At 10/27/09 09:11 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: What does conservative mean to people?

Smilez you make a very good point. Labels such as Conservative & Liberal and Republican & Democrat can be really transitory when it comes to the fickle "independents".

When people become embarrassed of their leaders the are less likely to claim affiliation with them. This is why there were less likely people who called themselves conservatives when george bush was president.

That is why I like the issues questions. That is a little more objective than subjective questions like "are you Conservative".

As far as Glenn beck being libertarian is concerned, i suppose it depends on how you define 'libertarian' My guess is, I'm so much of an extremist that Glenn Beck just doesn't look very libertarian in my Eyes.

So how are you an extremist? Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian? (Yeah, the irony of asking you this after talking validity issues with labels is not lost on me.)

At 10/26/09 11:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: And you know what, both black people and white people are more insured than Hispanics who this will affect the most. These laws aren't being passed just for black people.

I do recognize that...afterall I did say that there are poor white people who are out there.

The truth of the matter is Healthcare Reform, and a public option in particular, probably will not effect inner-city poor all that dramatically. There are programs out there for the poor already. Yeah it's crappy, but having experienced military medicine...that's part & parcel to government provided care.

Then I fail to see how Beck's claim is correct in anyway whatsoever. What are you arguing?

Have you ever heard of issue linking? It is where a politician overtly or subtly links two issues together...whether they are related or not. Whether or not the issues really effect what the politician is saying they effect.

It doesn't really matter if the speaker is white or black. I've heard white people make the case for reparations and I've heard black people say they aren't fair.

And I haven't heard Obama say that any of the things he is doing are for the purposes of reparations, and you have acknowledged that this wouldn't be a very good way to go about getting reparations either.

There is issue linkage between entitlements and the black vote. It is seen as the minority getting their come uppance. This linkage is made by both sides to motivate their bases.

No, I'm not taking Glen Beck out of context. I am claiming he took Obama out of context in those movies which are provided in full, in which case if you can't refute that point, you are wrong about Beck putting his clips in context, which is a claim you made.

No I'm not. For the most part Beck does provide context. Now on the issue of calling Obama a racist...that was an interview where he expressed a purely personal opinion. It was not his show where he had total control of the content...so that second clip has no bearing on what you are saying.

Then when you look at the reparations issue and look at what he is saying in its entirity...he does show things Obama has said. He is making a link, connecting the dots. Now he may very well be wrong in the connection...but no one is right 100% of the time.

So in the end you show one case where Beck has made a connection that is tenuous at best, wrong at worst. That is not indicative of a systemic failure on his part.

Be careful telling someone what they can or cannot see. Obama stayed with an apparently racist church for 20 years. I grew up in a small town around racists where I went to school with guys in the KKK. Guess what? I steared clear of any group or gathering where that shit went on.

I'm happy for you, but a lot of people have racist leaders and Obama doesn't preach racism even if his former paster did. I actually have made friends with racists and my family often express racist opinions. That doesn't make me a racist, but I am familiar with the line of argument especially when a racist doesn't want to be labeled as such.

Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it. There are situations where you cannot easily extricate yourself from them. But when it is a voluntary association such as with a church...then the extrication is fairly easy.

Well, you'd have to actually prove somewhere he was doing something against white people which he isn't, so if anything this is more libel than anything that's been said in satire against Beck.

Have you seen Beck's pieces on Van Jones? Guess what...the claim is made by Jones' history of being involved with racist organizations and his own writing.

Well, then he's politically motivated into saying anything that'll discredit Obama regardless of factual information. Honestly, with out solid proof you can't just say Obama hate's white people. YOU CAN'T.

YOU CAN! You're a crappy American for saying that. See we've got the First Amendment that protects your right to say what you feel about our political leaders.

I've always considered that a stupid argument for anything, but I heard just as often that some of the people I knew didn't want a god forsaken ****** monkey in the white house painting it black. And no, I didn't embellish that.

Then we agree on something.

No, its dishonest. Very clearly so. Again, there's not been any proof of Obama hating white people or making anti white legislation.

No proof...other than people he's been affiliated with.

You point to two things, but ignore the majority of what his show and commentary is about. From what I've seen most of how Beck "discredits" Obama is not race.

Well, when Beck becomes intelligent enough not to make horrible arguments like that, maybe I'll lend him my ear.

Well what's interesting is you're saying he's not intelligent...yet this statement suggests that you haven't listened to him that much. Therefore you're making an argument from ignorance.

Health Care reform. Or you know, at least a solid attempt and push for it. He is only the president and we've elected some rather shitty leaders into congress.

Clinton pushed for it...and lost. Then there is Bush's healthcare reform (Medicare Part D).

But what he's using to discredit Obama is:
* Massive spending...when we don't have the money

We'd have less if the economy crashed.

Unemployment is still rampant. Then there is the Social Security Trustfund that is going dry...and when that happens all this spending will crash like a house of cards. Taking the economy with it.

* Poor monetary policy (turning on the printing press)

Started by Bush. You can't just turn these things off as has been argued before. I'm not saying it excuses it, but we're starting to see some back peddling.

No back peddling on the part of Beck...he is consistent in his criticism. He attacked Bush for the same thing.

* Deficits (monetizing our debt and selling it to China)

Yeah, again, until we find a way to start having surpluses which were squandered on tax cuts I don't see how this is going to get fixed. There's a certain portion of the population that could shoulder more of the burden, but it remains that if the government isn't reformed and taxes collected in some manor, the debt will continue to grow.

Wealth redistribution does not work. But at this point...we need more revenue. We need to raise taxes...while cutting back on spending.

Health care reform was one of those things that was supposed to significantly help everyone. If you lower the burden on the average american, they have more to spend on other things which means more tax revenue and a stronger economy. If people are healthier businesses don't lose as much money from sick people and again everyone continues to prosper.

Yeah I've heard that argument. But what happens to the workers in the healthcare field? It can also be applied to any industry. Just think how much of an economic boost it would be if people did not have to pay for food and could buy other things? What about cars? Or Computers? Or XBox 360s?

The biggest problem right now is the recession which pretty much bankrupted everything, but if we did nothing and had let banks collapse & our core industries we'd be back in the 1930s.

You do realize that the Great Depression was the first Depression (the term Recession didn't exist until after WWII)...that the government vigorously intervened in. It also lasted longer and got deeper than any other that preceeded it. Yeah it would hurt really bad for a little while...but with intervention the pain just gets spread out.

Here's an interesting article I came across today about American ideology. It appears Conservatives are increasing in number. The basics:

* 40%: Conservative, 36%: Moderate, 20%: Liberal
* Although Democrats remain the number one party affiliation...Independents are inching to the right. 35% of Independents now claim to be Conservatives...up from 29% a year ago.
* Gallup is measuring a shift to the right on individual issues. Every issue (except for healthcare...where Gallup's data is incomplete) shows a Conservative bias.

What does this have to do with Beck?

He claims to be a Conservative. (No that is not inconsistent with being a Libertarian. You can be Liberal or Conservative and still be Libertarian.) Now many people on this topic are talking about how Beck is out of the mainstream. And yet this shift to the Right in the country does suggest that Beck's views are closer to the mainstream than those on MSNBC.

At 10/25/09 11:24 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/25/09 10:46 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

Obama's a racist ...

Clearly what Obama is saying there is that any bill that seeks to make sure everyone insured or educated is going to vastly affect those that are at a disadvantage. And all the statistics say that minorities are usually disadvantaged so doing this will disproportionately affect them as a race.

HOWEVER

He never claims what he is doing in any of those segments is because of race. He acknowledges that this will improve minority communities more than others, but frankly that's just the way the country is and you can't argue with that.

You know, it's not really wise to say something cannot be argued unless you have some scientific certainty backing you up. (But then again Einstein supplanted Newton's laws of gravity.)

There is still a significant amount of rural, white poor in this country.

For beck to claim that these are reparations ignores the fact that he is doing this for everyone. Universal means exactly that.

The truth of the matter is Healthcare Reform, and a public option in particular, probably will not effect inner-city poor all that dramatically. There are programs out there for the poor already. Yeah it's crappy, but having experienced military medicine...that's part & parcel to government provided care.

