Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

freaking hilarious

intro:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... -is-cancer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the rest:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... ibertarian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cue native vehemently agreeing with Beck.

youngterrier wrote:freaking hilarious

intro:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... -is-cancer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the rest:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... ibertarian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stewart is pretty darn funny!

But as someone who whines constantly about Beck's supposed lack of substance, I wonder why you focus on the insubstantial issues and fail to engage or even acknowledge the issues of substance. Presumably you could demonstrate why Beck is in error.

Grizalltheway wrote:Cue native vehemently agreeing with Beck.

On issues of style, Beck leaves himself open to hilarious riducule.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:freaking hilarious

intro:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... -is-cancer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the rest:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... ibertarian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stewart is pretty darn funny!

But as someone who whines constantly about Beck's supposed lack of substance, I wonder why you focus on the insubstantial issues and fail to engage or even acknowledge the issues of substance. Presumably you could demonstrate why Beck is in error.

Stewart pretty much presents my point, he assumes that those who disagree with him are radical socialists and then compares them to and transitions to Nazis, communists, etc. without really drawing a connection other than they're liberal/progressive

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
Stewart is pretty darn funny!

But as someone who whines constantly about Beck's supposed lack of substance, I wonder why you focus on the insubstantial issues and fail to engage or even acknowledge the issues of substance. Presumably you could demonstrate why Beck is in error.

Stewart pretty much presents my point, he assumes that those who disagree with him are radical socialists and then compares them to and transitions to Nazis, communists, etc. without really drawing a connection other than they're liberal/progressive

In many cases, such as Obama himself, one need not possess much of an imagination to compare Obama to a communist, since he brags about his marxism in his autobiography.

At some point, YT, you need to get over being pissed at me and preserve your own intellectual integrity by recognizing socialist policies for what they are and acknowledging those parts of the Constitution that have largely protected us from such.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:
Stewart pretty much presents my point, he assumes that those who disagree with him are radical socialists and then compares them to and transitions to Nazis, communists, etc. without really drawing a connection other than they're liberal/progressive

In many cases, such as Obama himself, one need not possess much of an imagination to compare Obama to a communist, since he brags about his marxism in his autobiography.

At some point, YT, you need to get over being pissed at me and preserve your own intellectual integrity by recognizing socialist policies for what they are and acknowledging those parts of the Constitution that have largely protected us from such.

your going to need citation for that, I googled and searched Ask.com and can't find any mention of said "bragging"

at some point you're going to have to stop being an ideologue and accept that those liberals who disagree with you are not communists

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
In many cases, such as Obama himself, one need not possess much of an imagination to compare Obama to a communist, since he brags about his marxism in his autobiography.

At some point, YT, you need to get over being pissed at me and preserve your own intellectual integrity by recognizing socialist policies for what they are and acknowledging those parts of the Constitution that have largely protected us from such.

your going to need citation for that, I googled and searched Ask.com and can't find any mention of said "bragging"

at some point you're going to have to stop being an ideologue and accept that those liberals who disagree with you are not communists

Some of the liberals who disagree with me are obviously not communists, and liberalism in the United States has a long patriotic history which in some cases has included a proud tradition of opposing communism, both foreign and domestic.

But most of today's progressive solutions are so transparently socialist and the methods used by the Obama administration so deviously bolshevist that the progressives themselves must be either dishonest with the outside world about their true colors or dishonest with themselves about the ramifications of the programs they support.

I will provide the Obama citation eventually but it will take me a while because my copy of Obama's bio is in storage. I apologize.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: your going to need citation for that, I googled and searched Ask.com and can't find any mention of said "bragging"

at some point you're going to have to stop being an ideologue and accept that those liberals who disagree with you are not communists

Some of the liberals who disagree with me are obviously not communists, and liberalism in the United States has a long patriotic history which in some cases has included a proud tradition of opposing communism,both foreign and domestic.

But most of today's progressive solutions are so transparently socialist and the methods used by the Obama administration so deviously bolshevist that the progressives themselves must be either dishonest with the outside world about their true colors or dishonest with themselves about the ramifications of the programs they support.

I will provide the citation eventually but it will take me a while because my copy of Obama's bio is in storage. I apologize.

the solutions themselves are "Social Capitalist" though personally I think they lead to a socialist-like economy. My issue with Beck and you is this: your putting words in the progressives' mouth, how is it fair (and not McCarthyist) to say that they are out to get you and if they tell you different it's just a lie? that rationalization puts them in the indefensible position of they are A) out to get you or B) out to get you and lying about it. To assume they are just being dishonest and not just ignorant of the ramifications is just assuming that they are out to get you IMO.

