Dear Gaming Eagle: Just wondering if you ever received my long (Gmail) PM to you. I'm sure there will be a lot of respond to there, if you so choose. I said a whole lot of things you won't agree with.
I just watched a 12-minute clip of you criticizing The Young Turks about their analysis of a police raid (a year or so ago, I suppose). I have several strong feelings about your clip, and you say at the end that we should leave comment, but the comment feature is disabled. If possible, I would like to debate some of the things that you say there.
What is wrong with these people who just relentlessly bash conservatives? If they hate on conservatives and anything conservative related for the most stupidest of reasons, I say they have problems.
I wasn't familiar with mediamatters. Judging by the name, it sounds like some neutral media watchdog organization.
Bastards lol. Are there any neutral sources anywhere?
Btw, as I said in that PM, I have reasons for disliking Bill O, and they have nothing to do with that Olberman guy. Or anyone else for that matter. I'm Canadian btw. I only see clips of these guys on the net.
why don't you just admit that you're a fan of Bill o'reilly.
To be a racist you don't need a kkk outfit, a suit and tie is perfect. Racism is still very much alive it's just that a white sheet is not needed anymore.
I see how you are mixed up... its understandable. If you watch fox news that much, you will be misled, and you can't believe everything bill says. Also, I do agree TYT sometimes goes 1 direction.
I respect that you have thought this through like an intelligent individual. In my opinion, Bill O'Reilly has consistantly proven himself over the years to be racist, white supremicist, and just plain a bad person. This alone i wouldnt give a shit about. It is JUST his opinion. Unfortunately it isnt, because Bill is in a prominent position, and I find fox news to be completely irresponsible considering its powerful position to influence the impressionable american populace.
At the end of the video, you refer to an incident where a 12 year old got marijuana for a headache. Now, I do not know of this story. However, I do believe that medicinal marijuana should be legalized. And if a doctor thinks that marijuana is an appropriate treatment, then who am I to question his professional analysis? And if that makes me immoral, so be it. You do not object to harsher narcotics being used, such as opioids... (Cont)
well the problem is that some doctors are greedy and don't care about medicine. In some clinics in the Los Angeles area, there are doctors that will give out medicinal marijuana to anyone for everything essentially becoming drug dealers.
Another thing you mentioned: You claim that it's wrong for people to just post a portion of a clip and take it out of context; very true. However! Fox News is often guilty of this. Example: Attacking Obama for saying that Americans can be arrogant and not appreciate our European allys.
True, he did say this, yet in the next sentence Obama says that on the contrary, there is a culture of hate for America in Europe, where it's normalized to hate America.
Yes, but this is where the critics fail. They say that Fox "attacked" him for saying when they didn't. Let me use O'Reilly. He felt that apologizing to them made us look feeble and that it wouldn't work anyway which it didn't. He didn't attack him over it he just though it was unnecessary. Some people like Hannity do go after him a lot but he's just one guy on Fox.
Cenk doesn't get that there is someone at the top who favors the democratic party? Well, I don't know about that (I honestly don't) but I hope you understand that there is another figurehead at the top of Fox News who favors the Republican party. Rupert Murdoch. I'm not claiming to discount anything you've said, but I hope it isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Call me cynical, but I think it's foolish to consider that EITHER side doesn't have an agenda.
There's a difference between favoring and praising. Murdoch favors the Republicans but gives democrats a fair shake hence Fox. Immelt loves democrats but hates Republicans and hence NBC and MSNBC. Those stations are constant hate against Fox and other conservatives.
However, I will say this, that a large portion of illegal immigrants are not, as many believe, Mexicans who illegally cross the border. They are immigrants who legally gained a temporary pass into America, be it for work or school purposes and simply never left. So when someone like Bill O'Reilly makes claims that "wetbacks" (A term Bill has used) are a major cause of crime and illegal immigration, it's untruthful, fearmongering and false.
well first off 'Ive never heard him say wetback unless he was quoting someone else saying it and I'm going to need a source for that because hundreds if not thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border illegally every day.
Oh and just because people are libs doesnt mean they have no morals. It just means our morals are different from republicans. So please remember different doesnt mean lack thereof.
You claim that to be a racist white supremacist you have to be an admitted member of the KKK or Nazis. That belief can really obscure your logical and analytical senses. One does not need to be a Klansman or a Nazi to be a racist white supremacist. I'm not saying O'Reilly is a racist or not, I honestly haven't watched or examined his show and views to make that claim, but simply because Bill isn't in the KKK or Neo Nazis does not disqualify him.
Well first I can assure Bill is not a racist. Not by a long shot. Like anybody he can slip up and say something questionable but that's about all. And the KKK and the Nazi's are the pinnacle of white suprecamist's. All white suprecamist's either support or are members of one of those two groups. I guarantee it.
Well I have, and people like you and bill-o are the reason I got out. Because no matter what a person does, if they disagree with you people...they're shit. And what they say dont matter. Cause its against your agenda, wich seemingly is always the wrong direction for this nation. Fuck the gov, fuck the millitary, and fuck bill-o.....
when did I say you're shit. Never! And if you really do hate the military then fuck you. My family has strong ties to the military so FUCK YOU!!!
Oh and McCain was acquitted and completely cleared of any charges. They found ZERO evidence that he was involved. Oh and I'm blocking you for your "fuck the military" comment.
Its not n their face its thru a frickin screen miles away. Besides, my point is, that man risked his life 4 what he believed n (America), u should b ashamed of urself if u let bill-o put Q's of this mans patriotism n your mind. As I said, u dont understand wut the guy was saying because bill-o wouldn't let him talk. Wen u're faced with the full context, wut do u do? Ignore it, n continue groveling at
bill-o's feet. Guess what? that guy faught 4 u 2 continue 2 hv that rite. Not bill-o
you obviously don't get it. Being in the army doesn't make you a patriot for ever and ever. If you start your country or the army then that status changes.
O my, not the way McSane was said to be a patriot and an American hero (by bill-o) never to have his patriotism questioned...ever. O thats right, only the HEROS who agree with you all politically. If they disagree...they're obviously crazy and shell shocked, we should ignore them...they dont matter.
I'll say it for you (again), since bill wouldn't let the man speak for himself. He had no prob with millitary recruiters in schools (whatsoever), he wanted recruiters from other avenues of life to have just as much access, or none of them have access. It's so easy. If this is too complicated for you to understand then...
You've obviously bought into bill-o's propaganda and are hopeless...
.........Thats accually a good point, and bill-o knows that, so he wouldn't let the guy get a sentence out. Also, just because thats what oreilly believes doesn't make it so. Doesn't give him a right to disrepect an iraq vet, and bully him into saying what bill-o wants to propagate. Even in disagreement, still doesn't give him the right to be rude, and obnoxious. He's served the country in ways bill-o is to cowardly to do, and he's gonna question his patiotism? A 9yr injured vet? C'mon...
"Cowardly to do"? Come on dude. Chill a little. The bottom line is that vet grew to hate the army. Sad but true and it happens. That's why he campaigned to get rid of recruiters in schools. But what was really unfortunate is that he wouldn't even admit it. You may disagree with Bill's tactics but they do work. that's why people attack him. Because he isn't afraid to challenge people to their face.
Another thing like bill-o you're making things up. He never said he hates the army. U think he may have a little ptsd from seeing his bros killed, behind bush's personal vendettas, shot at 4 no reason, killing 4 no reason at all. Like bill-o u seem 2 have no empathy 4 those who suffer due 2 the actions of others. He wants 2 see other young people have more oppertunities laid out 4 them, and not have 2 go through what he did, being misused, n treated like charmins by the gov...
Yeah, they might not say that if you didnt start the convo by being so rude and disrespectful. You accually have some good points, but your rudeness nullifies them. My point is dont dish it out if you cant take it. You seem so confident and sure of yourself, and your beliefs in your vid, but cringes at the thought of some internet tuff guy teasing you. Wich is why I hate Oreilly, he's a bully, and cuts people off or yell over them when they come at him. Its just totally hypocritical.
Personally I don't care if people insult me. I expect it. But since I have the option to block them I make use of it.
Also, that's a misconception about O'Reilly. Yes on rare occasions he cuts mics off but 90% of the time it's because the person kept talking even though they were out of time. The last time he cut them off was last summer with Frank. The time before that it was many years ago.
Dude! are you serious he cuts people off ALL THE TIME. I dont mean cut their mics off (wich he rightfully does often when people ramble on so he cant make a point), I mean litterally yelling over them in the middle of a sentence, so he can self servingly bloviate more. The frank interview is a perfect example of how he's rude and surley, he did nothing but show the world what a complete duche he is, ranting and raving, like he scares someone.