Implying they are reparations is dishonest. If a white man said those words they'd mean the same thing and still not be an argument for reparations. When we talk about no child left behind and the schools that are doing the worst are inner city urban schools with a lot of black kids that isn't reparations either, but its the same goal, to help the severely disadvantaged.

It doesn't really matter if the speaker is white or black. I've heard white people make the case for reparations and I've heard black people say they aren't fair.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context.

but you already claimed Beck puts things in context, which in these specific cases wasn't true. Go ahead and ignore one of your arguments.

I was referring to when you said:

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

-_-

And yeah, a lot of those things are taken out of context.

So no...I'm not arguing against myself here, regardless of your clumsy attempt at twisting my words. It appeared that you making a pre-emptive comment against someone saying that you were taking Glen Beck out of context.

I was simply trying to acknowledge that those clips did show a fair amount of what he said and did provide Beck with context.

And yes, you have to wonder why Beck would even bring up racism and reparations when you can see Obama isn't a racist and isn't doing anything specifically to make up for slavery. I would call Beck a race bater before I ever called him a racist. And in all honesty, that's almost worse since he has a public podium.

Be careful telling someone what they can or cannot see. Obama stayed with an apparently racist church for 20 years. I grew up in a small town around racists where I went to school with guys in the KKK. Guess what? I steared clear of any group or gathering where that shit went on.

Then there are people like Van Jones who he puts in prominent places in his administration. So yeah there is a taint of reverse racism to the Obama administration. Do I believe he is a Black Panther...no. But I'm not convinced that Obama does not have a problem with white people.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent.

And you know, I've seen a lot of people say that kind of stuff and it's just to save face. I don't know if beck is doing this, but he's yet to prove to me that he isn't. lol

I've listened to Beck since the early days of his national syndication. I would not listen to him if I heard him espouse racist thinking. So no, I don't think it is about saving face.

And another thing, it's not just Beck, Conservatives or Republicans who are "race baiting". Look at the Democrats during the election. My God, I've heard so many people (like my gf's father) who keep saying: "we need change...we needed a black guy". That just feels wrong...feels racist to me.

With reparations he makes a connection...but based upon what Obama himself says. In terms of calling Obama a racist...he's expressing his opinion. You know, something that commentators do as part of their job.

Yeah, and its a dishonest one.

Is it truly dishonest...or just something you don't like?

Though at this point I have to ask, why is Beck using race as a tactic to discredit Obama. You answer that, and you'll get to the core of what I find wrong with Beck and its got little to do with Racism.

You point to two things, but ignore the majority of what his show and commentary is about. From what I've seen most of how Beck "discredits" Obama is not race. It is about how much the Democrats and Republicans resemble each other. Where is the change? It is like Obama's policies are another term for Bush...only Obama is a popular, suave and cool guy. And yes...a certain portion of the population think the major change is he's black.

But what he's using to discredit Obama is:
* Massive spending...when we don't have the money
* Poor monetary policy (turning on the printing press)
* Deficits (monetizing our debt and selling it to China)

At 10/24/09 07:22 PM, LardLord wrote:

At 10/24/09 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: F-35 does NOT maintain the same level as the F-22 or even F-15! I mean seriously, what have I not been doing to make this clear?

Realistically, what we need right now in combat theaters is planes primarily designed for use on ground targets, which the F-35 is. Given that we're not engaged in wars with countries capable of competing in any meaningful way in the air, and in fact haven't been since 1967, the proposition seems unlikely. I support preparedness, and I think 200 F-22s constitutes preparedness. At such a time when we do enter a war, production can be correspondingly increased to meet the need.

You're making two false assumptions:
1) The next war is going to be an insurgency like Iraq and Afghanistan. History shows that you're wrong...time after time. Russia is designing the MiG 1.42 code named "Raptor Killer". China will most likely copy the design (whether Russia likes it or not). It will also be imported to India and smaller countries such as Iran.
2) That re-starting production will be easy. Finding out that "hey we really do need them" let's build them now...is asinine when talking about something that will take 9-12 months to build (after you re-tool the plant).

The F-35 is not a suitable sub for the F-15 or F-22.

It is a suitable replacement for the F-16, which is what it was designed to be.

The thing is...it isn't necessary. The F-16's servicable life ends around 2025...the F/A-18 a few years later. But advances in UAVs will make the F-35 obsolete by then.

The F-15 is failing now...it needs to be replaced now. The F-22 has not been made obsolete by robots...nor is the technology forthcoming quick enough.

No we cannot make up the difference with F-35s. I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. If we fill the F-15 gap with F-35s we're going to have $80M piles of rubble.

I think you're underestimating the effectiveness of 200 F-22s and the effectiveness of pretty much any country to combat them.

No, I don't think I am. You have to keep enough aircraft in the US for Air Sovereignty missions while providing Air Superiority missions in theater as well as escort...and it will even be able to do Electronic Attack/Warfare (EA or EW) which will also replace the E/A-6B (made in the 1950/60s).

As for my assessment of other countries...
* Russia is designing a "Raptor Killer" that will be exported to countries we could find ourselves in a shooting war with.
* Advanced SAMs are being exported to countries like Iran.

In the long run I think cutting the F-22 will be more expensive than buying more of them.

Ehh, I guess I have to disagree with your assessment

While I was an avionics tech on active duty...I know work in the Combat Plans Division of an Air Operations Center in the Reserves. Based upon what I've observed on military operations and the threat environment...

At 10/24/09 07:15 PM, ZAchaPi wrote: Sorry that I probably sound like a jackass, but this guy cracks me up. 'Course I only watch people make fun of him on other news stations, so I'm only seeing the worst. But from what I do see, this guy needs some serious help.

So then why do you think your opinion has any validity? If you're judging him by the soundbites that someone like Olbermann shows...then you're forming your opinion off of bad and incomplete information. You're developing an opinion based off of what someone else wants you to form.

I hate to say it because it sounds so condescending and jerky, but that is how sheople are born.

I guess everyone has their opinion, and if his is that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" then thats fine with me.
Keith Oberman to Gleen Beck: "No. You're freaking nuts."

Olbermann isn't the paragon of sanity either (and I've watched his show...not just what others show me).

At 10/24/09 12:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its hard to call Beck a racist, but its easy to call him an assuming xenophobic pundit and I already provided you two sources before of him distoring and assuming things without proof which you entirely neglected on the previous page.

How did I "entirely neglect" your two sources? Let's look at the highlight reel:

=========

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

That is not racist...when Obama himself makes the case. Here is a transcript from his show...specifically what you're talking about:

Barack Obama: "If we have a program, for example..."
Beck: "he had rejected universal healthcare because -- I'am sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough".
Barack Obama: "But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

Obama's a racist ...

I fail to see how that makes Beck a racist. The tape does not speak for itself in saying what you feel it says. Please make an argument.

And yeah, a lot of those things are taken out of context.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context. These YouTube videos does show the entirity of what Beck said. However, I will say I don't think what he is saying is obviously racist. I think there are people who are saying Glenn Beck is a racist and then shows him talking about race. Now you put that idea into a person's head an then show them a person talking about race (especially someone white talking about someone Black/Latino/Asian)...then you have the listener predisposed to the idea that the person talking is a racist.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent. They also talk about how the office of civil liberties was designed to ensure that the hiring process is color blind...but that the focus is now on historically disadvantaged groups...and less on qualifications. These are not racist sentiments.

=============

With reparations he makes a connection...but based upon what Obama himself says. In terms of calling Obama a racist...he's expressing his opinion. You know, something that commentators do as part of their job.

Without some sort of argument to go along with the clips...your point is totally not made.

At 10/24/09 04:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/09 04:08 PM, ReiperX wrote:

And if the enemy is capable of jamming the UAV? I don't think we will have UAVs that are self reliant within the next 8 years that are able to make it's own decisions on what to target.

Actually you'd be wrong. The RQ-4 Global Hawk is totally autonomous. A person on the ground programs the mission profile into the aircraft. It powers up, taxis, takes off, flies, lands, taxis back and shuts itself down.

Currently the RQ-4 is not capable of carrying ordanance. The wings are very lightweight. But we're developing the capability of autonomous flight. We will have robots dropping bombs in the next eight years.

