Bingo.
I don’t fault anyone for pursuing the answer to a question. For repeating as true once ample evidence shows they are not true. Pretty dam hateful.
A step further. A TV pundit asking those questions on air before making an attempt to discover the truth, also hateful.
If I asked if your mother, sister, wife, daughter, was a skanky whore, not saying it’s true, just asking, is that hateful?
How about this:
Does Glenn Beck waive his copyright and release his columns into the public domain?
Is reproducing 100% of an article considered “fair use”?
Am I hateful for asking these questions?
What was he talking about saying they have an Australian parliamentarian going to the USA for prostate surgery? What? Did that really happen? Google didn’t reveal much, but my fu is weak.
There’s nothing wrong with those questions. The problem is that I see no evidence to believe that Beck and his supporters are actually proposing them with an open mind, so there’s no point in answering them.
Clothahump,
I do not think you are hateful, not a bit. It seems clear that you have been exposed to the same virus that this poor man has, perhaps merely by listening to him. There is only one treatment known and it is a complete mental flossing.
It’s often a painful process, changing one’s mind. First you recognize that your entire rationality is based a hodgepodge of spoon fed assumptions. At that point, you laugh, and begin to enjoy life.
Have a nice day.
I hate to break it to you, but it was clear this was right-wing demagoguery of the talk radio or chain email type after I read the first few “questions”, and long before I knew the source. Although these have the syntactic form of questions, the are really statements. They contain lots of falsehoods and distortions. If you believe that these will sound like “reasonable questions for discussion” to most intelligent people, this shows how immersed you are in this brand of nonsense.
Pretty much, yeah - the fact that it comes from Beck offers an excuse not to address even the reasonable parts (not that this is all reasonable).
Witness this -
IOW, Beck’s allegations are quite true. Followed by bland contradiction of reality -
So, Medicare and Social Security are, in fact, running out of money, as mentioned. But the fact that these public sector programs have huge, unfunded liabilities is not really a public sector crisis.
Especially since the silly son of a bitch who wrote this thing (who, despite the name of his organization, does not work for Social Security) goes on to repeat Algore’s lie about Social Security -
There is, of course, no such thing as a “trust fund” holding money that can be accessed to pay Social Security benefits. All that money has already been spent. What the SS trust fund consists of is exactly what Beck said it was - an unfunded liability. The government took all that money from the taxpayers, spent it, and replaced it with a promise to take more money from the taxpayer and spend that too.
I don’t think we have reached the point of classifying “how the heck are we going to pay for this?” as “hateful”, but perhaps in a few years.
Regards,
Shodan
Nothing is preventing anyone from presenting reasonable arguments backed with facts. It is a reasonable response by anyone to dismiss the comments of someone who distorts the truth on a regular basis. That doesn’t mean a valid point {perhaps one Beck offered}offered by a more reasonable and trusted source, will be dismissed.
Beck has earned his reputation and his dismissal with his own bullshit choices. It’s unreasonable to expect people to consider everything he says from an fresh unbiased perspective. What’s your response to someone you know lies and distorts on a regular basis? Do you sincerely take the time to examine everything they say or would you be more likely to dismiss them as a reliable source and look elsewhere?
I don’t dismiss the birthers and the pull the plug folks because they’re conservatives. I dismiss them because they’ve shown as people they have little interest in the truth and honest dialogs. Beck is cut from the same cloth.
If you’re concerned about the reasonable parts of his arguments getting through then you do the research and sort them out and present the relevant points with evidence. That was my suggestion to the OP and it seems clear he did not. If you’re truly concerned about reasonable arguments then it would seem you’d be just as disgusted with Beck as most of us are. His own tendency to promote bullshit only hurts the conversation.
The reality is that the trillions mentioned are pulled from future (IMHO unrealistic) projections that require us doing nothing. (like doing nothing regarding health care).
And I will disregard your point as your sig always tell me I should not take you seriously.
Glenn Beck is still an asshole that loves dividing Americans.
Further, his assertion in that clip that Canadians (of which I am one) have a lottery system for seeing a doctor is bullshit. I’d like to know if there really are leaders of not-Shitholeistan countries (so wealthy countries like in Europe or Australia or some such) who are actually going to the US for treatments they can’t get at home.
I know Beck has said that, but I’ve never seen a reliable cite for it.
I only see four real questions being asked in the OP:
[ol]
[li]Am I hateful to ask…[/li][li]I think these are reasonable questions, don’t you?[/li][li]They are most certainly worth discussing, don’t you think?[/li][li]Are they still reasonable questions now that you know the source?[/li][/ol]
The rest of it consists of questions which aren’t actually being asked, but are presented as objects that the other questions are asking about.
So:[ol]
[li]No, you wouldn’t be being hateful if you asked those questions. Disingenuous maybe, but not hateful.[/li][li]For most of them no, I don’t.[/li][li]For most of them no, I don’t.[/li][li]This question assumes that I thought the questions were reasonable. Since that assumption is wrong, I’m unable to answer it.[/li][/ol]
I think Congresscritters are thoroughly familiar with the bills produced by the particular committees they sit on (practically every bill is worked over by a committee before it goes to a floor vote). For other bills, they can rely on summaries written by their staffers.
Even taken in the context of the others, this question is meaningless without more specificity.
If Glenn Beck or anyone else asked legitimate questions (and presumably a couple of them are), they deserve fair and honest answers. But a lot of them are built on completely false information. I wouldn’t expect you to answer fairly and substantively to a post that began, 'since Texans are too stupid to know what American freedoms entail, how can we properly expect respect for constitutional norms from the Texas state government?" – it’s founded on an insulting premise that is contrary to fact. Much of Beck’s allegations are similarly founded on premises contrary to fact.
That’s the point - dismissing the projections as unrealistic simply because Beck mentions them, even though the SSA vouches for them, is irresponsible (IMO). If we do nothing, we will go bankrupt.
That’s your right, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
So, you’re advocating that we elect people to vote on things without knowing precisely what those things are or will do.
Personally, I think any congressman voting on a major bill that he or she hasn’t read completely should be thrown out of office. And no, I am not kidding.
Ahhh, the counter to Michael Savage’s “Liberalism is a mental disease”. Precious.
Do you think that shareholders should demand that the CEO of a major corporation personally read every major contract that the business enters into?
No, I don’t. I also I don’t think The President should have to read every bill. But I would expect the lawyers and other people working under the CEO—the one’s crafting the contracts—to read them and know them intimately.
So if the President can sign any law without reading it, and a CEO is not obliged to read major contracts, I’m not quite following why members of Congress cannot be trusted to be advised by their staff.
And let’s get real here, a lot of bills have to be read in an expert context. As in, section 325 amends this act from 1978 by striking everything after subparagraph (b) and inserting instead the definition of fnord as found in the Complex Nomenclature Act of 1989, as further amended by the Clarity in Lawwriting Act of 1993.
You would really feel better if a congressman read that paragraph knowing that he probably doesn’t understand what it says?
And let’s get right to the point, here: is your interest in making congressmen read legislation in order to make them set their eyes on it, or to make them understand it?