As I am wont to do for lols, I was listening yesterday to Rush Limbaugh while driving to an appointment. He was ranting incoherently about the WTC site. Not only did he commit no fewer than four logical fallacies in as many minutes during one particularly idiotic rant, but he also implicitly said that all mosques are by definition training centers for radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Just like all churches are training grounds for christian fundamentalists.
But Christians are the right religion so that's fine.
Yes. Orthodox Christians, naturally, since they're closest to the earlier church. Can't have these Catholic heretics prancing around, let alone the Calvinists and Lutherans.
Yes. Orthodox Christians, naturally, since they're closest to the earlier church. Can't have these Catholic heretics prancing around, let alone the Calvinists and Lutherans.
Aren't all Catholic churches training grounds for the IRA?
Or pedophiles, depending on how you look at it. /Was raised Catholic //Currently non-practicing ///Must've been the ugly kid because the priest never came near me
George, dude, you are so right. I wrestle with people on a daily basis who indulge in this bizarre regional economic protectionism mindset. They don't really get globalism, or even the concept of a national economy. They think jobs moving from one state to another are bad for the economy -- when what they really mean it's bad for them. They rail against efficient businesses replacing inefficient businesses and in the same breath decry Obama's "communist" economic policies. The claim to want a laissez faire system, but they really only want government protection for their own little, insignificant jobs, which is more socialist than what they call socialism! They don't understand even basic supply and demand curves.
George, dude, you are so right. I wrestle with people on a daily basis who indulge in this bizarre regional economic protectionism mindset. They don't really get globalism, or even the concept of a national economy. They think jobs moving from one state to another are bad for the economy -- when what they really mean it's bad forthem. They rail against efficient businesses replacing inefficient businesses and in the same breath decry Obama's "communist" economic policies. The claim to want alaissez fairesystem, but they really only want government protection for their own little, insignificant jobs, which is more socialist than what they call socialism! They don't understand even basic supply and demand curves.
I have noticed through experience (unfortunately, with members of my own family), that if you try to explain to super-conservative or borderline-Tea Party (now a DSM IV classification, considered a possible variant of psychopathy) individuals how the Obama administration's tax hikes and economic plans will actually help slow the growth of the deficit they claim to worry about so much, the following will happen. I will give them in order of increasing insult to one's intelligence:
1) You kill the conversation since a proper and logical rebuttal is impossible to formulate without defying every known and accepted property of economics. 2) You will be scoffed at. 3) You will be called a socialist. Ask for a definition of socialism, and you may get the correct one. Point out that our country is, by definition, NOT socialist, and you will get a flat "wut" as your opponents brain breaks. 4) It will be insinuated that you are too young to form opinions of your own, that everyone "likes to think they have their own opinions," but really college is implanting all these nasty ideas in your head. Ultimately, they'll tell you, "you'll see how the nation is being ruined" and you'll eventually "come around."
4) It will be insinuated that you are too young to form opinions of your own, that everyone "likes to think they have their own opinions," but really college is implanting all these nasty ideas in your head. Ultimately, they'll tell you, "you'll see how the nation is being ruined" and you'll eventually "come around."
I get this all the time "You'll come around" however I no longer get the you are too young to form opinions :-p (but that's what 30 gets you)
4) It will be insinuated that you are too young to form opinions of your own, that everyone "likes to think they have their own opinions," but really college is implanting all these nasty ideas in your head. Ultimately, they'll tell you, "you'll see how the nation is being ruined" and you'll eventually "come around."
This one is my favorite. "Man, this free safelink cell phone shit they're advertising pisses me off!" "But if you think about it, it's really a necessity. There's not a viable public pay phone infrastructure anymore, and even if there were, if you're in the middle of nowhere, it's not going to help. A cell phone is a requirement, really, to interact with modern society in any meaningful way. Hell, even most jobs probably won't hire you if you don't have one." "You'll understand when you're older and have bills of your own to pay. I worked really hard to get my first cell phone, I don't see why people should get one for free."