UAVs use an encrypted radio wave for control (I assume correct me if I am wrong). The signal is likely to be signal hopping, but if the enemy can jam the entire frequency band that it uses (won't be that difficult to do, although it effectively cuts off their communication too with that band) then what happens to the UAV?

Signal hopping makes jamming pretty much impossible. You have to jam everything.

Certain bands are only good for certain things. Some require LoS while others don't. Some are good for long range some aren't. Some pass through certain substances better than others. I'd assume a UAV is what, LoS signal feed from a satellite? If it is then the satellite is a perfect target (China has shown that they can take out a satellite in orbit) or jam it.

Right now a Predator/Reaper takes off with a LoS signal and then is controlled by satellite.

It won't take long for the enemy to counter the UAV.

The loss of satellite is a problem, but I don't think Jamming is something we should be all that concerned with.

At 10/24/09 02:39 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote: Good point, but why is war with China, Russia or India unlikely?

For China, the current economic climate. Barring any complete fubar over Taiwan or North Korea, I can't see China trying anything that will threaten their massive investment in US consumption. For India, I think our alliance is on good terms at the moment. They're trying to help us with Pakistan and we've been good friends for a long time. I really don't see any aggression starting between our countries. Russia is the only one I can forsee any issues with in the next 10-20 years.

Unless there is information I'm missing...

India is not a friend or close ally. During the Cold War they followed a policy of "nonalignment" in which they leaned closer towards the Soviets. Currently they are pursuing the same policy with Iran.

Then there are tensions between India and China. Remember you've got two rising stars in terms of Great Powers sharing a very long border in an area of the world known as a "shatterbelt". What I see happening is a war between India and China where Russia is pulled in on the side of India and the US on the side of China.

The reality is we do not know what the next war will be.

From what I understand we are not laying any new airframes, which means the number will be halted at 187. This will produce a very significant interruption if we need to restart the line.

When is the last of those set to be finished, do you know?

Fairly soon...2010-2012.

$143M seems like a lot, but I understand what you're saying. How much does the F-35 cost to produce per plane? And how many do we have on the ordering block now? Basically, how much can we save by cancelling the F-35, and will that net us a large enough number of F-22s if we just go dollar-for-dollar?

They are about $83M per jet. Gates is recommending the US buys about 2,445.

Yes, as I've been saying on this topic. The aircraft are two light. They cannot carry the Fire Control RADAR (FCR) or other sophisticated avionics. Nor can they carry as many air-to-air missiles as the F-15 and F-22.

Do we not plan to build larger, sturdier versions that might be able to carry the FCR and more air-to-air missiles? Or do we run into control issues when the planes get that large?

We're looking into that right now. But the recon mission that UAVs were originally designed to accomplish lends itself to air-to-ground missions rather than air-to-air.

This is a huge limiting factor because of just how much you have to put into the platform. There are side appeture RADARs, infra-red and a whole host of other avionics. So yeah, we do face control issues when we start addin more capabilities.

At 10/24/09 03:41 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

I dunno. It seems to me like the AN/APG-81 is effective enough. The weapons payload seems like its sufficient. Clearly, it's not as effective as the F-22, but from everything I understand about it, it's designed to be less expensive and easier to manufacture, while still maintaining nearly the same level.

F-35 does NOT maintain the same level as the F-22 or even F-15! I mean seriously, what have I not been doing to make this clear?

The F-35 does not have:
* The speed
* The Service Ceiling
* The Armament (F-22: 8 air-to-air missiles, F-35: 2 air-to-air missiles)
* Or the RADAR

The F-35 is not a suitable sub for the F-15 or F-22.

The F-15 needs to be retired and replaced. The F-16 and F/A-18 does not...hence the reason why we need to build a few more F-22s (250 or 63 more) and cut/eliminate the F-35.

Sure, the F-15 needs to be replaced. I never discounted that, but I think most will be useful enough to last a few more years. It seems to me that any more than 200 F-22s is excessive given their cost and the fact that we're not imminently engaged in air superiority contests. When the F-15s are no longer useful, make up the difference with F-35s.

No we cannot make up the difference with F-35s. I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. If we fill the F-15 gap with F-35s we're going to have $80M piles of rubble.

* The F-35s we send up to provide air superiority will suffer far greater losses than the F-22.
* Then those fighters that get through our picket will be able to strike at the F-35s doing CAS, SEAD/DEAD and other air-to-ground missions.
* Then you've got further losses when they shoot-down a few of our E-3B AWACS or Tankers.

In the long run I think cutting the F-22 will be more expensive than buying more of them.

At 10/23/09 09:32 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

However, if the Ten Commandments was clearly displayed in any public place, it would rightly be requested to be taken down. Elfer pointed out that the picture in question is not really clearly the Ten Commandments and could be alluding to it as well as a number of different things. If they were clearly hung in the Supreme Court, though, they should be removed. Similarly, "In God We Trust" does not belong on our currency. We are no longer fighting the dread commie atheist heathen, so it isn't necessary propaganda in order to protect our vital bodily fluids anymore.

And why would it be so right to request that they be taken down? They are not codified as law. They do not mandate that people be a part of a religion.

They are however a part of the Western tradition that forms the basis of the intellectual traditions of our system of law. As a connection to history...I think they are appropriate. The whole point about fighting the "dread commie atheist heathen" is your strawman and has nothing to do with anything I have thus far said.

However, Congress making a law to make people be Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Aethists, Mormons, Satanists, Masons or whatever...that I have a problem.

At 10/23/09 08:14 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:
Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

It's not degenerating into flames. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a lot of rumors going around that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. These are strong allegations and if you say Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 then I suggest people just makes sure they stop spreading rumors and go to the proper authorities.

Stoicish, you are degenerating the topic since you are bringing in this joke of yours that has run its course. I realize that you think you're being the epitome of wit and are making a good point with conspiracy theories and such.

But it long ago ran its course.

By the way, saying that you win an argument doesn't mean you win an argument.

You are absolutely right. However, the degeneration of the opposition's "arguments" into drivel (thanks to you) does mean that I am winning. I want proof that Glenn Beck is a racist...and a racist by the dictionary definition not some subjective feeling or what others have said is racist.

That hasn't been forthcoming.

Also, Glenn Beck obviously represents your ideas and what happens to make sense to you. To many other people they seems as if they don't make sense at all and just so happen to sound a little crazy.

Granted I understand Glenn Becks appeal, but I just don't agree with him and at all. He is very opinionated and outspoken. His ideas are far reaching to a fringe group and the passion he has about it just makes it sound all the more better.

If it is just a fringe group, why is his 5pm EST slot pulling in more ratings than "opinionated journalists" on the Left such as Olbermann and Maddow? Why does his radio show succeed while enterprises like Air America fails?

The only problem is that he can be just dead wrong on quite a few things. He's either dead wrong or throwing out theories.

Theories are good and fine, but like all of them they need to have a process to them and Glenn Beck doesn't really seem to have much of a process. His process seems to be, "It's in my head so it might be true."

Dude, I've expressed that one of the reasons I like Beck is he actually shows you substantial bits of a person's speeches instead of just taking soundbites. It gives more context. For example when he showed Anita Dunn actually saying that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung...it was the middle section of a clip that ran well over a minute. Same thing with Van Jones.

You would like to think he's throwing out conspiracy theories...but he's backing what he says up.

When he talks about our monetary policy and how we're turning on the printing presses...backed up.
When he talks about the deficit...backed up.

I live more in the world of facts. I want proof on something, but it seems to me that even some people are even willing to ignore cold hard facts in favor for loyalty to a political party. He can claim he's an independent all he wants, but I've seen his type. Independents who support the Republican party 90% of the time, but don't want to be tied down by any sort of offical party recognition for reasons that tend vary.

The irony that you're now claiming to live in the world of "facts" is not lost on me. Afterall, you're the one who brought all of this smoke screen BS about something he did not do in 1990.

I've listened to Beck since 2001, have you? What is your basis for thinking he supports the Republicans? For the past eight years I've heard him bitch on and on about how the Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible.

But what is an independent supposed to do? The Libertarian party is not viable and the Democrats are just too left of center to be a viable option.

Perhaps we should just have a "no confidence" write-in campaign.