I do watch it when I get a chance. Theres a vid in the related vid section of your vid (O'Reilly Goes Nuts About Octuplets), where he doesnt let this woman get a sentence out. "He doesn't yell over poeple alot"??? How many times does he have to do it to be rude and obnocious? Once, IMO. But he does this on several occasions, and has a reputation for it (as B. Frank expressed in their interview)
yes he's aggressive and can be loud but he's a commentator and he doesn't like it when people dodge questions or give weak answers. I would take him over a nice guy anyday. People like Olbermann never fight with their guests even if their statements are completely absurd. He prefers to yell at people from afar. Bill isn't afraid to get personal. People know what to expect when they go on his show and if they can't handle it it's their problem. and I watch every day and yes it's rare.
He's a bully. I dont watch everyday. But everytime he has a guess on that disagrees with him, he doesn't let them say what THEY want 2 say. It's like he tries 2 get them 2 say something outrageous. I remember he had a Iraq vet who is against the war on, n he tried 2 get him 2 say he wanted 2 weakin the millitary by stopping recruiters from going 2 schools. And he never let the guy get his point across. I dont think he was saying what oreilly was pontificating, but who knows he didnt let him talk
that's actually a good example. O'Reilly believes that if you want recruiters out of schools it will weaken the military so he asked the guy if that's what he wanted to do. and the guy dodged every time. I remember that. he wouldn't answer it. That's when Bill gets them in a chokehold.
Thats my point, thats what OREILLY believes, but thats not what the guy was saying "keep recruiters out of the schools" (thats what oreilly wanted you to think he was saying) thats why he wouldn't let him talk. The vet was saying that the schools weren't allowing colleges and such recruit there, but were allowing millitary rec.'s to prey on the youngsters, and have free rein on them without providing other options.....cont'
Just because people got tired of answering O'Reilly's crazy theories, it makes it true?
So if I say I'm the King of the World & CNN doesn't dispute it, that makes it so?
What's the statute of limitations to challenge O'Reilly? 1 week, 2 months? I'd really like to know.
Did O'Reilly find these 12 year old kids who got marijuana for their headache? Or did you he just say it was so & you believed him without checking the law or the facts?
Well considering that people like Olbermann and TYT challenge him on even the smallest things I would say they would have challenged him on that if it was untrue. He also had a lawyer on that had been following that story.
Look at 2:45 for an example of your whining. When you get so worked up that you start to sigh & lose track of what you're trying to say - that's called "whining" by most people.
That's the spirit, homie! Whenever someone criticizes you, just wish it away. Kind of like the Republican reaction to their ass-kicking in '06 and '08, right? If they say you're too rigid and heartless, just become MORE rigid and heartless! That's the Rush Limbaugh way, man! It's aaaaawesome.
um, okay pal. Your attacks have been unfounded and childish so who's really the child. You say I'm a whiner because I forgot what I was going to say and you this comment makes no sense.
Lol migulin you are a little pussy.. omg so heartless and rigid omg can my mommy hold me? =(. this is why the vote in the army is 98% republican and 2% democrat. Republicans like to defend their country. im sorry but uh were losing right now obamas trippled the debt, and uh bush had the market at 14k and it dropped for 2 months. obamas been in for 3 months and he only got the market up 2k get a good arguement u retard liberal.
For instance what are some subjects you feel comfortable with that we may discuss. Anything? Let me know. We will call this are IQ test and let everyone here SEE the results. It appears the move is yours now mate. By mate I mean doggyfuck.
Your comments seem largely ill informed and you didn't put much effort into putting forward your view. When you focus on 'the big picture' you lose focus on the small injustices. No doubt you support torture too.
you're kinda harsh dude. but i think you're also correct. but let the kid live a little more. he'll see that things aren't so simple & his ideals aren't anything but that.
1) Cenk is pronounced "Jaynk" like "Plank"- if you've already been corrected on this, I apologize for the redundancy - 2) the legal age for purchasing medical marijuana in CA is 18, not 12.
Bill is a white, christian male (among other things I won't get into lol), and, yes, him saying that doesn't make him racist; the offensive part is his belief that the "White Male Christian Power Structure" is threatened, as if power in the hands of anyone else is frightening. There are plenty of people who are not for blanket amnesty that don't get called racist, but his statement came right out of the 1800s! Did you look at McCain's face in that clip? He couldn't believe what he heard!
In the rest of that clip Bill said he doesn't mind change he just doesn't want it to be replaced with very liberal values oh and whether the legal age is 18 or not kids as young as 11 could walk into a clinic and ask for medicinal marijuana for something as a headache. And yes I have been corrected on the pronunciation. And I support tough measures like water boarding which isn't torture. Ask McCain about torture.
I live in LA and there are more medical marijuana clinics than I can count here and I have never heard of something as ridiculous as you are proposing. Maybe there was an 11 year old with a fake ID and perscription and an idiot behind the counter, but nothing on the scale you suggest is possible. If you want to use the whole "older kids get it, then sell it to minors" excuse, I'll buy that... but the same arguement could be used against porn, cigarettes, alcohol, and perscription drugs.
That's your comeback? Seriously? No news article or statistic to back up your claim? I honestly don't understand why this "upabittoolate" guy has been bothering with you for 4 days - I would've written you off much sooner :)
Let me ask you something. If you lived in a state where murder was legal do you think the press would print stories murdering people. No they wouldn't. Bill broke the story around a year ago and had I think a lawyer from California that dealt with some of those clinics.
If I lived in a state where murder was legal, do I think the press would print stories about murder? Probably. Legal activities are in the news all the time. But,, I'll concede that your point was that it would not be as "newsworthy". However, it is not legal for 11 year-olds to smoke marijuana in my state, so that's not a great analogy. Finally, I had argued that it's not impossible for such a thing to happen (few things are), but it's incredibly incorrect to suggest that it's common practice.
I didn't say it was common but it's there. And it is legal to purchase medicinal marijuana if the doctor feels it's necessary. Some doctors have REALLY loose laws about that.
I didn't say you said it was common; I said you suggested it was common by saying "kids as young as 11 could walk into a clinic and ask for medicinal marijuana" and not qaulifying that statement further by acknowledging that such a scenario is extremely uncommon, as the vast majority of minors trying would be denied. Also, by "laws" I assume you meant "rules", as docotors are not lawmakers. I find it amusing that you keep trying to explain how clinics work to me even though I'm from California.
Yeah, he did - that's called "back-peddling". He let what he was really thinking slip out on national TV, than had to further explain that, while some people might find what he said to be racist, sexist, and anti non-christians, what he actually meant was "blank". I personally don't think he is "racist", meaning I don't think he hates anyone because they are a differeent race, but it is obvious from years of these types of statements from him that he is xenophobic (among other things).
I said "SOME people might find what he said to be racist", which is clearly true. I'll site the NYT as one example. I also argued that I don't think the word "racist" is appropiate, and "xenophobic" is, in my humble opinion, a more accurate description. Reading my comments, in which that opinion was made very clear, and than asking an inane question like you just did is yet another example of why I find it incredible that "upabittoolate" wasted so much time battling you.
Yeah, the people who despise O'Reilly to no end find it racist when it's clearly not. Even the "lynching" comment is a better example of racism(even though it's not). And which insane question did I ask you?
Inane, not insane. From this and other comments youve made, it seems to me that either you are not fully reading my comments or you are not fully understanding what you are reading. In either case, I see no value in continuing this conversation. That being said, I will not be responding to any future replies. Nothing personal, but I just see it as a waste of both of our time if you continue to misquote or misunderstand me. Have a nice day :)
well as my name would indicate, i don't sleep much. but more than that, i was trying to help him understand that the world doesn't revolve around white christian men's sense of 'security' & sensibilities. we got off onto a tangent about the necessity of sex education (in my opinion). i knew it'd only be a matter of time 'til i'd be given a concrete example of that need. a 13yr old boy & a 15yr old girl in britain helped out with a prime example.
i was really trying to help him see why the white christian male power structure has gotta go. mainly, it's because no one else is allowed in that club. i like what colin powell said about obama when asked about obama's religion "the answer is that mr obama is a christian, but the real answer is 'what if he wasn't? does that mean a muslim can't run for president in a coutry that guarantee's freedon of religion?' ". that's the point i was desperately trying to enforce on our man gamingeagle.