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
Some of the liberals who disagree with me are obviously not communists, and liberalism in the United States has a long patriotic history which in some cases has included a proud tradition of opposing communism,both foreign and domestic.

But most of today's progressive solutions are so transparently socialist and the methods used by the Obama administration so deviously bolshevist that the progressives themselves must be either dishonest with the outside world about their true colors or dishonest with themselves about the ramifications of the programs they support.

I will provide the citation eventually but it will take me a while because my copy of Obama's bio is in storage. I apologize.

the solutions themselves are "Social Capitalist" though personally I think they lead to a socialist-like economy. My issue with Beck and you is this: your putting words in the progressives' mouth, how is it fair (and not McCarthyist) to say that they are out to get you and if they tell you different it's just a lie? that rationalization puts them in the indefensible position of they are A) out to get you or B) out to get you and lying about it. To assume they are just being dishonest and not just ignorant of the ramifications is just assuming that they are out to get you IMO.

When you say that Beck puts words in progressives' mouths, your crticism is at least partially inaccurate and unfair. Beck goes to great lengths to find and provide the unfiltered direct quotes of Obama and the communist idolizers in his administration. Obama himself told Joe the Plumber that we needed to "spread the wealth around."

You can rationalize and contextualize the words from these progressives' mouths all you want but when you peel the onion for yourself, you will realize that many are actually dedicated to transforming our society in the direction of marxism/communism.

Anita Dunn's enthusiastic embrace of MaoTse Tung, in her own words:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/15/an ... eerleader/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama's dedicated college marxism, in the words of a contemporary, Dr. Drew:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/201 ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:
the solutions themselves are "Social Capitalist" though personally I think they lead to a socialist-like economy. My issue with Beck and you is this: your putting words in the progressives' mouth, how is it fair (and not McCarthyist) to say that they are out to get you and if they tell you different it's just a lie? that rationalization puts them in the indefensible position of they are A) out to get you or B) out to get you and lying about it. To assume they are just being dishonest and not just ignorant of the ramifications is just assuming that they are out to get you IMO.

When you say that Beck puts words in progressives' mouths, your crticism is at least partially inaccurate and unfair. Beck goes to great lengths to find and provide the unfiltered direct quotes of Obama and the communist idolizers in his administration.

You can rationalize and contextualize the words from these progressives' mouths all you want but when you peel the onion for yourself, you will realize that many are actually dedicated to transforming our society in the direction of marxism/communism.

Anita Dunn's enthusiastic embrace of MaoTse Tung, in her own words:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/15/an ... eerleader/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama's dedicated college marxism, in the words of a contemporary, Dr. Drew:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/201 ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Beck says "They are taking you to a place to be Slaughtered" and the like he is putting words in people's mouth, when I use that term I don't mean direct quotes but rather when one implicates what someone else' intentions are especially when it is done in a false way. Beck does this all the time. I already searched and viewed The Fox nation link before, and discredited it after hearing "we don't even have a birth certificate" and the link you provided was just a forum

and the other link was her philosophizing not giving any economic lecture

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:

When you say that Beck puts words in progressives' mouths, your crticism is at least partially inaccurate and unfair. Beck goes to great lengths to find and provide the unfiltered direct quotes of Obama and the communist idolizers in his administration.

You can rationalize and contextualize the words from these progressives' mouths all you want but when you peel the onion for yourself, you will realize that many are actually dedicated to transforming our society in the direction of marxism/communism.

Anita Dunn's enthusiastic embrace of MaoTse Tung, in her own words:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/15/an ... eerleader/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama's dedicated college marxism, in the words of a contemporary, Dr. Drew:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/201 ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Beck says "They are taking you to a place to be Slaughtered" and the like he is putting words in people's mouth, when I use that term I don't mean direct quotes but rather when one implicates what someone else' intentions are especially when it is done in a false way. Beck does this all the time. I already searched and viewed The Fox nation link before, and discredited it after hearing "we don't even have a birth certificate" and the link you provided was just a forum

and the other link was her philosophizing not giving any economic lecture

Perfect. You discredited the link not because you actually listened to the words of Anita Dunn or Dr. Drew, but because you don't like the people that provided the link. Wow! What integrity and substance!

C'mon YT, you can think for yourself. I did not provide the links for the forums or commentary, but for the direct recording of the first person evidence. Go back and view the two videos. Discount Beck all you want but listen to the words of Anita Dunn for yourself. The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change. Wearing makeup and giving the lecture in a nice environment cannot hide the fact.