I think he also hurts a bit too because he's giving people who agree with his opinions or literally see this man as part of the news incorrect information.

Recently he gave a 8 minute segment about Net Neutrality and proved to the world that there was indeed someone out there who knew less about the issue than Ted Stevens. He claimed that the recent FCC regulatory committees effort to keep Network Neutrality was actually a secret Marxist plot to end free speech in America.

Here's the thing, I'd rather the internet not be managed by the government. After Bush and the Patriot Act, and some of the things I've seen proposed by this Administration about "emergency powers". (Oh yeah...I've seen that elsewhere...not just Beck.) I'm not a militia nut nor am I an anarchist.

But I just don't trust the government, nor do I think they are all that capable in terms of delivering on their promises or solving problems.

He doesn't say it at all, but he slightly suggests the alternative is better. Which is legislative restrictions on broadband that would monopolize the Internet and possibly hurt free speech in America.

All the while this kind of circle logic has no real basis to it and instead kind of does a back flip on itself.

He's suggesting the device that helps free speech to save free speech. You know, because war is peace and up is down.

Okay I know you're trying to draw an Orwellian parallel here. But you're not making any sense. What is he suggesting about the device that helps free speech...is he saying we should use it to save free speech? Wouldn't that be good?

The real funny thing is you come on here blasting Beck for not backing up what he says. You call them theories. You say you live in the world "facts"...but guess what? You don't support anything you say with anything but hyperbole.

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE GLENN BECK BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!

At 10/22/09 02:40 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 10/21/09 02:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:18 PM, LardLord wrote: In a time when the economy is in such deep shit, how can you justify wasteful redundancy? We've got a lot of problems to deal with right now, a lot more important things to spend money on, and air superiority has already been achieved for the foreseeable future with the 200 exist F-22s and the HUGE numbers of F-35s.

1) In a time when the economy is in deep shit, why cut one of the few government spending programs that has proven itself to provide jobs? The F-22 program employs about 95,000 people. When the unemployment rate is about 10%?

They will be structurally unemployed, not cyclically. Essentially, their jobs have been permanently eliminated, not because of a recession, but because the plane they were manufacturing/designing has been replaced with something more cost-effective, even if its capabilities are slightly less. Frankly the recession just made the shutdown of the program happen faster.

Umm...that will be another 95K unemployed. I don't think they or their families really care about what kind/type of unemployed they are. Especially in a 10+% unemployment market...it is hard to find a job out there right now.

At least with the F-35 the line has not really started producing any operational aircraft, so the jobs there have not been fully filled.

2) Ummm...there is two problems with what you say about the F-35:
a) it is not all that great as an air superiority platform. It lacks the RADAR and air-to-air weapons payload that the F-22 has.
b) it does not exist in HUGE numbers. In fact there are only 28 currently flying: 13 test platforms and 15 evaluation aircraft.

By "HUGE" I meant in the pipeline. There certainly are planned to be huge numbers at some point in the relatively near future. Until that point, I think 200 F-22s, and however many F-15s we have left should be more than enough to suffice for air superiority, don't you?

Nope.

The F-35 does not, regardless of numbers, contribute significantly to air superiority. Like I've been repeating myself over and over...they don't have the capability to carry the RADAR and weapons the F-15s and F-22s do.

Then there is the problem of aging F-15s. Two years ago a F-15 from my Wing (the 131st in St. Louis, MO) had a structural failure. A beam behind the cockpit failed causing the cockpit to seperate from the aircraft. Luckily the pilot was able to eject. However, this caused a worldwide grounding of all F-15s. Even those in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was so they could inspect every airframe and repair the several that were about to fail.

The F-15 was built from the early 1970s to about 1985. A two-seat F-15"E" model was made in the late 1980s and mid-1990s. (Comparatively the last US F-16 was made in 2005 and we're still buying F/A-18s.) Parts are not made for them anymore, when an avionics component fails an Air Force technican repairs it and sends it to another aircraft. Structural components are made on an as needed basis by other Air Force techs.

The F-15 needs to be retired and replaced. The F-16 and F/A-18 does not...hence the reason why we need to build a few more F-22s (250 or 63 more) and cut/eliminate the F-35.

At 10/21/09 04:08 PM, ReiperX wrote: The F-35 I do have to disagree with you on Mason. Yes, the UAVs are becoming more advanced, but I don't think that they will ever completely replace manned aircraft. I like the F-35, a) because it's going to all of the Branches, including the Marines, who needs the VToL aircraft (unless plans have changed for it b) because even though I'm a huge fan of the F16/18 it can't hurt to have some F-35's out there too.

I'm not sure that VTOL is really all that necessary anymore. The vast majority of Marine air over "there" are provided by the F/A-18s and AH-1s.

Also there is the fact that the F-35 is going to be eight years away, our UAV's will be able to do everything a strike aircraft can do...only better, cheaper and safer. Furthermore, the loiter time of these aircraft kinda makes VTOL irrelevant.

At 10/21/09 04:27 PM, adrshepard wrote: I'm not in the military and don't have more than a basic familiarity with US combat aircraft, but I think both sides of this argument may have missed some things.

Not to be rude, but perhaps you should've stopped just before the comma.

It's not enough that we have more or slightly better aircraft than the enemy. We must have overwhelmingly superior craft. The US public barely tolerates casualties among infantry, even though they are inevitable in a conflict like that in Iraq or Afghanistan. They will have even less tolerance for losses among forces almost wholly dependent on technology. Any combat loss will sow doubt and disillusionment with the war.

This I do agree with wholeheartedly.

Plus, even though war with China or Russia may be unlikely, what's more realistic is that they will sell their new generation fighters to third world nations like Iran.

Good point, but why is war with China, Russia or India unlikely?

However, even if 180 something F-22s aren't enough, how long could it possibly take to bring them into production again if it was necessary? It's not as if we would need to design an entirely new fighter to meet some unexpected need. While you might say that training pilots for the aircraft would take too long, I remember from a History Channel episode that the flying the F-22 is similar to piloting the F-15, only much easier. Retraining those F-15 pilots wouldn't take so long, right?

The training isn't much of an issue...but building them is. This isn't like WWII where the technology and manufacturing logistics were comparatively simple. It takes about a year from the time the initial frame is laid to when it takes off. So no, I don't think it would be easy to just re-start production.

At 10/21/09 04:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/21/09 02:31 PM, TheMason wrote: I predict that the F-35 will be severly cut because it will be obsolete in 2016. Why throw money at it?

Note I wasn't advocating continuing the F-35... I agree that we shouldn't continue developing a plane that will be obsolete by the time it sees action. That IS dumb. And from what I understand we're not canceling completely the development of the F-22, merely lowering the number we're making.... for now. When will the last of the F-22s we currently have orders for roll off the line? If it's a significant point in the future, then couldn't we add more orders to the list at a later date? And if that happens, then wouldn't it defer the cost to that later date? Would there be a significant interruption of parts/production if we did this?

From what I understand we are not laying any new airframes, which means the number will be halted at 187. This will produce a very significant interruption if we need to restart the line.

But we do need to cut somemthing and I think that is the F-35. They will not be operational until 2016...and obsolete by then. There is very little justification (when as Gates says, we don't have money) for a plane that will be obsolete before it is operational.

2) The F-22 is replacing an airframe that:
a) is old.

Cool, replacing old planes I'm all for... I just want to make sure it's done in a way that is economical.

It is economical. A new F-15K (built for the S. Korean Air Force) costs about $100M, a new F-22 costs about $143M. Now one thing about when we build a fighter for someone else, if we're not building something better, it does not have the avionics the US version has. So I think new build F-15s will be about $120M.

Is the $20M/aircraft really all that economical? Afterall the F-22 has supercruise which means more fuel efficiency. Then there is the stealth capability that the F-15 has which means more survivability. Think of it as "shoot-down" insurance.

b) UAVs have not demonstrated any air superiority capability. They are incapable of carrying Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is necessary for using things such as radar guided air-to-air missiles. While UAVs are making F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s obsolete...they are not making F-22s and F-15s obsolete.

Yet. I honestly don't know what the development curve on UAVs is, but I would assume that such feature will eventually be able to be included. Is there some logistic reason that they continue to be unable to carry the kind of tech that will allow them to perform similar roles to the F-15 and F-22?