I can see where you are coming from and maybe my views will change as I get more experience in the world but for now I think some of your points are a little ridiculous.
ridiculous or not, these are some of life's realities. i knew it'd only be a matter of time before something, like that story in the UK, would come to the forefront & illustrate exactly what i meant. hindsight being 20/20, those kids wouldn't be parents. kids are gonna fuck. it's incumbent on us to protect them though. that community didn't protect them & now they're childhood is done. it's not just about the parents. it's about us as a community saying, this is how we roll.
... this isn't a "booyah. in your face" moment. let's have this be a teaching moment. now you begin to understand that where the parents fail, the community has to help. there's more at stake here than your indignance about "raising someone else's kids". now we have 2 very unprepared parents who are gonna be on state subsidy. wouldn't it have been nice if they had access to birth control? c'mon, give me your honest answer & don't move the goalposts. do you now understand what's at stake?
"where the parents fail, the community has to help"
yes I agree but I don't assume that they will fail like you do. You said it yourself. We should just teach them and give them protection at very young ages. It wasn't hard for my parents to watch out for me and they both worked. If a parent just simply tries then there is no need to preempt it. that is my point. Just wait and see until you have kids. I guarantee that you will not want your kid finding out about sex until much later.
but you had both parents. more than half the kids born since '98 don't have both. you can't compare your very narrow experience with anyone else's. i have kids of my own. they know what they need to know. it's not like some kind of taboo subject. it's part of their ongoing education. like i said. live a little. you'll see that life doesn't fall into these neat little packages. life just happens. that said, you gotta prepare. otherwise, you'll be a 34yr old grandparent
I guess you are referring to the divorce rate. But usually they don't divorce until later on. I may be wrong but that's what I have seen. How old are your kids and what have you taught them.
no, i'm referring to the fact that more than 1/2 the kids born since '98 have been to single parents. my kids are 13 & 10. i've given them an ongoing education about healthcare & the origin of babies. in addition i;ve shown them why maintaining health is paramount. they have the advantage of a father that's gonna be an MD, has been a provider since 19 & has grown up in hospitals because of their nurse grandmother. like i said life is messy. it's better to ready for the storm than die by it
the white christian male power structure is crumbling because the white christian males in power aren't realizing that there's more to the world that what them & what they think is reality. it's sounds racist to say that structure needs to be destroyed but i say "why has it governed ALL for so long?" get it yet?
my own struggle or advantage has nothing to do with the veracity of my argument becuase i'm speaking philosophically & eccumenically. fortunes are made off the exploitation of labor. frankly, the white supremacist powere structure is vastly exploitative. racism is institutional. if you can't see that, youre either blind or obtuse
Save your pseudo sage book report for someone who might be impressed. Philosophically speaking, exploitation has no color, no religion. Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were WHITE slaves of servitude. The point is it can happen to anyone by anyone. Would you say we should drown out all of Islam for those who believe that Sharia Law should be global. If so than you have failed again. If you do not understand this than you are either blind or not too acute.
sure, it's pseudoo sage because it's coming from someone with whom you don't agree. typical.
you don't know the difference between indentured servitide & slavery. you also don't know that africa was robbed of 103M people. patheti. we're done here. laters
sure, it's pseudoo sage because it's coming from someone with whom you don't agree. typical.
Haha not as typical as your obvious train of thought. Your done, quitting, giving up? I am sure your kids are proud of a quitter. Do you teach them the same principles? Salvery is slavery. Purchased or brainwashed (which is where you fall into). It is all exploitive .
all that rhetorc counds good. the ad hominems aren't getting you anywhere though. if you'd try to deny the sociological inequities, i can't do anything with you. you're just one of those white boys tha dropped out of high school & now think there's a conspiracy against you because you spend too uch time in the blogosphere.
By this method of doubt, Descartes shows how uncertain all our knowledge actually is, even of that which seems most obvious to us. For example, what can be clearer than my thinking right now, I am at my desk in my office typing this comment on my laptop? But when I am asleep, I might also dream that I am at my desk in my office doing the same task. (And we all know how real dreams can seem.) ....
This led Descartes to reason that there are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep. Nor can I be sure that things exist for I cannot tell when I imagining or really knowing, or as Descartes says, I have learned that [my] senses sometimes mislead me. In spite of how evident our impressions are of the world around us, there is a possibility--remote as it may be--that it is all a divinely implanted hallucination.
"The first of these was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so: that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it.The second was to divide up each of the difficulties,which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible.
But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without a doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something" (Meditations on First Philosophy. Meditation II).
People who try to present themselves as an erudite to make a point are usually fascist in thought. It is fun to see how read they are not as debate goes on.
i love your logical fallacy here. because i'm educated beyond 10th grade, i have to be erudite. i also love your other association, beause i have said education i must be fascist. you're a joke mate
High school drop out? Haha now there is nothing logical about that fallacy. You misspell every other word you type and accuse me of not being educated, or maybe you just speak in colloquial terms. Do you even know what that means. I have skipped more classes than you will ever attended. I have learned more than you will have ever forgotten. I am not your mate but you are a joke, again your kids must really look up to you. You can't even spell properly. Haha
yeah, high school dropout. see what happens when i lauch ad hominems? and yeah, i'm well versed in reasoning. they learnt us real good in the philosophy curriculum at northwestern universiddy. i graduated real smart
Faulty use of authority, since we are on the subject of logical fallacies. This is what I accused you of, and once again you didn't let me down. Why did you feel the NEED to tell me about Northwestern? Yes you are playing the part quite well Mr. Marx . May I just call you Karl? I didn't feel it necessary for you to know of my time spent at Lehigh, or even grad school for that matter. Shall we compare penis size? Portfolio's? Do you think you could even keep up with me?
René Descartes (1596-1650) is usually called the father of modern philosophy. However, he was also a mathematical genius (he not only created analytic geometry but his theories also paved the way for the calculus of Newton and Leibniz). The rules that govern mathematics have a precision that is unambiguous to everyone who truly understands them. Descartes wanted to create a philosophical system that, like the fundamentals of mathematics, all could agree upon.
By employing intuition, he said we could grasp philosophical truths much the same way that we understand mathematical formulas--such as the formula if A = B and C = B, then A = C. Along this train of thought, Descartes formulated four precepts in his work Discourse on the Method, which he believed were perfectly sufficient. In Descartes own words, these are the rules:
The third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another. The last was in all cases to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I should be certain of having omitted nothing" (Part II).
Descartes searched for a single foundation by which he could build his entire philosophy--one truth that would not require the senses to verify--and found it in the very act of doubting. He reasoned that he could doubt that his body existed, or that he was awake, or, in short that all is allusion or false.
"But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there was nothing in all the world, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of something].
According to Descartes, even if God (or Satan or anyone) is deceiving me in every possible way, I know that I exist, since, in the very mental act of doubting I am affirming my own existence (Stumpf, p. 230). Descartes expresses this in the phrase, I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum, in Latin).
"that's predicated on the existence of god or satan. what happens if you don't have that as a lynchpin in your beliefs?"
And that, my stupid friend, is textbook execution of another logical fallacy, viz., the RED HERRING, that is, evidence or a statement that is fallaciously used to distract the audience (or opponent) from the true issues of an argument.
"But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without a doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something" (Meditations on First Philosophy. Meditation II).
Do you see the quotation marks above? Let me help you out here. One uses them when one cites directly from a source. Ergo, I didn't say it, Descartes did.
2.) You limited my interpretation to God or Satan. Again, I'll direct you to what I actually wrote, viz., "According to Descartes, even if God (or Satan or ANYONE) is deceiving me in every possible way..." (emphasis mine). But you know what? Don't take my word for it...let's look at what others have had to say on the matter:
"Cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am. All else can be questioned, but not the irreducible fact of the thinker's self-awareness. And in recognizing this one certain truth, the mind can perceive that which characterizes certainty itself:Certain knowledge is that which can be clearly and distinctly conceived.
The 'cogito' was thus the first principle and paradigm of all other knowledge,providing both a basis for subsequent deductions and a model for all other self-evident rational intuitions.
From the indubitable existence of the doubting subject, which was ipso facto an awareness of imperfection and limitation, Descartes deduced the necessary existence of a perfect infinite being, God" (p. 277, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, Richard Tarnas).
"...once again, then, Descartes raises the possibility that in believing in the certainty of mathematics he is deceived by a malgnant or evil god. It would be easy for him, says Descartes, if he wishes it, to cause me to fall into error, or to hold false beliefs, even when I believe myself to have the very best evidence......
An evil, deceptive god could not deceive me with regard to the Cogito--I think, therefore I am--since even if I am deceived in believing it, I must exist as a thinking thing" (p.100, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, T.Z. Lavine).