Stewart rocks

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:
When Beck says "They are taking you to a place to be Slaughtered" and the like he is putting words in people's mouth, when I use that term I don't mean direct quotes but rather when one implicates what someone else' intentions are especially when it is done in a false way. Beck does this all the time. I already searched and viewed The Fox nation link before, and discredited it after hearing "we don't even have a birth certificate" and the link you provided was just a forum

and the other link was her philosophizing not giving any economic lecture

Perfect. You discredited the link not because you actually listened to the words of Anita Dunn, but because you don't like the people that provided the link. Wow! What integrity and substance!

C'mon YT, you can think for yourself. I did not provide the links for the forums or commentary, but for the direct recording of the first person evidence. Go back and view the two videos. Discount Beck all you want but listen to the words of Anita Dunn for yourself. The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change. Wearing makeup and giving the lecture in a nice environment cannot hide the fact.

I listened to her words, I discredited the Fox Nation link based on that. Anita Dunn's point was about "fighting your own war" and essentially choosing your own path, not communism SHE DIDN'T EVEN MENTION COMMUNISM!!!!!!! OR THE ECONOMY!!!!! you need to think for yourself on that one

I'm sorry but your last post still has me turned upside down. How did you even get "The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change" when communism wasn't even mentioned

I challenge anyone else on here to listen to the approximately 5min video on the first link and tell me what they think because I don't see how you drew that conclusion

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:freaking hilarious

intro:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... -is-cancer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the rest:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... ibertarian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stewart is pretty darn funny!

But as someone who whines constantly about Beck's supposed lack of substance, I wonder why you focus on the insubstantial issues and fail to engage or even acknowledge the issues of substance. Presumably you could demonstrate why Beck is in error.

[youtube][/youtube]

This illustrates Beck's "supposed lack of substance." Stupidity, arrogance, and ridiculousness negates any "substance" he may attempt to have. He's a useless, waste of space. Of course, this is just my opinion.

youngterrier wrote:I'm sorry but your last post still has me turned upside down. How did you even get "The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change" when communism wasn't even mentioned

I challenge anyone else on here to listen to the approximately 5min video on the first link and tell me what they think because I don't see how you drew that conclusion

In your wildest imagination, YT, what philosophy did you think Anita Dunn was praising when she discussed for two minutes how Mao prevailed over Chiang Kai Shek? Seriously, do you know who Mao is? Can you tell me besides communism what you think Mao's philosophy might be? Do you think Mao was conducting a corporate seminar on organizational change? Do you think Mao's philosophy of "power from the barrel of a gun," of murder, assassination, starvation and imprisonment has ever been or will ever be appropriate? What do you think the cost of Mao's "philosophy" has been to Chinese?

Why would anyone, let alone President Obama's Communications Director, pick as their favorite philosopher the champion mass murderer of all recorded history, and then celebrate without reservation the philosophy that led consciously and deliberately to the 70-77 million murders - INCLUDING the murders that occurred as a direct result of the specific events celebrated in Dunn's two minute speech?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

native wrote:
Stewart is pretty darn funny!

But as someone who whines constantly about Beck's supposed lack of substance, I wonder why you focus on the insubstantial issues and fail to engage or even acknowledge the issues of substance. Presumably you could demonstrate why Beck is in error.

[youtube][/youtube]

This illustrates Beck's "supposed lack of substance." Stupidity, arrogance, and ridiculousness negates any "substance" he may attempt to have. He's a useless, waste of space. Of course, this is just my opinion.

What was wrong with that interview? Did you accidentally pick the wrong one to post on the thread?

In this interview, Beck congratulated the Congressman and suggested that his election and the immigrant participation in the election was a successful example of muslim immigrant integration into American society. I was waiting for Beck to say something bad or stupid but it didn't happen.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:I'm sorry but your last post still has me turned upside down. How did you even get "The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change" when communism wasn't even mentioned

I challenge anyone else on here to listen to the approximately 5min video on the first link and tell me what they think because I don't see how you drew that conclusion

In your wildest imagination, YT, what philosophy did you think Anita Dunn was praising when she discussed for two minutes how Mao prevailed over Chiang Kai Shek? Seriously, do you know who Mao is? Can you tell me besides communism what you think Mao's philosophy might be? Do you think Mao was conducting a corporate seminar on organizational change? Do you think Mao's philosophy of "power from the barrel of a gun," of murder, assassination, starvation and imprisonment has ever been or will ever be appropriate? What do you think the cost of Mao's "philosophy" has been to Chinese?