Yes, as I've been saying on this topic. The aircraft are two light. They cannot carry the Fire Control RADAR (FCR) or other sophisticated avionics. Nor can they carry as many air-to-air missiles as the F-15 and F-22.

As for other countries: the Chinese and Russians are developing "Raptor Killers". There are Chinese/US Tensions, Chinese/Russian Tensions and Chinese/Indian Tensions...anyone of these could draw us into a Great Powers war where air superiority will be vital to military operations.

I agree that we need to keep up with the Joneses. However, our production capability so outstrips other countries that it seems to me that keeping our production of the most advanced planes modest, until it becomes obvious that we'll need a larger number of them, and then turning on the production again, will keep us out in front without spending too much money.

Again this comes down to just how long it takes to produce a new F-22. It's not like they just start making something else using the F-22's manufacturing set-up. They re-tool and re-organize their factories to produce something else.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

The first commandment is essentially "Worship one god" That specifically mandates religions of a monotheistic faith yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

At 10/21/09 03:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 07:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:47 PM, jAk88 wrote:

Just because he uses his show to express his morality...he rarely says the answer is for the government to legislate or solve the problem by codifying morality into law.

I don't know enough about him to say wiether thats true or,but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt to you regardless . However he still dose ciritcise these things, and oviously saying things like porn leads to serial killing is retarded, and he offers no arguement to back it up.

I'm not really sure of when he made that connection...or how he backed it up. But I will be gracious as you have been and extend to you the benefit of the doubt.

My one question though is what did he say about how to fix the effects of porn? Was it government legislation or individual-based?

Although I have several good friends who are gay, I find two men being intimate with each other to be repulsive. But I am an ardent believer in the right of homosexuals to marry and serve openly in the military.

however , going on about how homosexuals were a cuase for immorality kinda defeats the purpose of being a libretarian. You may not want to illegalize it, but it certainly isn't helping libretarianism.

It is not the belief an individual holds...but the individual's belief on the appropriateness of the government being involved on the issue that makes one a Libertarian.

also, ive never seen him push for the legalization of drugs or prostitution or anything like that, its always how something is wrong .

You know I think I've heard him talk about how he believes it is up to individual adults on thinks like drinking and pot.

Besides, most of his attention is focused on the economy right now and defending the free market.

I am a Christian and I think it is appropriate for "one nation under God" to be in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a Courthouse.

I don't think your a very good american then, since the constitution clarifys the seperation of chruch and state, and these two things very clearly violate that.

Does it? Here is what the first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or on government property does not establish a religion. It is not saying that everyone must be a Catholic or a Baptist. Hell, it doesn't even mandate that one has to be a Christian.

The Ten Commandments are a historical code of law akin to the stelles of Hammarabi. They have had an impact on civilization and the development of Western Law.

Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

At 10/19/09 08:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe the current number of orders for the F-22 is enough, maybe it's not... but I don't think a blanket statement that canceling the rest of the orders for the plane is stupid is really deserved without some indication that we're falling behind the curve in some way. Are there countries out there who are developing better planes than the ones we even currently use, much less the F-22 and our UAVs?

I think it is.

1) The F-35 is replacing airframes that:
a) are not that old. We are still building F/A-18s and the last F-16 for the US made only a few years ago.
b) the multi-role strike mission that the F-35 is slated to accomplish are being accomplished more safely and cost-effectively by UAVs. The F-35 is scheduled to become operational in 2016. In the past eight years UAVs have increased dramatically...where will they be in regards to air-to-ground in the next seven years? I predict that the F-35 will be severly cut because it will be obsolete in 2016. Why throw money at it?

2) The F-22 is replacing an airframe that:
a) is old. The last F-15C/D was built in 1985. The last F-15E was built in the mid-1990s. The cost of a F-15K for the S. Korean AF is $100M. The cost of a F-22 is $143M. Now if we were to order new F-15s they would be more sophisticated than what we are building for the Koreans...probably about $20M more advanced. For an extra $20M we get stealth and more fuel efficency. This means increased survivability and decreased operational costs.
b) UAVs have not demonstrated any air superiority capability. They are incapable of carrying Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is necessary for using things such as radar guided air-to-air missiles. While UAVs are making F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s obsolete...they are not making F-22s and F-15s obsolete.

As for other countries: the Chinese and Russians are developing "Raptor Killers". There are Chinese/US Tensions, Chinese/Russian Tensions and Chinese/Indian Tensions...anyone of these could draw us into a Great Powers war where air superiority will be vital to military operations.

At 10/19/09 09:26 PM, Yorik wrote: I love the Raptor. There are few planes in all of the world that are as advanced. With that being said, why do we need so many more? As others have said, we aren't exactly in full scale aerial combat for the time being and even if we were the Raptors we already have along with the cut-back orders would be schooling everything else. There's no need to worry about it at this time.

All of the fighting in the middle east is on the ground. If you want a bomber there's no need to send the most advanced shit we have. There are plenty of more cost efficient beasts of burden for that task. Jeez, I think helicopters might actually be more appropriate for the kind of things they are doing in the middle east 9 times out of 10.

Yes we are fighting an insurgency war...right now. But that does not mean that our next war will be an insurgency. We could find ourselves in a conventional "Great Power" war in Eurasia.

This is a very short-sighted evaluation...which is why I think Obama is making a grave mistake. If we do find ourselves in a war against China or a Indian/Russian coalation...our Soldiers and Marines on the ground will suffer severe losses. We will be schooled on just how few casualties we have experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

===========

Again I appreciate that the F-35 is about $80M compared to the F-22's $143M price-tag. However, what some of you have to realize is what that difference in price means.

The F-16, F/A-18 and F-35 lacks the long-range Fire Control Radar that the F-15 and F-22 has. Furthermore, they can carry about half the air-to-air missiles the F-15s and F-22s have.

If we find ourselves fighting China or Russia & India and we cannot establish air superiority we will loose more strike aircraft. We will have multiple $80M piles of rubble (actually the enemy will) instead of a military asset. Then we will also loose AWACs, Tankers and cargo aircraft. And they will be able to strike at our boots on the ground.

In the end the lack of investment will mean severe losses in the future.

At 10/19/09 05:41 PM, MlCHAEL wrote: I'm not going to flame you on this thread.

I appreciate this. Debate me rigorously. Even if you say I'm wrong...and/or manage to prove it...I don't take it personally.

Being from the military - you must have a better reason than civilians why the F-22 development should be continued. But may I ask - what branch are you?

I am in the USAF/Missouri Air National Guard. In the interest of full disclosure:
Rank: SSgt
AFSCs: 2A352 F-16 Avionics Technician (6 years on Active Duty); 1C571 Aerospace Warning & Control Technician (3.5 years in the Guard).

I also have a Masters in Political Science/International Relations (emphasis on National Security issues).

IMHO, I also see the F-35 truly benefiting the Navy - since there will be a Naval version built as opposed to the F-22 (which will be strictly USAF)

You are right that the F-35 is for all branches and the F-22 is currently for the USAF exclusively. However, I don't think the Navy has a need for a multi-role strike fighter. The F/A-18 Super Hornet has improved RADAR and other avionics...much of it coming from the development of the F-35. These are also new builds whose service life has just begun.

The F-35 right now is only in development and will not enter service until about 2016 in any numbers. By this time they will be obsolete. UAVs will be performing the job of the F-35 much more safely and cheaply. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a more than able platform to fill as a stop gap until the Navy develops a significant UAV capability.

Now the Navy does have a huge hole in its aerial combat capability: air superiority. The Super Hornet has the same limitations that the F-16 has an air superiority fighter in terms of FCR and payload. The F-22 could possibly be adapted to carrier use like the F-4 was. Also McDonnell-Douglass did experiment with making the F-15 carrier capable. Perhaps Lockheed could do the same with the Raptor.

Also - in this world - we don't need an air superiority fighter. The days of large scale conflict are over and we're fighting a war on terrorism so we don't need a hyper advanced stealth air superiority aircraft that costs even more than the F-35.