"According to Descartes, even if God is deceiving me in every possible way, I know that I exist since, in the very mental act of doubting I am affirming my own existence. Descartes expresses this in the phrase, 'I think, therefore I am' " (p. 230, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy [7th ed.], Samuel Enoch Stumpf & James Fieser).
Sooooo, if you want to dispute my invoking of God, Satan, or some other being possessing a power greater than the person being deceived, you go right ahead. I have to warn you though: yours will be a Sisyphean task. That's because you'll not only be forced to dispute me--you'll also have to dispute Tarnas, Lavine, Stumpf, Fieser, every other authority of philosophy and--most importantly--Descartes himself. Good luck with that you stupid faggot.
you think that's some type of debate? fine, name the website for your IQ test, take & post the results. i'll do the same. i'll win too. put up or shut up. your move
easy on the popcorn mate. it wrecks your glycemic index and makes terrible gas. try legumes; maybe edamame. it'll change your life. you'll feel the pounds melting off
that's what i do. but stay tuned. i wanna see if he's actually got the guts to take an IQ test & post the results. i doubt it but this should be fun. maybe i should have 1 of the boys take the test. that'd be entertaining
"maybe i should have 1 of the boys take the test. that'd be entertaining"
I don't believe it would very nice for you to subject such mentally challenged kids through such a grooling process. First you might want to teach them to not play with their own feces. Ouch that hurt !!!!
actually higher fiber foods (such as broccoli) are better for weight loss as they fill you up faster and longer. your body is a very complex being, it thinks on its own, so to speak. your body prepares itself to store fat every three hrs or so, as it thinks you are starving yourself, which is why competitors eat 5-6 small meals a day and plenty of water....
..... you should try to consume a 1 and1/2 gram of protein per body pound/weight and and 1 gram of good complex carbs per though out the day divide every three hrs.
IQ test haha!!!!!! How would anyone here even know that it was in fact you or I that took the test, maybe your genius friend took it for you, maybe mine does, how does anyone know? Are you really that stupid? Hardly scientific. Face it my man you are def out of your league. Any other subject you care to discuss? I would be happy to school you further.
it'd be really simple. they have tests where you can post your results. of better yet, we could find a neutral party to whom we could email the results. or we could even alot a specific time & post vids with the results. i think the honor system would be adequate as it was you who professed superiority. like i said before, it's your move my friend. all bravado aside, backing down on your part is concession on your part. i'll wait
........if so I understand. Btw why did you stop? I was just warming up. Enough with the aimless speech. You not accepting this further is your concession. Lets show everyone who might sift through these ACCUSATIONS who has superiority over who?
Seems you didn't quite get it . These IQ tests are hardly scientific and we WOULD have to use the honor system indeed to do so, which makes the results even less impressive as the honor system would not guarantee either of us as the testee's haha (again I am very witty, you bring out certain sense of humor) BUT actual debate here and now is something of REAL substance which would lead to ALL to see who is "faking it". Was I starting to intimidate you on your own field of philosophy?........
a typo is different than a lack of grasp for a language. it's obvious that's not a problem of mine. v & c are adjacent on the keyboard.
lookit, you can try to nitpick on 1 little keyboarding gaffe or you can respond to the challenge. anything else you're doing right now is stalling. anyone else that can see this thread can see what you're doing. so i guess that's your way of backing out of this. manufactured ambiguity & cathexis on the inane. fine by me, but don't go aroubnd feigning intellect
I think anyone who see's this thread will see all the substance I have provided on your subject you claim to know and look at your ridiculously weak response and know what is up, so to speak. I think you know this as well which is why you want debate through substance. So simple. So sad. Your fucked.
what you think only matters to you. but like i said, name the place for a TEST. otherwise, you're making idle comments on youtube (not that anything on youtube is substantive). but we can settle that argument easily. but you won't do that. because you're afraid to lose. i fucked YOU
what you think matters to no one. Nothing idle about my owning you for the past few days it is clear you are out classed and are having trouble putting together any coherent thought. This has never been an argument, just you struggling to matter. You don't. You lose. Your still fucked. I fucked your Ms. (it was ok)
"i love your logical fallacy here. because i'm educated beyond 10th grade, i have to be erudite. i also love your other association, beause i have said education i must be fascist. you're a joke mate"
No fallacy. Read my response carefully. I said this is how you present yourself. We both know that you are not (erudite). I can present a piece of shit in a shoe box, that doesn't make it a pair of shoes. See I am also extremely witty.
Well since you're so well versed in philosophy, let me show you where you have a problem. Do you remember that guy Descartes--you remember him in your philosophy studies right? First, let me lay some groundwork:
In other words, if our senses sometimes deceive us, how can we fully trust them the rest of the time? Perhaps God is deceiving us with everything we are experiencing (Samuel Stumpf Socrates to Sartre and Beyond, 7th ed., p. 229).
Nevertheless, he reasons, one thing remains for which I can have no doubt, that I am. Descartes makes his point in what has arguably become the most famous passage in the history of philosophy:
gamingeagle19 this is the type of garbage you run into in cyberville. Chances are upabittoolate has lied to us both about every aspect of his fraudulent life. He is most likely using a ploy known in hip hop world as "fake it till' you make it". It is very important for you (gamingeagle19 ) to understand that most of these people you debate are plants and many others like upabittoolate stretch the truth. I hope he continues so that I may embarrass him further.
Dear Gaming Eagle: Just wondering if you ever received my long (Gmail) PM to you. I'm sure there will be a lot of respond to there, if you so choose. I said a whole lot of things you won't agree with.
Bengalbaul 9 months ago
I just watched a 12-minute clip of you criticizing The Young Turks about their analysis of a police raid (a year or so ago, I suppose). I have several strong feelings about your clip, and you say at the end that we should leave comment, but the comment feature is disabled. If possible, I would like to debate some of the things that you say there.
Bengalbaul 10 months ago
@Bengalbaul because most people wanted to attack me and not debate me so I disabled comments. Just send a PM.
gamingeagle19 10 months ago
What is wrong with these people who just relentlessly bash conservatives? If they hate on conservatives and anything conservative related for the most stupidest of reasons, I say they have problems.
puppetmaster1011 2 years ago
Dude, check out comments Bill O has made in regards to race:
(h)ttp://mediamatters(.)org/research/200709210007?f=h_latest
magx01 2 years ago
mediamatters is just one of the organizations that take quotes out of context in order to hurt their political enemies.
Without even looking at the site I already know what statements they are referring to and I guarantee they are all out of context.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
I wasn't familiar with mediamatters. Judging by the name, it sounds like some neutral media watchdog organization.
Bastards lol. Are there any neutral sources anywhere?
Btw, as I said in that PM, I have reasons for disliking Bill O, and they have nothing to do with that Olberman guy. Or anyone else for that matter. I'm Canadian btw. I only see clips of these guys on the net.
magx01 2 years ago
it sounds like it but it's nowhere near neutral.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Ya, I'm listening to that clip you sent me and I just PM'd you back.
They took it out of context. Like, blatantly.
magx01 2 years ago
why don't you just admit that you're a fan of Bill o'reilly.
To be a racist you don't need a kkk outfit, a suit and tie is perfect. Racism is still very much alive it's just that a white sheet is not needed anymore.
catonic 2 years ago
why would I have to admit I'm a fan. Yes I like him. That's no secret.
And what I said was that if you are labeled as a racist white suprecamist then you are either being called a nazi or part of the KKK.
Stop twisting my words.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
@gamingeagle19 dude u totally missed that guys point
MrRazzeldazzel88 1 year ago
lol fail
chuckkick 2 years ago
I see how you are mixed up... its understandable. If you watch fox news that much, you will be misled, and you can't believe everything bill says. Also, I do agree TYT sometimes goes 1 direction.
siegristrm 2 years ago
I respect that you have thought this through like an intelligent individual. In my opinion, Bill O'Reilly has consistantly proven himself over the years to be racist, white supremicist, and just plain a bad person. This alone i wouldnt give a shit about. It is JUST his opinion. Unfortunately it isnt, because Bill is in a prominent position, and I find fox news to be completely irresponsible considering its powerful position to influence the impressionable american populace.
jomastretch 2 years ago
At the end of the video, you refer to an incident where a 12 year old got marijuana for a headache. Now, I do not know of this story. However, I do believe that medicinal marijuana should be legalized. And if a doctor thinks that marijuana is an appropriate treatment, then who am I to question his professional analysis? And if that makes me immoral, so be it. You do not object to harsher narcotics being used, such as opioids... (Cont)
BenevolentZombyJesus 2 years ago
well the problem is that some doctors are greedy and don't care about medicine. In some clinics in the Los Angeles area, there are doctors that will give out medicinal marijuana to anyone for everything essentially becoming drug dealers.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Another thing you mentioned: You claim that it's wrong for people to just post a portion of a clip and take it out of context; very true. However! Fox News is often guilty of this. Example: Attacking Obama for saying that Americans can be arrogant and not appreciate our European allys.
