that it is stupid beyond belief to think that going on a show run by a moonbat makes you a moonbat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dude. This is your thread and it's built on a discussion of this very fallacy, to wit: "is it reasonable to attack Mike Rowe on the basis of association with Glenn Beck?"

Actually your OP itself contains, if not an argumentative fallacy, an erroneous line:
>> According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. <<

Actually the First Amendment controls what government can do, not private citizens, with or without Nosebook. So this passage is inoperative. What remains is a debate over whether this person was justified in attacking Mr. Rowe on the basis of his associations.

You do have balls to mention petito principii, since you're the one doing it here.

Btw I don't know jack squat about your "credentials". They're not relevant either. Logic is logic; it's bigger than both of us. We can't change the rules any more than we can change the laws of physics.

That reminds me, I just got off the phone with Aristotle and he says you're full of shit. I'm paraphrasing; you don't want to hear what it sounded like in classical Greek...

Now you're being sarcastic. Hmm, you were the one who introduced the "guilt by association" fallacy here. Not me. Your do well in practicing contextomy. You continue to employ Fallacia oppositionis (fallacy of opposition).

I didn't introduce it. You did.

Read this reeeeeeaal slowly, TK:

Without the Guilt by Association fallacy, this thread does not exist.

Think about it.

Read this real closely,

Argumentum ad modicum does not an argument make.

Think about it.

And by the way, you did in post 24.

 

[Pogo]

glen beck claims

Why would anyone believe a single word of what Mr. Soros had you post?

You don't even offer a link to the Soros hate site you cut and pasted from....

Gyorgy Soros makes every decent person of Hungarian descent be ashamed of being Hungarian.

Gyorgy Soros makes every decent person of Jewish heritage be ashamed to be a Jew.

And that Nazi-loving treasonous backstabber makes every decent non-Jewish person an anti-Semite.

There we go! Three short lines, three separate guilt-by-association fallacies. Three easy pieces, apologies to Stravinsky, as ready examples.

Great demonstration. Ladies and germs, big hand for my lovely assistant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

NO No No - Op was arguing that people should NOT be vilified because of their associations .......

wasn't she/he?

so Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, et al ........ No Problem.

Right?

go read his second post he vilifies it alright Ayers is a murdering bomber ... he kill a statue by blowing it up ... they had funeral arrangements for that statue the following day flowers and everything .... give me a break

And Ayers knew the bomb wouldn't kill anyone because...

Wait, he didn't, which makes him no different than any other terrorist in history.