Ummm...that attitude is rather short sighted and has continuously bit the US military in the ass. Look at snipers. After every conflict until Vietnam we stood down our snipers...thinking they were not a valuable asset that required institutionalizing them as a military specialty. But then the next war would come and we'd hurriedly convert our main battle rifles to sniper rifles...or have our best marksmen have their parents send them their deer rifles. We learned our lesson in Vietnam and then institutionalized snipers.

This gets to the fundamental lesson of national security: you do not prepare for the next war based on the current one. In the Philippines we fought an insurgent war from 1899-1913 (The American-Phillipine War and Moros Revolution). We also fought Pancho Villa's militia during the Mexican Revolution during this time.

Now in 1910 someone could make an argument that the US would not be fighting conventional wars. Afterall the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Indian Wars were insurgencies rather than conventional in nature. In fact the only true conventional war we fought was the Civil War. So why invest in a Conventional Army?

But guess what we were fighting in just a few short years? World War I. Then WWII and Korea.

What all of this means is we don't know what the next war will be. We could be fighting a nation rather than NGOs such as terrorist organizations. Afterall, the Russians, Chinese and Indians are developing air superiority fighters that counter the F-22's capabilities.

Things have changed - we aren't fighting nations anymore and terrorists do not have an air force of their own. Why send an overequipped expensive jet into battle when you can just send in an F-35? or a Super Hornet?

Because we can't just send in a F-35, F/A-18 or F-16 when we fight the next conventional war.

Look at Asia. For the past sixty years what has held the millenia old tensions between China, Japan and Korea in check (tensions FAR older than Israel-Palestine) has been our military presence. A presence that is effective because of two capabilities:

a) Naval Superiority
b) Air Superiority

Both must be maintained to a level greater than any potential rivals.

We already have 200 F-22's. We don't need more of them.

It's about 185. Not enough to fight China if they try to take over Taiwan...or fight a Russian/Indian coalition attacking China.

At 10/19/09 06:18 PM, LardLord wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:55 PM, amaterasu wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:41 PM, MlCHAEL wrote: Also - in this world - we don't need an air superiority fighter. The days of large scale conflict are over and we're fighting a war on terrorism so we don't need a hyper advanced stealth air superiority aircraft that costs even more than the F-35.

Foolish, wishful thinking. Air superiority is a safety measure as far as I'm concerned, whether we currently are using it or not.

In a time when the economy is in such deep shit, how can you justify wasteful redundancy? We've got a lot of problems to deal with right now, a lot more important things to spend money on, and air superiority has already been achieved for the foreseeable future with the 200 exist F-22s and the HUGE numbers of F-35s.

LardLord, I would respectfully suggest that next time you post you get your facts straight.

1) In a time when the economy is in deep shit, why cut one of the few government spending programs that has proven itself to provide jobs? The F-22 program employs about 95,000 people. When the unemployment rate is about 10%?
2) Ummm...there is two problems with what you say about the F-35:
a) it is not all that great as an air superiority platform. It lacks the RADAR and air-to-air weapons payload that the F-22 has.
b) it does not exist in HUGE numbers. In fact there are only 28 currently flying: 13 test platforms and 15 evaluation aircraft.

Now what we do have flying the air superiority mission are F-15s. However the F-15C/D ceased production in 1985. The F-15E (multi-role w/strike capabilities) ceased production in the mid-1990s. They are an old platform that is getting to point that it is no longer safe to fly the F-15C/Ds. We need new aircraft that are able to dominate when it comes to air superiority.

At 10/19/09 08:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: We have such a massive air advantage over every country in the world now, even with aging "falling out of the sky" planes, that a modest creep into new designs as we decommission older, frailer planes seems the prudent approach, especially with our current budget woes. UAVs are, as you said, making leaps and bounds of advancement, and may soon overcome the payload and weaponry issues that seem to be their shortfall now. I expect that soon, a majority of our air force will be UAVs, as the technology becomes cheaper, and the benefit both in monetary and human cost becomes more worth it.

I would cut the F-35 because UAVs are proving to be highly competent in that area. Furthermore, the F-35 hasn't made it into production yet...it is still be evaulated. The F-22 on the other hand has entered production.

Furthermore, UAVs are taking over the competencies of the F-16, F/A-18 and A-10...not the F-15 and F-22. That is why the F-35 needs to be eliminated...and the F-22 needs to be funded until UAVs can develop the capability to accomplish the air superiority mission.

At 10/19/09 09:37 PM, hansari wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: So NG I want proof that Beck is lying or a racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RVcbmw9r dQ

He admits the question was "poorly worded"...but any way you look at it, his view summed up as this.

- You are one of many people advocating we "cut-and-run"

I think that was a good point. Why was he favoring pulling out of Iraq? Was it because of what he felt was in the nation's best interest...or his personal beliefs?

- You are a senator

Umm...okay. Not really clear how this is relevant.

- You are muslim

Again...see my answer to "cut and run". I think questioning our elected officials on their motivations (good of nation vs. personal belief structures) is good. In fact I've heard him talk against the Republicans attempts to socially engineer the country through the Christian Religious Right in this country.

Glenn Beck also contradicted himself with regard to his position on healthcare. (its a clip from The Daily Show...)

Didn't get the link...

The only thing one could be favorable about with regard to Glenn Beck is maybe his take on the economy. He's pretty much aligned with Ron Paul...

Agreed.

At 10/19/09 10:03 PM, hansari wrote: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pers onalities/glenn-beck/

I looked at that source and I thought it was rather subjective.

At 10/19/09 07:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:47 PM, jAk88 wrote:

He is an economic libertarian and leads libertarian on quite a few moral issues. Learn the difference.

you are either a libretarian or your not, saying that your libretarian when you only meet half the qualifcations is dishonest.

Just because he uses his show to express his morality...he rarely says the answer is for the government to legislate or solve the problem by codifying morality into law.

Personally I think abortion=murder when used as birth control. But I do not want the government to prohibit it.

Although I have several good friends who are gay, I find two men being intimate with each other to be repulsive. But I am an ardent believer in the right of homosexuals to marry and serve openly in the military.

I am a Christian and I think it is appropriate for "one nation under God" to be in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a Courthouse. However, I disagree with religion being cited in a Judge's ruling.

So yes...you can be what Beck is and say the things he says while being a Libertarian.

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

That is not racist...when Obama himself makes the case. Here is a transcript from his show...specifically what you're talking about:

Barack Obama: "If we have a program, for example..."
Beck: "he had rejected universal healthcare because -- I'am sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough".
Barack Obama: "But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

Obama's a racist ...

I fail to see how that makes Beck a racist. The tape does not speak for itself in saying what you feel it says. Please make an argument.

And yeah, a lot of those things are taken out of context.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context. These YouTube videos does show the entirity of what Beck said. However, I will say I don't think what he is saying is obviously racist. I think there are people who are saying Glenn Beck is a racist and then shows him talking about race. Now you put that idea into a person's head an then show them a person talking about race (especially someone white talking about someone Black/Latino/Asian)...then you have the listener predisposed to the idea that the person talking is a racist.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent. They also talk about how the office of civil liberties was designed to ensure that the hiring process is color blind...but that the focus is now on historically disadvantaged groups...and less on qualifications. These are not racist sentiments.

At 10/19/09 05:34 PM, Victory wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: The reason I like Beck is he is a libertarian. I've grown tired of my party (the Republicans) using the Religious Right to become the face of Conservativism.

Too bad Beck is clearly part of the religious right.

Stelyu answered this pretty well. Although I want to add something. I watched that clip and the guy annoyed me. He talked over Beck. Now I don't mind him editing his voice in...but stop Beck...throw up your "pithy" graphic and then talk. Then let Beck speak...then stop him and add your commentary.

Does he believe in God and talk about his religious journey? Yes he does. But being a Libertarian does not mean you are required to be an atheist. Show me where he wants the government to legislate morality or enshrine the Ten Commandments as law.

At 10/19/09 06:03 PM, fatape wrote: I doubt he's a libretarian, seeing as he said that watching porn turn's people into serial killers, or that atheist have cuased a insurgence of crime in america.

And that disqualifies him as a Libertarian...how? I think abortion is the taking of a human life. If a woman gets pregnant and it is an inconvenient time for her to be pregnant (ie: as birth control)...it is murder. Now in cases of life & death medical emergencies, rape or incest I have a slightly different take on this.

