You can't possibly be so stupid as to assume that every person who is failingdid it to themselves? How fucking naive are you?
I know you have trouble understanding things so I'll clarify this one point for you:
I did not say everyone who fails has brought it upon themselves. What I did describe is a case where the person doing the failing is failing in the exact same manner over and over again.
I did not say everyone who fails has brought it upon themselves. What I did describe is a case where the person doing the failing is failing in the exact same manner over and over again.
Well if you fail over and over again the same way, your insane, and thus the government has to take you under it's care anyhow :-p
I'm beginning to wonder if Beck isn't a supremely effective real-life troll.
Look at his reaction. I've seen better acting in porno movies. I think this was a stunt to get people talking - and the people here took the bait. A stupid stunt, but a stunt nonetheless. That frog was so darned small in comparison to the pot.
Keep in mind, this is mainstream media. Being right or wrong has nothing to do with success. Ratings have everything to do with success. And how do you get rating? By getting people talking.
Most commenters on the video are insisting that the uploader intentionally cut off the part where Beck explains that the frog was fake, and that we are all idiots. If it was a fake frog, then wtf is up with his befuddled reaction? And as far as ratings go, this idiocy would only further cement his status in the "do not watch this unfettered crap" category.
Look at his reaction. I've seen better acting in porno movies. I think this was a stunt to get people talking - and the people here took the bait. A stupid stunt, but a stunt nonetheless. That frog was so darned small in comparison to the pot.
I think it was faked, too. BTW, has anyone ever heard that frog adage before? I certainly haven't. Glenn Beck is like Steve, a little troll to be mocked/ignored.
It's a pretty well-known story designed to illustrate that people react less severely to slow change than to fast change.
I don't care if it was fake or not...either way, he still looks like an idiot, which he already did, and his argument was unconvincing. Seriously, Obama is changing things too fast, so we are going to flip out and run away? Is he saying that those same changes would be fine if only they were made more slowly? I stopped trying to make sense out of radical people a long time ago. I recently made a mistake and tried to watch Rachel Maddow...and then I remembered once again why I don't watch these stupid shows. All they do is yell their catch phrases over and over and don't actually address the valid points that are brought up to them. No point in giving them my attention.
The root issue, as with everything, is that the level of discourse on the national level is below the level at which meaningful communication can occur. The level of discourse on the floor of Congress isn't much better, and is still below the line of any possibility of real debate. There is a tiny possibility that the discourse in committee is at a level where meaningful discussion can happen, but I'm not confident that it is.
More and more, this single issue is at the core of every political problem in the US today. So few people engage at any reasonable level that there is effectively zero debate.
One of the major issues is that most, if not all, politicians and legislators enter the debate with their minds made up. The facts, logic, nuances, circumstance, and any possibility of a reasonable compromise (rather than a fuck you compromise) have little to no bearing when everyone enters the room with an unchangeable opinion. This applies to all members of the public. While I have opinions based on previously gained information, if I am presented with new, valid information that is counter to that opinion, then I attempt to reevaluate it.
EDIT: Regarding the point of the Glen Beck video, change in and of itself is not inherently positive or negative. If change is needed than implementing it quickly is a wonderful thing. Adherence to broken systems, ideas, procedures, laws, etc. for the mere fear of change or desire for constancy is addled thinking. Alacrity is necessary for useful and necessary progress to be made.
Kate - Or they require quid pro quo to change their vote, regardless of whether they actually think they should change their vote. What is actually best for the constituents often takes a back seat to political maneuvering.
I still have no clue what the point was he was even attempting to convey. Even if the frog was fake, it made absolutely no sense. But hey, what do I expect from a guy who already joked about murdering an elected official.
Actually, the monitor is a decent newspaper, except for 1 column about Christian Science. It's very focused on humanitarian issues and is not all conservative nonsense, if I remember correctly.
Actually, the monitor is a decent newspaper, except for 1 column about Christian Science. It's very focused on humanitarian issues and is not all conservative nonsense, if I remember correctly.
We used the Monitor quite frequently as a source in my Comparative Politics class a while ago. It's pretty damn liberal when it comes to treatment of human beings, and is likewise a very fair source. I'll cite the wikipedias on this one:
Despite its name, the Monitor is not a religious-themed paper, and does not promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisers who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.blockquote>
Comments
EDIT: also, isn't his point with the frogs jumping out of water be that we should attempt to go back to ignoring what was going on in politics?
I did not say everyone who fails has brought it upon themselves. What I did describe is a case where the person doing the failing is failing in the exact same manner over and over again.
Keep in mind, this is mainstream media. Being right or wrong has nothing to do with success. Ratings have everything to do with success. And how do you get rating? By getting people talking.
I need to learn to stop reading youtube comments.
Glenn Beck is like Steve, a little troll to be mocked/ignored.
I don't care if it was fake or not...either way, he still looks like an idiot, which he already did, and his argument was unconvincing. Seriously, Obama is changing things too fast, so we are going to flip out and run away? Is he saying that those same changes would be fine if only they were made more slowly? I stopped trying to make sense out of radical people a long time ago. I recently made a mistake and tried to watch Rachel Maddow...and then I remembered once again why I don't watch these stupid shows. All they do is yell their catch phrases over and over and don't actually address the valid points that are brought up to them. No point in giving them my attention.
More and more, this single issue is at the core of every political problem in the US today. So few people engage at any reasonable level that there is effectively zero debate.
I don't know what to do about it.
EDIT: Regarding the point of the Glen Beck video, change in and of itself is not inherently positive or negative. If change is needed than implementing it quickly is a wonderful thing. Adherence to broken systems, ideas, procedures, laws, etc. for the mere fear of change or desire for constancy is addled thinking. Alacrity is necessary for useful and necessary progress to be made.
Kate - Or they require quid pro quo to change their vote, regardless of whether they actually think they should change their vote. What is actually best for the constituents often takes a back seat to political maneuvering.
At the risk of agreeing with Joe, if we are talking about things this trivial, we're all suckers.