The Glenn Beck thing makes me wonder if all you need to do now to make money is somehow get on radio (apparently intelligence and/or talent is not a requirement) and then proceed to say the most insane shit that you can think up.
Which leads to a somewhat interesting question: Could you then live with yourself even if you were making Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly level money?
Which leads to a somewhat interesting question: Could you then live with yourself even if you were making Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly level money?
Absolutely, because I wouldn't be like Glenn Beck. If I'm going to talk insane shit, it's going to be intentional comedy, not unintentional and horrifying comedy.
It's not just saying "insane shit" that makes him a force. He cashes in by preying on the fears of a people who feel left behind by the advance of time and cultural shifts. He validates their fears. Traditionalists want nothing more than to be told they are no longer relevant. Beck cultivates that paranoiac rage and directs it at the left.
It's not just saying "insane shit" that makes him a force. He cashes in by preying on the fears of a people who feel left behind by the advance of time and cultural shifts. He validates their fears. Traditionalists want nothing more than to be told they are no longer relevant. Beck cultivates that paranoiac rage and directs it at the left.
Fair enough. I don't exactly get to hear about much more than what you guys relate to me and the odd episode of "The Young Turks" that my friend sends me. I simply figured that insane, deluded bullshit was his stock in trade, intentional or no.
Could you then live with yourself even if you were making Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly level money?
They seem to be fine with it.
Also, I feel kinda bad lumping O'Reilly in with the other two. I more just disagree him (and his shouting style). He doesn't seem to be the pure, unadulterated evil that is Beck and Limbaugh.
Also, I feel kinda bad lumping O'Reilly in with the other two. I more just disagree him (and his shouting style). He doesn't seem to be the pure, unadulterated evil that is Beck and Limbaugh.
Whew. I'm glad someone else here thinks this. Dislike him all you want, but he's not nearly on the same level as the other guys.
Which leads to a somewhat interesting question: Could you then live with yourself even if you were making Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly level money?
Absolutely, because I wouldn't be like Glenn Beck. If I'm going to talk insane shit, it's going to be intentional comedy, not unintentional and horrifying comedy.
Or maybe he is the best troll in the world and this is another *gerbil* situation, taken to epic proportions?
Whew. I'm glad someone else here thinks this. Dislike him all you want, but he's not nearly on the same level as the other guys.
Yea he doesn't go full retard like the others to a point where there is apparently not a lot of love between Beck and Riley but I believe that's more of a who's the top man type thing.
Yeah, that's the thing I like about O'Reilly. I feel like he's for real.
I dislike him and much of what he says, but he can be sincere and rational from time to time. I remember when he was at some event hosted by the first lady, and he wrote a very nice open thank you letter, that said that whatever his policy disagreements may be with this administration, Michelle Obama was an incredibly nice person and he was grateful to have been at the event, or something or the sort. He can be occasionally fair, although he still spouts a mountain of crud. I revile him, but he pales in comparison with real Ahos like Beck and Rush.
Comments
/Was raised Catholic
//Currently non-practicing
///Must've been the ugly kid because the priest never came near me
1) You kill the conversation since a proper and logical rebuttal is impossible to formulate without defying every known and accepted property of economics.
2) You will be scoffed at.
3) You will be called a socialist. Ask for a definition of socialism, and you may get the correct one. Point out that our country is, by definition, NOT socialist, and you will get a flat "wut" as your opponents brain breaks.
4) It will be insinuated that you are too young to form opinions of your own, that everyone "likes to think they have their own opinions," but really college is implanting all these nasty ideas in your head. Ultimately, they'll tell you, "you'll see how the nation is being ruined" and you'll eventually "come around."
Which leads to a somewhat interesting question: Could you then live with yourself even if you were making Beck/Limbaugh/O'Reilly level money?
Also, I feel kinda bad lumping O'Reilly in with the other two. I more just disagree him (and his shouting style). He doesn't seem to be the pure, unadulterated evil that is Beck and Limbaugh.
I'm pretty sure that Glenn Beck is just presenting a persona in order to make money. The problem is that people buy into it.