However, these are my personal beliefs. My beliefs in regards to how abortion should be legislated in this country are different.

Just because you express your personal religious/moral beliefs does not disqualify you as a Libertarian. If you start saying that Congress or State Legislatures should give religious belief the power of law...then that makes you not a Libertarian.

he seem's much closer to a republican to me, and although I have not read his, book I have seen his show and he dose not back his arguements well on his show.

Can you quantify how much of his show you've seen? Like I've said, I've listened to him since 2001/2 and have watched him since he was on CNN. Economically he is with Ron Paul (hardly a typical Repulican). He has had Jesse Ventura and Ted Nugent on his shows.

Also like I said before, he backs up his commentary much better than I've seen any other commentator (Olbermann, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc). He doesn't just play a soundbite, but several minutes of the person speaking to provide context. His book Arguing with idiots is fully sourced to media like the New York Times.

HERE

You know I think he does need to throttle back a bit, it makes him an easy target for those who want to cast him in a bad light.

But I've heard that clip before, and where is the "fact checking" of the woman who called? You've got a woman who got on there already combative. Then she makes comments about how "obviously no one in your family has every been seriously sick" (paraphrase). She makes an appeal to emotion argument. Guess what? You can be effected by serious illness (or a family member) and still be against the Democrat's health reform. My grandfather had Alpha-1 Antitripsen (sp?) disease (or disorder). He needed a liver transplant and was hours from death when he got it. Then he had to be on anti-rejection meds for the rest of his life (13 years). It was a very expensive health condition. Oh yeah...we're not Rockefellers or Gates. Grandpa was an auto-worker at Ford.

Then when he tries to explain his position as against reckless spending...she attacks him for being for spending when it came to bail-outs. At this point he has the "meltdown". Why did he get so pissed? During the bail-out and throughout the Bush administration he was against the reckless spending of the Republicans. His position on economics has remained consistent. So you've got a pinhead calling up who obviously does not listen to his show...and thus has very little idea of his political position.

So, in sum fatape...I think Beck needs to throttle back his passionate diatribes. But I don't think he's a racist or many of the other charges people lodge at him.

At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:56 PM, Stelyu wrote: I think a lot of the shit flying towards Beck comes from the fact that he is not a journalist but rather a commentator, something that is usually lost on people.

I don't understand how that supposedly gives his critics less of a right to evaluate the validity of what he says.

You both have a point.
a) Stelyu makes an astute observation in that Beck is a commentator, not a reporter. A reporter has to remove himself from the story. There has to be a neutrality. Their job is to say: "this is how it is". On the other hand a commentator's job is to editorialize...to say: "this is how it oughta be".
b) Bachannalian you make a good counter. Beck is running a line: question with boldness. Whenever someone tells you something...don't take it at face value. I'm from Missouri...don't just tell me something...Show-me. Don't take Beck or Obama at their word...research for yourself if what they are saying is true.

That said, there is a campaign to discredit Fox as not a news organization based upon their commentators. They use commentary to say their reporting is bad...not their reporting.

On an unrelated note, I think the point he was trying to make in that video is that the United States is moving away from morals and not so much that literally only the godless are murderers.

That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.

I think he was saying it was unrelated as a transition from one point to another.

"Is it the fact that just like some of our new money doesn't say now, God is no longer trusted. Instead of God being held up, he's being taken down...etc"

That is the conclusion of his opening statement, identifying what he believes to be the sole means of how we've "arrived at this place."

Our Founding Fathers, to include people like Thomas Jefferson (who most vociferously argued for the seperation of church and state) who did argue for a public morality based upon Judeo-Christian ethics as well as Greek and Roman ethics/philosophies. So to say that there is an errosion of "public morality" is not the same as saying we need to illegalize gay marriage, abortion or codify a Christian equivalent of Sha'ria law as the law of the land.

So until he crosses the line of calling for Congress to legislate morality (across the board and on a regular basis)...he is not a part of the religious right.

At 10/19/09 06:13 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.

Apologies.... the Mason's position.

You're responding to Stelyu's commentary...not mine. So I'd say it is okay to infer that we share the position.

As some of you may know the Dems in Congress and Pres. Obama cut the number of F-22 Raptors that the US Air Force is buying. Obama famously called the F-22 a "Cold War Relic" designed to counter an enemy that no longer exists.

Even Sen. McCain agreed saying the Senate voting not to buy more than 186 was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation."

Now we are focusing on buying the F-35 which will replace the F-16 and A-10. However:
* The newest F-16s were built in 2000 and 2001, while the last F-15C was built in 1985 (F-15Es were built up to 1993 or 95).
* The F-35 lacks the "tanker killer" cannon that the A-10 carries.
* The F-16 only carries four air-to-air missiles while the F-15 carries double that number.
* The F-16 and F-35 has a limited fire control RADAR (FCR).
* The A-10 only carries two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles because it does not have the FCR to use an AMRAAM.
* The F-35 lacks the FCR that the F-22 does.

Furthermore, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are making great leaps and bounds doing the job that the A-10, F-16 and F-35 accomplishes. However, UAVs are not capable in the Air Superiority realm because of FCR and payload limitations.

So with our current air superiority platform (the F-15) rapidly aging and falling out of the sky...is it really smart to cut it's replacement? Why focus on the F-35 when UAVs are rapidly making it obsolete?

What Obama did here is dumb and neglegent in regards to the military.

Okay I've been listening to Beck since about 2001-2002 on the radio. I took a break from 2004-2006 (when I was stationed in Korea) and resumed listening when I came home in April '06.

The reason I like Beck is he is a libertarian. I've grown tired of my party (the Republicans) using the Religious Right to become the face of Conservativism. He railed against Bush's domestic policy. I got the sense from Beck that Bush and McCain, however, were the lesser of two evils.

But I've never heard him say anything remotely racist.

He also does something that ABC, CBS, NBC (to include Cable channels), CNN and FOX rarely does: he shows these people's quotes in context. I was listening to him talking about Anita Dunn and he showed a clip about her claiming her favorite political philosophers were Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa. Now he didn't just show a five second: "My two favorite political philosophers are Mao Tse Tung and Mother Theresa..." soundbite. He showed a few minutes, on both sides of the statement, of what she was saying.

Nor does he make up names for people like Rush and Hannity does.

And yet everynight I go to work at the bookstore, some customers have gotta quip that Arguing with Idiots is funny given that Beck is obviously an idiot. But when you look at the book...he backs up what he says. I can't really respond (other than by not responding) given that I'm an employee. But I gotta wonder if they know what they are talking about...or simply regurgetating what they have heard someone else saying.

So NG I want proof that Beck is lying or a racist. Now obviously I'm not part of the zeitgeist that just knows that this is who he is. Therefore answers like "he just is" does not really elucidate anything other than the respondant's own ignorance.

Substantive answers please. Preferably with links to direct quotes.

At 10/18/09 07:14 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 10/18/09 06:20 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Although it may be a week ago but doesn't this reminds you of "Happy Gilmore"?

I wonder how a ten foot long Alligator gets into such a place and goes unnoticed.

They're pretty common in SC. When I was stationed there my ex and I went to the outlet mall in Myrtle Beach and they had alligators swimming around the ponds behind the outlet mall.

Remember the state pretty much all swampland.

At 10/17/09 05:12 AM, fli wrote: Things wouldn't feel so terrible if I could find a job.
I mean, I got a few jobs... but I'm talking the boring 8 to 5.

I feel your pain fli. Right now I'm working at Barnes & Noble with some slim prospects for management in retail hell. I've got a few prospects as a correctional officer and maybe a full-time substitute teacher or Instructional Aid.

This economy sux.

At 10/16/09 11:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/16/09 09:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I don't know what quesadilla is. Must be a burrito/taco thing.
However, I did laugh at the pic.

A quesadilla is kind of like a fried taco made with a flour torilla and lots of cheese. I like some diced onions, green pepper, and chicken on mine. Although there was this time where I made one just using pepperoni and american cheese, then baked it.

mmmm... pepperoni....

Sometimes I put steak or chicken in mine...