True, he did say this, yet in the next sentence Obama says that on the contrary, there is a culture of hate for America in Europe, where it's normalized to hate America.
Yet they only show the first half.
BenevolentZombyJesus 2 years ago
Yes, but this is where the critics fail. They say that Fox "attacked" him for saying when they didn't. Let me use O'Reilly. He felt that apologizing to them made us look feeble and that it wouldn't work anyway which it didn't. He didn't attack him over it he just though it was unnecessary. Some people like Hannity do go after him a lot but he's just one guy on Fox.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
"Some people like Hannity do go after him a lot but he's just one guy on Fox"
..........everyone on fox goes after him.... all the time....every day.
atheelogos 2 years ago
Cenk doesn't get that there is someone at the top who favors the democratic party? Well, I don't know about that (I honestly don't) but I hope you understand that there is another figurehead at the top of Fox News who favors the Republican party. Rupert Murdoch. I'm not claiming to discount anything you've said, but I hope it isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Call me cynical, but I think it's foolish to consider that EITHER side doesn't have an agenda.
BenevolentZombyJesus 2 years ago
There's a difference between favoring and praising. Murdoch favors the Republicans but gives democrats a fair shake hence Fox. Immelt loves democrats but hates Republicans and hence NBC and MSNBC. Those stations are constant hate against Fox and other conservatives.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
"but gives democrats a fair shake"
Do you mean by bringing on democrats and screaming at them for five minutes. Thats all they seem to do on fox.
atheelogos 2 years ago
However, I will say this, that a large portion of illegal immigrants are not, as many believe, Mexicans who illegally cross the border. They are immigrants who legally gained a temporary pass into America, be it for work or school purposes and simply never left. So when someone like Bill O'Reilly makes claims that "wetbacks" (A term Bill has used) are a major cause of crime and illegal immigration, it's untruthful, fearmongering and false.
BenevolentZombyJesus 2 years ago
well first off 'Ive never heard him say wetback unless he was quoting someone else saying it and I'm going to need a source for that because hundreds if not thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border illegally every day.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Oh and just because people are libs doesnt mean they have no morals. It just means our morals are different from republicans. So please remember different doesnt mean lack thereof.
atheelogos 2 years ago
Something I have to comment about:
You claim that to be a racist white supremacist you have to be an admitted member of the KKK or Nazis. That belief can really obscure your logical and analytical senses. One does not need to be a Klansman or a Nazi to be a racist white supremacist. I'm not saying O'Reilly is a racist or not, I honestly haven't watched or examined his show and views to make that claim, but simply because Bill isn't in the KKK or Neo Nazis does not disqualify him.
BenevolentZombyJesus 2 years ago
Well first I can assure Bill is not a racist. Not by a long shot. Like anybody he can slip up and say something questionable but that's about all. And the KKK and the Nazi's are the pinnacle of white suprecamist's. All white suprecamist's either support or are members of one of those two groups. I guarantee it.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Have you ever served in the millitary?
Well I have, and people like you and bill-o are the reason I got out. Because no matter what a person does, if they disagree with you people...they're shit. And what they say dont matter. Cause its against your agenda, wich seemingly is always the wrong direction for this nation. Fuck the gov, fuck the millitary, and fuck bill-o.....
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
when did I say you're shit. Never! And if you really do hate the military then fuck you. My family has strong ties to the military so FUCK YOU!!!
Oh and McCain was acquitted and completely cleared of any charges. They found ZERO evidence that he was involved. Oh and I'm blocking you for your "fuck the military" comment.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Its not n their face its thru a frickin screen miles away. Besides, my point is, that man risked his life 4 what he believed n (America), u should b ashamed of urself if u let bill-o put Q's of this mans patriotism n your mind. As I said, u dont understand wut the guy was saying because bill-o wouldn't let him talk. Wen u're faced with the full context, wut do u do? Ignore it, n continue groveling at
bill-o's feet. Guess what? that guy faught 4 u 2 continue 2 hv that rite. Not bill-o
Peace!
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
you obviously don't get it. Being in the army doesn't make you a patriot for ever and ever. If you start your country or the army then that status changes.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
O my, not the way McSane was said to be a patriot and an American hero (by bill-o) never to have his patriotism questioned...ever. O thats right, only the HEROS who agree with you all politically. If they disagree...they're obviously crazy and shell shocked, we should ignore them...they dont matter.
ludacris.....(not the rapper)
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
yes, because McCain grew to hate the army and tried to weaken. Oh wait, he didn't.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
"grew to hate the army"....hillarious
"weaken it"...lol
I'll say it for you (again), since bill wouldn't let the man speak for himself. He had no prob with millitary recruiters in schools (whatsoever), he wanted recruiters from other avenues of life to have just as much access, or none of them have access. It's so easy. If this is too complicated for you to understand then...
You've obviously bought into bill-o's propaganda and are hopeless...
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
Yeah he was being such a patriot as apart of the keeding 5 s&l scandal.
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
.........Thats accually a good point, and bill-o knows that, so he wouldn't let the guy get a sentence out. Also, just because thats what oreilly believes doesn't make it so. Doesn't give him a right to disrepect an iraq vet, and bully him into saying what bill-o wants to propagate. Even in disagreement, still doesn't give him the right to be rude, and obnoxious. He's served the country in ways bill-o is to cowardly to do, and he's gonna question his patiotism? A 9yr injured vet? C'mon...
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
"Cowardly to do"? Come on dude. Chill a little. The bottom line is that vet grew to hate the army. Sad but true and it happens. That's why he campaigned to get rid of recruiters in schools. But what was really unfortunate is that he wouldn't even admit it. You may disagree with Bill's tactics but they do work. that's why people attack him. Because he isn't afraid to challenge people to their face.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Another thing like bill-o you're making things up. He never said he hates the army. U think he may have a little ptsd from seeing his bros killed, behind bush's personal vendettas, shot at 4 no reason, killing 4 no reason at all. Like bill-o u seem 2 have no empathy 4 those who suffer due 2 the actions of others. He wants 2 see other young people have more oppertunities laid out 4 them, and not have 2 go through what he did, being misused, n treated like charmins by the gov...
peace out dude
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
Yeah, they might not say that if you didnt start the convo by being so rude and disrespectful. You accually have some good points, but your rudeness nullifies them. My point is dont dish it out if you cant take it. You seem so confident and sure of yourself, and your beliefs in your vid, but cringes at the thought of some internet tuff guy teasing you. Wich is why I hate Oreilly, he's a bully, and cuts people off or yell over them when they come at him. Its just totally hypocritical.
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
Personally I don't care if people insult me. I expect it. But since I have the option to block them I make use of it.
Also, that's a misconception about O'Reilly. Yes on rare occasions he cuts mics off but 90% of the time it's because the person kept talking even though they were out of time. The last time he cut them off was last summer with Frank. The time before that it was many years ago.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Dude! are you serious he cuts people off ALL THE TIME. I dont mean cut their mics off (wich he rightfully does often when people ramble on so he cant make a point), I mean litterally yelling over them in the middle of a sentence, so he can self servingly bloviate more. The frank interview is a perfect example of how he's rude and surley, he did nothing but show the world what a complete duche he is, ranting and raving, like he scares someone.
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
Frank deserved it many times over.
And he still doesn't yell over people a lot either. Just watch one show and you will see.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
I do watch it when I get a chance. Theres a vid in the related vid section of your vid (O'Reilly Goes Nuts About Octuplets), where he doesnt let this woman get a sentence out. "He doesn't yell over poeple alot"??? How many times does he have to do it to be rude and obnocious? Once, IMO. But he does this on several occasions, and has a reputation for it (as B. Frank expressed in their interview)
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
yes he's aggressive and can be loud but he's a commentator and he doesn't like it when people dodge questions or give weak answers. I would take him over a nice guy anyday. People like Olbermann never fight with their guests even if their statements are completely absurd. He prefers to yell at people from afar. Bill isn't afraid to get personal. People know what to expect when they go on his show and if they can't handle it it's their problem. and I watch every day and yes it's rare.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
He's a bully. I dont watch everyday. But everytime he has a guess on that disagrees with him, he doesn't let them say what THEY want 2 say. It's like he tries 2 get them 2 say something outrageous. I remember he had a Iraq vet who is against the war on, n he tried 2 get him 2 say he wanted 2 weakin the millitary by stopping recruiters from going 2 schools. And he never let the guy get his point across. I dont think he was saying what oreilly was pontificating, but who knows he didnt let him talk
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
that's actually a good example. O'Reilly believes that if you want recruiters out of schools it will weaken the military so he asked the guy if that's what he wanted to do. and the guy dodged every time. I remember that. he wouldn't answer it. That's when Bill gets them in a chokehold.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
"Chokehold!"lol...(what is this, WWE?)