Sigh (again)

it wasnt about HIS political philosophy but rather that of a life philosophy in choosing your own path, not givin up, etc.

you sir need to see a shrink

youngterrier wrote:I'm sorry but your last post still has me turned upside down. How did you even get "The "philosophy" she is praising is the brutal philosophy of how to effect communist political change" when communism wasn't even mentioned

I challenge anyone else on here to listen to the approximately 5min video on the first link and tell me what they think because I don't see how you drew that conclusion

I am so much dumber for watching that clip. Thanks alot YT

native wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
[youtube][/youtube]

This illustrates Beck's "supposed lack of substance." Stupidity, arrogance, and ridiculousness negates any "substance" he may attempt to have. He's a useless, waste of space. Of course, this is just my opinion.

What was wrong with that interview? Did you accidentally pick the wrong one to post on the thread?

In this interview, Beck congratulated the Congressman and suggested that his election and the immigrant participation in the election was a successful example of muslim immigrant integration into American society.

I totally agree.

It was nice to see Glenn get over what seemed a sure fire case of the- muslim terrorist- induced vapors.

For sure a rip-off of the prejudicial "oh, you're not here to rob me" white guy confronting an imposing black guy schtick, but fun none the less.

native wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
[youtube][/youtube]

This illustrates Beck's "supposed lack of substance." Stupidity, arrogance, and ridiculousness negates any "substance" he may attempt to have. He's a useless, waste of space. Of course, this is just my opinion.

What was wrong with that interview? Did you accidentally pick the wrong one to post on the thread?

In this interview, Beck congratulated the Congressman and suggested that his election and the immigrant participation in the election was a successful example of muslim immigrant integration into American society.

Do you not understand words or are you just dumb? forget about you. Im not debating you anymore you're a blind ideologue who isnt worth my time. I'm not going to argue with someone of such zealous opinion that he is blind of reason and trust outside of his own little world(and dont respond saying you are "understanding ofother people's perspective" because Ive been surfing these boards for about 2 years and have seen nothingbut partisan hackery on your part) then turns around, talks down to me, and says i don't understand other's viewpoint when you don't know me and if you did know me you would notice I was way liberal about a year ago so i know how they tick. Good night and good luck

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
In your wildest imagination, YT, what philosophy did you think Anita Dunn was praising when she discussed for two minutes how Mao prevailed over Chiang Kai Shek? Seriously, do you know who Mao is? Can you tell me besides communism what you think Mao's philosophy might be? Do you think Mao was conducting a corporate seminar on organizational change? Do you think Mao's philosophy of "power from the barrel of a gun," of murder, assassination, starvation and imprisonment has ever been or will ever be appropriate? What do you think the cost of Mao's "philosophy" has been to Chinese?

Sigh (again)

it wasnt about HIS political philosophy but rather that of a life philosophy in choosing your own path, not givin up, etc.

you sir need to see a shrink

Mao had a life philosophy. So did Hitler, Lenin, Jesus, Stalin, Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, et al.

What kind of idiot in a high visibility political position would praise Mao to invoke inpiration and confidence in "choosing your own path" for political change? That would be like praising Jefferson Davis to invoke praise and confidence in choosing your own path to free enterprise.

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
What was wrong with that interview? Did you accidentally pick the wrong one to post on the thread?

In this interview, Beck congratulated the Congressman and suggested that his election and the immigrant participation in the election was a successful example of muslim immigrant integration into American society.

Do you not understand words or are you just dumb? forget about you. Im not debating you anymore you're a blind ideologue who isnt worth my time. I'm not going to argue with someone of such zealous opinion that he is blind of reason and trust outside of his own little world(and dont respond saying you are "understanding ofother people's perspective" because Ive been surfing these boards for about 2 years and have seen nothingbut partisan hackery on your part) then turns around, talks down to me, and says i don't understand other's viewpoint when you don't know me and if you did know me you would notice I was way liberal about a year ago so i know how they tick. Good night and good luck

Was there some substance hidden somewhere in that post?

What did Beck do wrong in the Ellison interview?

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: Sigh (again)

it wasnt about HIS political philosophy but rather that of a life philosophy in choosing your own path, not givin up, etc.

you sir need to see a shrink

Mao had a life philosophy. So did Hitler, Lenin, Jesus, Stalin, Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, et al.

What kind of idiot in a high visibility political position would praise Mao to invoke inpiration and confidence in "choosing your own path" for political change? That would be like praising Jefferson Davis to invoke praise and confidence in choosing your own path to free enterprise.

i never said i agreed with the example, but of the above mentioned none of them had the odds set against them like Mao did (and I wouldnt feel bad about about a Jefferson davis examples for free market principals)

the video is not fresh on my mind but im fairly certain that the speech's point had NOTHING to do with political change as you assert falsely