Like them or not, they present some disturbing, yet unsurprising facts in this piece.
11 comments:
George Lass
said...
Facts? Beck and O'Reilly wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on their lazy asses. There's a lot of character asassination going on here - wtf? Beck doesn't respond to the content of the allegations or recognize the anger created by his comments, or recognize the right of people to ask for or conduct a boycott of his work. Hell, O'Reilly's favorite thing in the world is asking people to boycott MSNBC or anyone else he fails to agree with. Facts? That's ridiculous.
BTW, it would seem they respond differently to "former Marxists" - wasn't economist Sowell also dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism, free speech and apple pie?
You see a sin in acknowledging a past sin and seeking redemption through revelaing the facts of your former zealorty. Sowell has always been spot on in showing how he had been wrong, and where his errors lay, and why he had the change of heart.
Kind of like Winston Churchill when he said "if your not a liberal when your young, if your not a conservative when your older, you have no brain."
There is always a lure to Marxism which becomes poison the more you learn about it. So, Sowell being a smart man, had a Come to Canossa moment.
How much of Sowell's stuff have you read, George. If you need, I can loan you a book or two, help you with your education.
Sorry, Steve-O. I have my master's degree, and one of the advantages of education is learning to have a discriminating eye. I know how to avoid horseshit dressed up as birthday cake. Like the man said, if I want to know something about the economy, I'll read Uncle Tom Sowell. If I want to know something about politics, I turn to people like Mill, Paine, Smith and Rousseau - Beck and O'Reilly (and Sowell) aren't on that list - if you'd like to read some real history and real political philosophy, put down the op-ed section of the DemGaz or the Washington Times and get a degree from someplace other than a mail-order diploma mill, my would-be-historian friend.
You know, one of the things I learned in college, was that the education never ends. Long after you get your piece of paper stating that you spent the requisite hours in class and coherent, you are always learning more stuff. That is the joy of books, you know?
So you got your masters, big deal, seems apparent, particularly with your not nice comment on Mr. Sowell, that your time was not well spent.
Those names you threw out are good for history from an earlier perspective. To get your self into the 21st Century, you have to read more current stuff.
hve you read Dnaiel Hannon's book, The Plan? Nice getting some useful history from a very talented and articulate individual who is turning UK politics on its ear.
As I had mentioned to Chris in the Sowell thread, a good economist has a good grasp of history. Or did they not teach you how to connect the dots in class. Economics do not happen in a vaccuum. Economics is influenced by politics, sociology, history. To know one, you have to know them all.
Are you an economist? What about a political scientist? Your opinion? Sure, I'll value that - it's what makes reading your posts interesting. You as an authority on either of those topics? Not borne out by the things you write, Stevie. You seem to think you know a lot about history and politics. So, I guess you're telling me you're an expert on politics, sociology and history now. I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt your expertise in any of those fields - and as such, why would I take your recommendation about Sowell and politics? I watched that video - the guy's full of opinions, but doesn't back anything up with fact - just a lot of hot gas comparing Obama with Chamberlain - which I have to admit is a break from baggers comparing Obama to Hitler. And you think I don't know anything about history? Give me a break. Now you want me to read something written by an ultra-right wing member of British Parliament, who doesn't like NHS and doesn't like the EU. Why would I consider a rightist MEP to be among the ranks of the world's most respected political thinkers? Not a chance, not him, not Sowell either. You want to talk about "modern?" who should we consider that? Fromm, Popper, Arendt? Who? Steve-O, you name them, OK?
So, George, since you intimate that your piece of paper gives you some authority, illuminate us about where Sowell is wrong. You merely state, as a matter of opinion, that the comprison doesn't work.
Illustrate how. So far all you have shown is a bit of wind, all the while accusing me of the same. You understand the word for that kind of behavior.
I will give you a bit of help with Sowell's comparison. In the other thread, I mentioned the book, 1939. Great read, and very illuminating. It is also still more comtemporary than the latest list of neames you tossed. Read that book, they have it at the library in Fayetteville.
Character assasination, George? Van Jones is a self proclaimed communist. According to Mr. Jones: "I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." And "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Glenn Beck didn't do any character assasination to Van Jones that Van Jones didn't already do to himself. The guy is a self proclaimed communist, and unlike Sowell, Van Jones never recanted his former ideaology.
Isaac, you seem like such a smart guy. You can't follow that Glenn isn't addressing the substance of arguments against him? Like he accused someone of racism and a host of other things without providing any evidence of that (libel, slander, etc) and then went so far as to turn around and contradict himself on live television? Instead, he wants to play the victim and smear someone else for "communism" - how very McCarthy of him, and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. WTF does ideology have to do with anything? What's Glenn Beck's "ideology" - insanity? Who cares about "Van" - nobody does. The companies care about Glenn and Glenn's big mouth - you haven't noticed them carping about "communism" which is always the resort of a weak mind trying to fend off valid criticism.
And yes, as a person with a weak mind, or at least a mind that occasionally likes to laze about, I reserve the right to refer to you as a wingnut at this point, and will cede the point to you in later discussion.
Yeah George, you know what? Youre right. Im sure he's a good guy. The guys a self proclaimed communist, and he is advising the President of the United States of America. Harmless.