Thats my point, thats what OREILLY believes, but thats not what the guy was saying "keep recruiters out of the schools" (thats what oreilly wanted you to think he was saying) thats why he wouldn't let him talk. The vet was saying that the schools weren't allowing colleges and such recruit there, but were allowing millitary rec.'s to prey on the youngsters, and have free rein on them without providing other options.....cont'
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
i like how you dont want "rude" comments on your vid, but your entire vid is snarky, and rude.
btw. its prenounced Jenk
blacksnakethe1 2 years ago
maybe but I don't want people coming on here writing "YOURE A FAT HOMO" then leaving. I block those people.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
OMFG, wow, just wow, you are soooo whats wrong with this place.
trojenman132 2 years ago
4:11
12 year olds can get marijuana from a clinic in L.A. if they have a headache & a note?
Are you seriously retarded, or do you actually know that what you said is false?
miguelin97223 2 years ago
no and no.
It's true. Look it up. It's a story that O'Reilly broke and no one challenged. That's as good as a confirmation in the media world.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Just because people got tired of answering O'Reilly's crazy theories, it makes it true?
So if I say I'm the King of the World & CNN doesn't dispute it, that makes it so?
What's the statute of limitations to challenge O'Reilly? 1 week, 2 months? I'd really like to know.
Did O'Reilly find these 12 year old kids who got marijuana for their headache? Or did you he just say it was so & you believed him without checking the law or the facts?
"Sink." "Sink." "Sink."
Blah. Blah. Blah
miguelin97223 2 years ago 2
Well considering that people like Olbermann and TYT challenge him on even the smallest things I would say they would have challenged him on that if it was untrue. He also had a lawyer on that had been following that story.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Cank's name is not pronounced "Sink." It's pronounced "Jenk."
But I'm "essentially" guessing that you "pretty much" don't care that you look foolish.
What a whiner!
miguelin97223 2 years ago
Why am I a whiner? Several people have already pointed that out to me. I've whined about nothing.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Look at 2:45 for an example of your whining. When you get so worked up that you start to sigh & lose track of what you're trying to say - that's called "whining" by most people.
miguelin97223 2 years ago
Ummm, no sorry, that's not even close to whining. I just forgot what I was going to say. Take basic english again. You need it.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
That's the spirit, homie! Whenever someone criticizes you, just wish it away. Kind of like the Republican reaction to their ass-kicking in '06 and '08, right? If they say you're too rigid and heartless, just become MORE rigid and heartless! That's the Rush Limbaugh way, man! It's aaaaawesome.
miguelin97223 2 years ago
um, okay pal. Your attacks have been unfounded and childish so who's really the child. You say I'm a whiner because I forgot what I was going to say and you this comment makes no sense.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
Lol migulin you are a little pussy.. omg so heartless and rigid omg can my mommy hold me? =(. this is why the vote in the army is 98% republican and 2% democrat. Republicans like to defend their country. im sorry but uh were losing right now obamas trippled the debt, and uh bush had the market at 14k and it dropped for 2 months. obamas been in for 3 months and he only got the market up 2k get a good arguement u retard liberal.
xEVILxEMOKID 2 years ago
"Pretty much," "pretty much."
Pretty much?
miguelin97223 2 years ago
Obama is a wigger
pcgamingguru 2 years ago
No obama is a mulatto.
Lorenzo312 2 years ago
lol..and he still sucks
pcgamingguru 2 years ago
Very mature and in depth assessment of the president's actions and policies. Keep up the good work.
Lorenzo312 2 years ago
For instance what are some subjects you feel comfortable with that we may discuss. Anything? Let me know. We will call this are IQ test and let everyone here SEE the results. It appears the move is yours now mate. By mate I mean doggyfuck.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
did you see what happened in england? do you understand now, why sex education is a necessary thing at that age?
upabittoolate 3 years ago
Your comments seem largely ill informed and you didn't put much effort into putting forward your view. When you focus on 'the big picture' you lose focus on the small injustices. No doubt you support torture too.
smokeyorangutan 3 years ago
you're kinda harsh dude. but i think you're also correct. but let the kid live a little more. he'll see that things aren't so simple & his ideals aren't anything but that.
upabittoolate 3 years ago
Also:
1) Cenk is pronounced "Jaynk" like "Plank"- if you've already been corrected on this, I apologize for the redundancy - 2) the legal age for purchasing medical marijuana in CA is 18, not 12.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Bill is a white, christian male (among other things I won't get into lol), and, yes, him saying that doesn't make him racist; the offensive part is his belief that the "White Male Christian Power Structure" is threatened, as if power in the hands of anyone else is frightening. There are plenty of people who are not for blanket amnesty that don't get called racist, but his statement came right out of the 1800s! Did you look at McCain's face in that clip? He couldn't believe what he heard!
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
In the rest of that clip Bill said he doesn't mind change he just doesn't want it to be replaced with very liberal values oh and whether the legal age is 18 or not kids as young as 11 could walk into a clinic and ask for medicinal marijuana for something as a headache. And yes I have been corrected on the pronunciation. And I support tough measures like water boarding which isn't torture. Ask McCain about torture.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
I live in LA and there are more medical marijuana clinics than I can count here and I have never heard of something as ridiculous as you are proposing. Maybe there was an 11 year old with a fake ID and perscription and an idiot behind the counter, but nothing on the scale you suggest is possible. If you want to use the whole "older kids get it, then sell it to minors" excuse, I'll buy that... but the same arguement could be used against porn, cigarettes, alcohol, and perscription drugs.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Not surprising that you haven't heard of it. Liberals find it acceptable for just about anybody to smoke pot so they wouldn't report stuff like that.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
That's your comeback? Seriously? No news article or statistic to back up your claim? I honestly don't understand why this "upabittoolate" guy has been bothering with you for 4 days - I would've written you off much sooner :)
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Let me ask you something. If you lived in a state where murder was legal do you think the press would print stories murdering people. No they wouldn't. Bill broke the story around a year ago and had I think a lawyer from California that dealt with some of those clinics.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
If I lived in a state where murder was legal, do I think the press would print stories about murder? Probably. Legal activities are in the news all the time. But,, I'll concede that your point was that it would not be as "newsworthy". However, it is not legal for 11 year-olds to smoke marijuana in my state, so that's not a great analogy. Finally, I had argued that it's not impossible for such a thing to happen (few things are), but it's incredibly incorrect to suggest that it's common practice.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
I didn't say it was common but it's there. And it is legal to purchase medicinal marijuana if the doctor feels it's necessary. Some doctors have REALLY loose laws about that.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
I didn't say you said it was common; I said you suggested it was common by saying "kids as young as 11 could walk into a clinic and ask for medicinal marijuana" and not qaulifying that statement further by acknowledging that such a scenario is extremely uncommon, as the vast majority of minors trying would be denied. Also, by "laws" I assume you meant "rules", as docotors are not lawmakers. I find it amusing that you keep trying to explain how clinics work to me even though I'm from California.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Yeah, he did - that's called "back-peddling". He let what he was really thinking slip out on national TV, than had to further explain that, while some people might find what he said to be racist, sexist, and anti non-christians, what he actually meant was "blank". I personally don't think he is "racist", meaning I don't think he hates anyone because they are a differeent race, but it is obvious from years of these types of statements from him that he is xenophobic (among other things).
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
It's racist for saying that some very liberal people want the white,christian,male power structure gone?
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
I said "SOME people might find what he said to be racist", which is clearly true. I'll site the NYT as one example. I also argued that I don't think the word "racist" is appropiate, and "xenophobic" is, in my humble opinion, a more accurate description. Reading my comments, in which that opinion was made very clear, and than asking an inane question like you just did is yet another example of why I find it incredible that "upabittoolate" wasted so much time battling you.
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Yeah, the people who despise O'Reilly to no end find it racist when it's clearly not. Even the "lynching" comment is a better example of racism(even though it's not). And which insane question did I ask you?