Pepperoni sounds so delicious, but I'm on a diet. A month and a half of leave + Doctor's orders to take easy + all the food I couldn't have in the desert = a little fatter Mason

I think I know what chainmail patterns I'm going to make for my sisters and mother this year for Christmas. Either a scherzo or rhinos snorting drano chain with one of the following pendants on it. These patterns are pretty easy from the looks of it.

You make those? They're awesome.

At 10/15/09 12:42 AM, SevenSeize wrote: I just want to let ya'll know I'm running for president in 2016.

I've thought about running for state office myself here in Missouri. My slogal:

I need a job...please hire me!

I could stand on the side of overpasses holding a sign that says:

Homeless Vet
Will Legislate for Food
God Bless

stafff is my campaign manager and decided my slogan will be, "bacon enforces your greatness".

So vote for me and have bacon.

My bumper stickers will also look like a strip of bacon.

Mmmmm...bacon....*gaaaaaaa* (tongue lolls out of mouth, drool pools on collar).

I'd throw in some bears holding chainsaws fighting hobos but avie might ban me.

Awwww...that sounds like it would fun & sick as hell!

At 10/14/09 02:55 AM, michelinman wrote: You realize that right now in downtown Chicago, there are large groups of men armed with fully automatic assault rifles just waiting, WAITING, for that moment when shit hits the fan and a full scale gang war erupts. Statistics don't mean shit. Just like that other guy said, you're being entirely too by the book here. It isn't the death of a drug dealer who got shot with a 22 when he ripped off some junkie that I'm worried about. It's that tension.

My two main research interests are rogue regimes and, a related topic, feral cities (like Mogadishu, Somalia). The situation you describe is one in which Chicago becomes one of these hellholes.

And while you and amaterasu may think I'm spouting textbook dogma and useless, irrelevant statistics. But be aware that I am applying them to the real world which is of vital importance. You identify a real and growing problem in the US. There are projects in Compton where the police will not go because the gangs have set-up their own rule of law.

Now the problem has been identified, so where do we go from here? How do we know what the next step for public policy makers (and those responsibile for the law's execution and enforcement)?

The simple, common sense, bumper-sticker logic is: gun control. Simply make guns illegal.

But this doesn't work. Watch the History Channel's Gangland program. They've got gang members talking about obtaining guns, and they laugh at gun control. They say the same thing the NRA does: it keeps their victim's disarmed and makes it easier for them to committ crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition on them getting guns doesn't effect them.

Why?

It is a fact that the vast majority of crime is related to the drug trade. Now where do the dealers get their cocaine? Mexico and South America. The smuggling routes are well developed. Drugs, people and weapons can move across one of the world's most porous borders. A case in point is Hugo Chavez.

In 2005 Hugo Chavez ordered 100K AK-103s (a AKM variant) from Russia. AK-103 is chambered in the 7.62x39 instead of the 5.45x39 that most militaries are buying. Why is this significant? This round is favored by the FARC and the American AK market (legal and illegal).

Any idea how large the Venezualan Army is? 30K regular and another 30K reserves. Why the extra 40K? Why chambered in a round that is plentiful to the region's narco-terrorists and the American shooting market? (BTW: Chavez also built a factory to make 7.62x39.)

Chinese fully automatics are also making their way into the gang's arsenals. Not illegally modified weapons...but firearms built for military use.

What this all means for the problem you identified:
Gun control such as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban does NOT stem the flow of arms to the gangs.

Prohibition did not stop people from drinking...in fact it only led to Mafia violence. The same with drugs. If these "wars" did not stop what they targeted...what makes you think the gangs are suddenly going to disarm because it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to buy semi-automatics of guns they are getting that are military-grade from other countries?

It's all a little naive.

Now what public policy-makers can do is tackle those things that have a higher degree of correlation (if not a demonstrated causal effect).

* Education: If we can strengthen programs like Head Start and K-12 in depressed urban (and rural) areas...kids will have other avenues and options than the streets.

* Economic opportunity: Education can lead to this, but education is usefully only if this exists in the same area.

* Diversity: There is a history in this country of treating black Americans as second class citizens. Political scientists have a term for this: Ethno-Linguistic Factionalization (ELF). The higher the factionalization of a society...there is an increased liklihood of violence. While this is a social process and not easily legislated, "mainstreaming" previously second-class, fringe, marginalizied groups such as Blacks and Latinos will stem violence. And especially gang violence.

* Recidivism: When people come out of jail society looks down on them and their options for productive careers is rather limited. This leads to an increased incentive for returning to a criminal lifestyle.

* Prison University: Do you realize there are people who purposefully go to prison so that they can recruit and train new gang members...and expand the franchise?

Now you may be thinking I'm going "by the book" here, but this is the tactical reality of the street.

If you wanted to take out an enemy's supply chain, would you spend your time planning an ambush on a semi transporting toys? That is what things like the AWB and further gun control legislation are doing. Uselessly expending resources on things that will have zero impact on the phenomenon you're predicting.

At 10/15/09 05:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 10/13/09 11:27 AM, TheMason wrote: D2K this does not really argue that gun control works. In fact the links prove otherwise. Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the US...yet some of the most strict gun control laws.

No, it says having a gun is more likely to get you shot - which means that, if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to get shot.

Actually it doesn't really say or proves it at all...the researchers make inferences which are speculations on what the data is saying.

There are also rival alternative hypothesies that have to be evaluated.

Also how do they handle accidents? Of course there are going to be more accidents in the presence of something...hence the car argument.

We have to break what have become socio-economic norms and modes of behavior, not waste time and money on gun control. All that will do is take guns away from people who are not using them in crime and not do anything to stem the flow to law-breakers.

Is it really wasting time and money when - and let me just reiterate - you're less likely to be shot if you don't have a gun?

Yes it is. You have to look at where money, resources and manpower will do the most good. The statistics overall show that more guns means less crime...to include violent crime.

So if the overall rate of people getting shot goes down...something good is happening.

Then there is fact, that has been proven time and time again, that gun control does not reduce crime. Guns are not the cause of crime.

Therefore if you spend the money, resources and time you spend on something that is only very marginally effective on programs that will actually do something about the causes of crime...you do good. However, if you spend the money on gun control...you're not doing anything.

As for the increased chance of getting injured carrying a gun...well duh! Guess what? People who ride in cars are ten times more likely to get injured in a car accident than someone who rides a horse.

Ah, the car argument. Well, guess what? Cars aren't weapons designed to kill, so the majority of people killed by cars isn't related to somebody deliberatly aiming the bonnet of their car at them and putting their foot down. The people killed by guns, on the other hand...

Dude, I brought this up to show that the research question they "answered" doesn't pass the giggle test.

It is really a useless study that does not really tell us anything about gun violence in the US. It doesn't change the fact that socio-economic factors are the underlying cause of crime. It doesn't change the fact that there between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. It doesn't change the fact that crime rates drop when concealed carry goes into effect. It doesn't change the fact that fatal gun accidents are more rare than drowning, falling or walking accidents.

It doesn't tell the pro-gun brigade anything about gun violence, maybe. Then again, nothing ever seems to tell them anything - and they'll shoot you if you argue otherwise (stillo, at least you're not being so literal about it...)

*sigh* The reason it doesn't tell me anything about gun violence is I look beyond the bumper-sticker logic of gun control=less guns.

I also look at the scientific data. Numerous studies have shown that the crime is related to:
* Ethno-Lingustic Factionalization
* Educational level/opportunities
* Income/Economic opportunities

What does not correlate to low crime rates is gun control.

Also look at how many times guns are used, effectively, defensively. Does the phenomenon this study looks at really occurs more often than 800K-2.5M? I'll save you some time...no. What does this mean? Gun control does not work.

Of course, saying more people are killed by cars doesn't do this, nor does the usual "defensive gun use" argument - when the fact is the US has the highest gun murder rate of the First World nations, and the eight highest worldwide per 100,000. Or the fact the US has a very high frequency of mass shootings.

But, y'know, none of that matters...

No it doesn't. Once you normalize the statistics and run the standard deviation, you see that the US does not fall outside of what you would expect for a First World nation.

Then the mass shootings...something that is rather rare in the US (although you wouldn't know it by looking at the media).