11 comments:
Facts? Beck and O'Reilly wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on their lazy asses. There's a lot of character asassination going on here - wtf? Beck doesn't respond to the content of the allegations or recognize the anger created by his comments, or recognize the right of people to ask for or conduct a boycott of his work. Hell, O'Reilly's favorite thing in the world is asking people to boycott MSNBC or anyone else he fails to agree with. Facts? That's ridiculous.
BTW, it would seem they respond differently to "former Marxists" - wasn't economist Sowell also dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism, free speech and apple pie?
You see a sin in acknowledging a past sin and seeking redemption through revelaing the facts of your former zealorty. Sowell has always been spot on in showing how he had been wrong, and where his errors lay, and why he had the change of heart.
Kind of like Winston Churchill when he said "if your not a liberal when your young, if your not a conservative when your older, you have no brain."
There is always a lure to Marxism which becomes poison the more you learn about it. So, Sowell being a smart man, had a Come to Canossa moment.
How much of Sowell's stuff have you read, George. If you need, I can loan you a book or two, help you with your education.
Sorry, Steve-O. I have my master's degree, and one of the advantages of education is learning to have a discriminating eye. I know how to avoid horseshit dressed up as birthday cake. Like the man said, if I want to know something about the economy, I'll read Uncle Tom Sowell. If I want to know something about politics, I turn to people like Mill, Paine, Smith and Rousseau - Beck and O'Reilly (and Sowell) aren't on that list - if you'd like to read some real history and real political philosophy, put down the op-ed section of the DemGaz or the Washington Times and get a degree from someplace other than a mail-order diploma mill, my would-be-historian friend.
You know, one of the things I learned in college, was that the education never ends. Long after you get your piece of paper stating that you spent the requisite hours in class and coherent, you are always learning more stuff. That is the joy of books, you know?
So you got your masters, big deal, seems apparent, particularly with your not nice comment on Mr. Sowell, that your time was not well spent.
Those names you threw out are good for history from an earlier perspective. To get your self into the 21st Century, you have to read more current stuff.
hve you read Dnaiel Hannon's book, The Plan? Nice getting some useful history from a very talented and articulate individual who is turning UK politics on its ear.
As I had mentioned to Chris in the Sowell thread, a good economist has a good grasp of history. Or did they not teach you how to connect the dots in class. Economics do not happen in a vaccuum. Economics is influenced by politics, sociology, history. To know one, you have to know them all.
Are you an economist? What about a political scientist? Your opinion? Sure, I'll value that - it's what makes reading your posts interesting. You as an authority on either of those topics? Not borne out by the things you write, Stevie. You seem to think you know a lot about history and politics. So, I guess you're telling me you're an expert on politics, sociology and history now. I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt your expertise in any of those fields - and as such, why would I take your recommendation about Sowell and politics? I watched that video - the guy's full of opinions, but doesn't back anything up with fact - just a lot of hot gas comparing Obama with Chamberlain - which I have to admit is a break from baggers comparing Obama to Hitler. And you think I don't know anything about history? Give me a break. Now you want me to read something written by an ultra-right wing member of British Parliament, who doesn't like NHS and doesn't like the EU. Why would I consider a rightist MEP to be among the ranks of the world's most respected political thinkers? Not a chance, not him, not Sowell either. You want to talk about "modern?" who should we consider that? Fromm, Popper, Arendt? Who? Steve-O, you name them, OK?
O'Reilly interviews Beck? Bet that was way stimulating for the folks in the mental ward.
So, George, since you intimate that your piece of paper gives you some authority, illuminate us about where Sowell is wrong. You merely state, as a matter of opinion, that the comprison doesn't work.
Illustrate how. So far all you have shown is a bit of wind, all the while accusing me of the same. You understand the word for that kind of behavior.
I will give you a bit of help with Sowell's comparison. In the other thread, I mentioned the book, 1939. Great read, and very illuminating. It is also still more comtemporary than the latest list of neames you tossed. Read that book, they have it at the library in Fayetteville.
Character assasination, George? Van Jones is a self proclaimed communist. According to Mr. Jones: "I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."
And
"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Glenn Beck didn't do any character assasination to Van Jones that Van Jones didn't already do to himself. The guy is a self proclaimed communist, and unlike Sowell, Van Jones never recanted his former ideaology.
Isaac, you seem like such a smart guy. You can't follow that Glenn isn't addressing the substance of arguments against him? Like he accused someone of racism and a host of other things without providing any evidence of that (libel, slander, etc) and then went so far as to turn around and contradict himself on live television? Instead, he wants to play the victim and smear someone else for "communism" - how very McCarthy of him, and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. WTF does ideology have to do with anything? What's Glenn Beck's "ideology" - insanity? Who cares about "Van" - nobody does. The companies care about Glenn and Glenn's big mouth - you haven't noticed them carping about "communism" which is always the resort of a weak mind trying to fend off valid criticism.
And yes, as a person with a weak mind, or at least a mind that occasionally likes to laze about, I reserve the right to refer to you as a wingnut at this point, and will cede the point to you in later discussion.
Yeah George, you know what? Youre right. Im sure he's a good guy. The guys a self proclaimed communist, and he is advising the President of the United States of America. Harmless.
Post a Comment