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
Inane, not insane. From this and other comments youve made, it seems to me that either you are not fully reading my comments or you are not fully understanding what you are reading. In either case, I see no value in continuing this conversation. That being said, I will not be responding to any future replies. Nothing personal, but I just see it as a waste of both of our time if you continue to misquote or misunderstand me. Have a nice day :)
deluxbellorum 3 years ago
Well frankly I thought "inane" was a typo but no matter. You were a worthy opponent. You have a good day too.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
well as my name would indicate, i don't sleep much. but more than that, i was trying to help him understand that the world doesn't revolve around white christian men's sense of 'security' & sensibilities. we got off onto a tangent about the necessity of sex education (in my opinion). i knew it'd only be a matter of time 'til i'd be given a concrete example of that need. a 13yr old boy & a 15yr old girl in britain helped out with a prime example.
upabittoolate 3 years ago
i was really trying to help him see why the white christian male power structure has gotta go. mainly, it's because no one else is allowed in that club. i like what colin powell said about obama when asked about obama's religion "the answer is that mr obama is a christian, but the real answer is 'what if he wasn't? does that mean a muslim can't run for president in a coutry that guarantee's freedon of religion?' ". that's the point i was desperately trying to enforce on our man gamingeagle.
upabittoolate 3 years ago
I can see where you are coming from and maybe my views will change as I get more experience in the world but for now I think some of your points are a little ridiculous.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
ridiculous or not, these are some of life's realities. i knew it'd only be a matter of time before something, like that story in the UK, would come to the forefront & illustrate exactly what i meant. hindsight being 20/20, those kids wouldn't be parents. kids are gonna fuck. it's incumbent on us to protect them though. that community didn't protect them & now they're childhood is done. it's not just about the parents. it's about us as a community saying, this is how we roll.
upabittoolate 3 years ago
... this isn't a "booyah. in your face" moment. let's have this be a teaching moment. now you begin to understand that where the parents fail, the community has to help. there's more at stake here than your indignance about "raising someone else's kids". now we have 2 very unprepared parents who are gonna be on state subsidy. wouldn't it have been nice if they had access to birth control? c'mon, give me your honest answer & don't move the goalposts. do you now understand what's at stake?
upabittoolate 3 years ago
"where the parents fail, the community has to help"
yes I agree but I don't assume that they will fail like you do. You said it yourself. We should just teach them and give them protection at very young ages. It wasn't hard for my parents to watch out for me and they both worked. If a parent just simply tries then there is no need to preempt it. that is my point. Just wait and see until you have kids. I guarantee that you will not want your kid finding out about sex until much later.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
but you had both parents. more than half the kids born since '98 don't have both. you can't compare your very narrow experience with anyone else's. i have kids of my own. they know what they need to know. it's not like some kind of taboo subject. it's part of their ongoing education. like i said. live a little. you'll see that life doesn't fall into these neat little packages. life just happens. that said, you gotta prepare. otherwise, you'll be a 34yr old grandparent
upabittoolate 3 years ago
I guess you are referring to the divorce rate. But usually they don't divorce until later on. I may be wrong but that's what I have seen. How old are your kids and what have you taught them.
gamingeagle19 3 years ago
no, i'm referring to the fact that more than 1/2 the kids born since '98 have been to single parents. my kids are 13 & 10. i've given them an ongoing education about healthcare & the origin of babies. in addition i;ve shown them why maintaining health is paramount. they have the advantage of a father that's gonna be an MD, has been a provider since 19 & has grown up in hospitals because of their nurse grandmother. like i said life is messy. it's better to ready for the storm than die by it
upabittoolate 3 years ago
the white christian male power structure is crumbling because the white christian males in power aren't realizing that there's more to the world that what them & what they think is reality. it's sounds racist to say that structure needs to be destroyed but i say "why has it governed ALL for so long?" get it yet?
upabittoolate 3 years ago
"why has it governed ALL for so long?"
Apparently you are the one who has had struggled with "getting it". So simple. So sad. Indeed.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
my own struggle or advantage has nothing to do with the veracity of my argument becuase i'm speaking philosophically & eccumenically. fortunes are made off the exploitation of labor. frankly, the white supremacist powere structure is vastly exploitative. racism is institutional. if you can't see that, youre either blind or obtuse
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Save your pseudo sage book report for someone who might be impressed. Philosophically speaking, exploitation has no color, no religion. Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were WHITE slaves of servitude. The point is it can happen to anyone by anyone. Would you say we should drown out all of Islam for those who believe that Sharia Law should be global. If so than you have failed again. If you do not understand this than you are either blind or not too acute.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
sure, it's pseudoo sage because it's coming from someone with whom you don't agree. typical.
you don't know the difference between indentured servitide & slavery. you also don't know that africa was robbed of 103M people. patheti. we're done here. laters
upabittoolate 2 years ago
sure, it's pseudoo sage because it's coming from someone with whom you don't agree. typical.
Haha not as typical as your obvious train of thought. Your done, quitting, giving up? I am sure your kids are proud of a quitter. Do you teach them the same principles? Salvery is slavery. Purchased or brainwashed (which is where you fall into). It is all exploitive .
fallstoofar 2 years ago
all that rhetorc counds good. the ad hominems aren't getting you anywhere though. if you'd try to deny the sociological inequities, i can't do anything with you. you're just one of those white boys tha dropped out of high school & now think there's a conspiracy against you because you spend too uch time in the blogosphere.
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
By this method of doubt, Descartes shows how uncertain all our knowledge actually is, even of that which seems most obvious to us. For example, what can be clearer than my thinking right now, I am at my desk in my office typing this comment on my laptop? But when I am asleep, I might also dream that I am at my desk in my office doing the same task. (And we all know how real dreams can seem.) ....
fallstoofar 2 years ago
This led Descartes to reason that there are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep. Nor can I be sure that things exist for I cannot tell when I imagining or really knowing, or as Descartes says, I have learned that [my] senses sometimes mislead me. In spite of how evident our impressions are of the world around us, there is a possibility--remote as it may be--that it is all a divinely implanted hallucination.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"The first of these was to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so: that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in them nothing more than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could have no occasion to doubt it.The second was to divide up each of the difficulties,which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without a doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something" (Meditations on First Philosophy. Meditation II).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
You guys are really going at it.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
People who try to present themselves as an erudite to make a point are usually fascist in thought. It is fun to see how read they are not as debate goes on.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
i love your logical fallacy here. because i'm educated beyond 10th grade, i have to be erudite. i also love your other association, beause i have said education i must be fascist. you're a joke mate
upabittoolate 2 years ago
High school drop out? Haha now there is nothing logical about that fallacy. You misspell every other word you type and accuse me of not being educated, or maybe you just speak in colloquial terms. Do you even know what that means. I have skipped more classes than you will ever attended. I have learned more than you will have ever forgotten. I am not your mate but you are a joke, again your kids must really look up to you. You can't even spell properly. Haha
fallstoofar 2 years ago
yeah, high school dropout. see what happens when i lauch ad hominems? and yeah, i'm well versed in reasoning. they learnt us real good in the philosophy curriculum at northwestern universiddy. i graduated real smart
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Faulty use of authority, since we are on the subject of logical fallacies. This is what I accused you of, and once again you didn't let me down. Why did you feel the NEED to tell me about Northwestern? Yes you are playing the part quite well Mr. Marx . May I just call you Karl? I didn't feel it necessary for you to know of my time spent at Lehigh, or even grad school for that matter. Shall we compare penis size? Portfolio's? Do you think you could even keep up with me?
fallstoofar 2 years ago
René Descartes (1596-1650) is usually called the father of modern philosophy. However, he was also a mathematical genius (he not only created analytic geometry but his theories also paved the way for the calculus of Newton and Leibniz). The rules that govern mathematics have a precision that is unambiguous to everyone who truly understands them. Descartes wanted to create a philosophical system that, like the fundamentals of mathematics, all could agree upon.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
By employing intuition, he said we could grasp philosophical truths much the same way that we understand mathematical formulas--such as the formula if A = B and C = B, then A = C. Along this train of thought, Descartes formulated four precepts in his work Discourse on the Method, which he believed were perfectly sufficient. In Descartes own words, these are the rules:
fallstoofar 2 years ago
The third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another. The last was in all cases to make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I should be certain of having omitted nothing" (Part II).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Descartes searched for a single foundation by which he could build his entire philosophy--one truth that would not require the senses to verify--and found it in the very act of doubting. He reasoned that he could doubt that his body existed, or that he was awake, or, in short that all is allusion or false.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there was nothing in all the world, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of something].
fallstoofar 2 years ago
According to Descartes, even if God (or Satan or anyone) is deceiving me in every possible way, I know that I exist, since, in the very mental act of doubting I am affirming my own existence (Stumpf, p. 230). Descartes expresses this in the phrase, I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum, in Latin).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
that's predicated on the existence of god or satan. what happens if you don't have that as a lynchpin in your beliefs?
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"that's predicated on the existence of god or satan. what happens if you don't have that as a lynchpin in your beliefs?"
And that, my stupid friend, is textbook execution of another logical fallacy, viz., the RED HERRING, that is, evidence or a statement that is fallaciously used to distract the audience (or opponent) from the true issues of an argument.
Two things that need to be addressed:
fallstoofar 2 years ago
1.) I didn't say it. Descartes did.
"But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without a doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something" (Meditations on First Philosophy. Meditation II).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Do you see the quotation marks above? Let me help you out here. One uses them when one cites directly from a source. Ergo, I didn't say it, Descartes did.
2.) You limited my interpretation to God or Satan. Again, I'll direct you to what I actually wrote, viz., "According to Descartes, even if God (or Satan or ANYONE) is deceiving me in every possible way..." (emphasis mine). But you know what? Don't take my word for it...let's look at what others have had to say on the matter:
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"Cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am. All else can be questioned, but not the irreducible fact of the thinker's self-awareness. And in recognizing this one certain truth, the mind can perceive that which characterizes certainty itself:Certain knowledge is that which can be clearly and distinctly conceived.
The 'cogito' was thus the first principle and paradigm of all other knowledge,providing both a basis for subsequent deductions and a model for all other self-evident rational intuitions.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
From the indubitable existence of the doubting subject, which was ipso facto an awareness of imperfection and limitation, Descartes deduced the necessary existence of a perfect infinite being, God" (p. 277, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, Richard Tarnas).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"...once again, then, Descartes raises the possibility that in believing in the certainty of mathematics he is deceived by a malgnant or evil god. It would be easy for him, says Descartes, if he wishes it, to cause me to fall into error, or to hold false beliefs, even when I believe myself to have the very best evidence......
fallstoofar 2 years ago
An evil, deceptive god could not deceive me with regard to the Cogito--I think, therefore I am--since even if I am deceived in believing it, I must exist as a thinking thing" (p.100, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, T.Z. Lavine).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"According to Descartes, even if God is deceiving me in every possible way, I know that I exist since, in the very mental act of doubting I am affirming my own existence. Descartes expresses this in the phrase, 'I think, therefore I am' " (p. 230, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy [7th ed.], Samuel Enoch Stumpf & James Fieser).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Sooooo, if you want to dispute my invoking of God, Satan, or some other being possessing a power greater than the person being deceived, you go right ahead. I have to warn you though: yours will be a Sisyphean task. That's because you'll not only be forced to dispute me--you'll also have to dispute Tarnas, Lavine, Stumpf, Fieser, every other authority of philosophy and--most importantly--Descartes himself. Good luck with that you stupid faggot.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
I am smarter than you will ever be.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
you think that's some type of debate? fine, name the website for your IQ test, take & post the results. i'll do the same. i'll win too. put up or shut up. your move
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Damn, where's my popcorn?
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
easy on the popcorn mate. it wrecks your glycemic index and makes terrible gas. try legumes; maybe edamame. it'll change your life. you'll feel the pounds melting off
upabittoolate 2 years ago
-_-
You had to ruin it didn't you.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago
that's what i do. but stay tuned. i wanna see if he's actually got the guts to take an IQ test & post the results. i doubt it but this should be fun. maybe i should have 1 of the boys take the test. that'd be entertaining
upabittoolate 2 years ago
your joking right an IQ test online? plz tell me you are just trying o humor me
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"maybe i should have 1 of the boys take the test. that'd be entertaining"
I don't believe it would very nice for you to subject such mentally challenged kids through such a grooling process. First you might want to teach them to not play with their own feces. Ouch that hurt !!!!
fallstoofar 2 years ago
so you resort to trolling instead of actually meeting the challenge? it figures
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"so you resort to trolling instead of actually meeting the challenge? it figures"
You're right . I was wrong to bring the retards into this, ...... I apologize.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
actually higher fiber foods (such as broccoli) are better for weight loss as they fill you up faster and longer. your body is a very complex being, it thinks on its own, so to speak. your body prepares itself to store fat every three hrs or so, as it thinks you are starving yourself, which is why competitors eat 5-6 small meals a day and plenty of water....
fallstoofar 2 years ago
..... you should try to consume a 1 and1/2 gram of protein per body pound/weight and and 1 gram of good complex carbs per though out the day divide every three hrs.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
IQ test haha!!!!!! How would anyone here even know that it was in fact you or I that took the test, maybe your genius friend took it for you, maybe mine does, how does anyone know? Are you really that stupid? Hardly scientific. Face it my man you are def out of your league. Any other subject you care to discuss? I would be happy to school you further.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
it'd be really simple. they have tests where you can post your results. of better yet, we could find a neutral party to whom we could email the results. or we could even alot a specific time & post vids with the results. i think the honor system would be adequate as it was you who professed superiority. like i said before, it's your move my friend. all bravado aside, backing down on your part is concession on your part. i'll wait
upabittoolate 2 years ago
........if so I understand. Btw why did you stop? I was just warming up. Enough with the aimless speech. You not accepting this further is your concession. Lets show everyone who might sift through these ACCUSATIONS who has superiority over who?
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Seems you didn't quite get it . These IQ tests are hardly scientific and we WOULD have to use the honor system indeed to do so, which makes the results even less impressive as the honor system would not guarantee either of us as the testee's haha (again I am very witty, you bring out certain sense of humor) BUT actual debate here and now is something of REAL substance which would lead to ALL to see who is "faking it". Was I starting to intimidate you on your own field of philosophy?........
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
for instance, pivk up the gauntlet. otherwise you're just blowing hort air. your move
upabittoolate 2 years ago
"pivk up the gauntlet" "just blowing hort air"
Are you serious? Can you even read/write? You are beginning to bore me.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
a typo is different than a lack of grasp for a language. it's obvious that's not a problem of mine. v & c are adjacent on the keyboard.
lookit, you can try to nitpick on 1 little keyboarding gaffe or you can respond to the challenge. anything else you're doing right now is stalling. anyone else that can see this thread can see what you're doing. so i guess that's your way of backing out of this. manufactured ambiguity & cathexis on the inane. fine by me, but don't go aroubnd feigning intellect
upabittoolate 2 years ago
I think anyone who see's this thread will see all the substance I have provided on your subject you claim to know and look at your ridiculously weak response and know what is up, so to speak. I think you know this as well which is why you want debate through substance. So simple. So sad. Your fucked.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
what you think only matters to you. but like i said, name the place for a TEST. otherwise, you're making idle comments on youtube (not that anything on youtube is substantive). but we can settle that argument easily. but you won't do that. because you're afraid to lose. i fucked YOU
upabittoolate 2 years ago
what you think matters to no one. Nothing idle about my owning you for the past few days it is clear you are out classed and are having trouble putting together any coherent thought. This has never been an argument, just you struggling to matter. You don't. You lose. Your still fucked. I fucked your Ms. (it was ok)
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
"i love your logical fallacy here. because i'm educated beyond 10th grade, i have to be erudite. i also love your other association, beause i have said education i must be fascist. you're a joke mate"
No fallacy. Read my response carefully. I said this is how you present yourself. We both know that you are not (erudite). I can present a piece of shit in a shoe box, that doesn't make it a pair of shoes. See I am also extremely witty.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Comment removed
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Actually I will pm you. This should be fun.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Oh you blocked from embarrassing you oh well.
Well since you're so well versed in philosophy, let me show you where you have a problem. Do you remember that guy Descartes--you remember him in your philosophy studies right? First, let me lay some groundwork:
fallstoofar 2 years ago
In other words, if our senses sometimes deceive us, how can we fully trust them the rest of the time? Perhaps God is deceiving us with everything we are experiencing (Samuel Stumpf Socrates to Sartre and Beyond, 7th ed., p. 229).
fallstoofar 2 years ago
Nevertheless, he reasons, one thing remains for which I can have no doubt, that I am. Descartes makes his point in what has arguably become the most famous passage in the history of philosophy:
fallstoofar 2 years ago
nah, he's not even my peer
upabittoolate 2 years ago
gamingeagle19 this is the type of garbage you run into in cyberville. Chances are upabittoolate has lied to us both about every aspect of his fraudulent life. He is most likely using a ploy known in hip hop world as "fake it till' you make it". It is very important for you (gamingeagle19 ) to understand that most of these people you debate are plants and many others like upabittoolate stretch the truth. I hope he continues so that I may embarrass him further.
fallstoofar 2 years ago
I'm not touching this. I have had no problem with him so I don't care. If you want to keep going at it with him fine.
gamingeagle19 2 years ago