REGISTER | LOGIN
Weekdays noon - 3pm et / weekends 9am - noon et
Sirius | XM Satellite Radio
Call Andrew at 1-866-95-patriot
Book AndrewFree Trial

Today's Show » The dumbest argument yet

marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
For someone who pretends to know so much about business, why does the concept of expanding the audience of your product escape Wilkow? Last year, he whined about the NFL going after the women, and now he blasts NASCAR for attempting to appeal to a wider audience. This is HOW these businesses make more money, which is a concept that I've come to understand is conditional with people like Wilkow... You see, Wilkow is all for capitalism, so long as they're going after (or supported by) groups that his overdeveloped political bias approves of.
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
Furthermore... Today's pointless rant was another example of Wilkow's schtick... Complain about unsupported assertions he makes, while totally skipping the part where he proves the assertions true. He pretty much confused his own faithful today -- people were calling up and wondering why Wilkow was attacking NASCAR, which I would have thought was pretty bold of Andrew if I had any belief that he knew what it was he was doing... Anyway, Wilkow said that the 'left' has been 'pushing, pushing, pushing' NASCAR to be more 'diverse' --but nothing to support it. He said that the NASCAR/EPA relationship is somehow coerced... no suggestion of proof there either... Why is it that Wilkow continually makes assertions he can't back up, yet STILL think he can claim that his 'arguments' cannot be broken? This isn't exactly the high-minded political talk radio that it is billed as...
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
Do conservatives realize how stupid they look complaining about stuff like this? Here's the final score.... A company engaged with another organization in order to expand their audience and increase their own income... a government organization partnered with a very well known business with tremendous reach to get their message out to a broader audience. The topic? Promoting an awareness that helps everyone and hurts exactly no one. OMG!!! What the hell is going on here??? The FACT is that the 'environment' is a 'leftist' cause (in the conservative mind)... so, no matter how common sense it is, it's just bad. Fight it. No matter how you look doing it...... LOL.
nav68
1 year, 10 months ago
Can't say where the NASCAR diversity program came from, other than NASCAR claiming it as their idea. However, I quote from Bob Pockrass, AOL Sporting News, on American Ranaissance, 4/22/12: The judge in the case of Rodriguez (a Puerto Rican, light complected/blue eyed) suing NASCAR/Access Communications for excluding him from the program; "The core question for the court is, can you discriminate on color in an effort to diversify?" Access attorneys, supported by NASCAR: "The act of excluding (Rodriguez) from an affirmative action program because he appeared too caucasian is consistent with NASCAR'S stated goals of recruiting drivers who change the face of NASCAR and make it look more like the face of America." Don't know if this is what Wilkow was on about, but if it wasn't it should have been. Like I said, I don't know the origin of the diversity program idea at NASCAR. I suspect that it came about as a result of behind the scene discussions in order to avoid a public diversity hassle. Whatever and whichever, the above quote from Access/NASCAR highlights the stupidity involved. Aparently we have a new racial type - white Hispanic. It shouldn't be difficult for the judge to shred this. But...
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
Of course it was their idea. NASCAR is a business. There is a tremendous audience out there and NASCAR wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't going after that market. To suggest that NASCAR is being "forced" to go after a more diverse audience is ridiculous. It's what they want to do anyway. The case you mention is irrelevant to Wilkow's arguments -- that NASCAR is being coerced into relationships with diversity programs or the EPA.
nav68
1 year, 10 months ago
Wasn't sure what his argument was. I read about the Rodriguez case. Whatever NASCAR does for diversity is their business. What they did to Rodriguez was wrong, and makes them look not only stupid but selectively diverse. Which they are of course, by their own admission. That's why the judge ought to slap thewm down.
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
Wilkow's argument was, as always, that the 'left' is ruining the world. This time, it's NASCAR that is the defenseless victim of the meddling leftwing and the big bad government. Like most of his arguments, this one had no proof backing it up either. You're being asked to swallow that NASCAR really isn't interested in expanding their audience, and that the EPA threatened NASCAR to get them to pass along their environmental message.
nav68
1 year, 10 months ago
Well, the left is ruining the world. It's just that they frequently have a fertile field to plow after some business types and their government cronies have their way for awhile. My idea of limited government encompasses the idea of protecting the citizenry with limited but effective laws, which are enforced against everyone. By that calculation, there should be far more bankers/lenders facing sanctions than currently, no bail outs, and congressional cronies busted out through ethics violations. Of course, for that to happen there would need to be an independant investigative body to watch Congress. And that'll happen about 3 days after hell freezes over.
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
I believe the impression that the "left is ruining the world" is exactly the kind of cover the system itself is looking for among the gullible populace. You know, keep the fringes fighting with each other thinking that one ideology is better than the other- while both stupid thought processes sink the country.
Righteous
1 year, 10 months ago
That's just plain silly.... "The left is ruining the world". They can't possibly ruin the ENTIRE world (Can they?). I mean, they're doing a bang-up job in the U.S. & Europe, but, the world? <\sarcasm> One observation: Capitalism actually has worked & worked better than anything else, with basic oversight from our kind & benevolent Big Daddy in D.C. Socialism \ Communism \ Statism has never worked. Not once. Never, EVER. And the fact that any taxpaying American can look at the last 3 1/2 years of what our present commander in cheese has done & say "Hell Yeah! We need 4 more years of that!" is well beyond any inkling of common sense to me.
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
For starters, let's dispel the notion that the Left wants to get rid of capitalism... I'm sure some do, just as I'm sure that some Rightwingers want to make Christianity the national religion - but that doesn't make me think that the Right wants a Theocracy. That said, let's also understand that really nothing Obama has done is any more "socialistic" than any other president. Finally, looking at the last four years before the last 3 1/2 years and "hell, yes..." I can see why people may take the lesser of two evils.
crossofcrimson
1 year, 10 months ago
I've tried to make a conscious habit to stop myself from using the words "capitalism" and "socialism" specifically. There's simply too much conflation locked up in those terms at this point. Their definitions are much narrower than any context in which they're used. And, to the extent that their usage is being tied in any meaningful way to the state of any particular "sovereign" entity, you're almost always talking about a spectrum of sorts. Capitalism, in the sense it was conceived, meant something along the lines of a system in which private ownership of capital is allowed. Does that describe what we have? Sure. But it can describe an awful lot of things that we don't have too. Likewise socialism connotes a monopolous government-ownership over industry. Does that describe what we have? For many industries, absolutely. But, again, it also describes a lot of things we don't have. The terms are misused to begin with. And then their application is so broad that, even for all their rhetorical effectiveness, I'm not sure you can use them in a substantial way without a lot of explicit anchoring and defining beforehand anyways. Their usages are so broad that people of different political persuasions can look at the same set of political problems and openly choose to blame almost any of it on either one. They just seem like buzzwords at this point. And, unless I hear some specific context leading into it, I'm likely to start to tune someone out once I hear those words invoked - particularly in the pejorative sense.
marnesdad
1 year, 10 months ago
Very well said. As far as people like Wilkow are concerned (as it is where their bread is buttered) 'socialist' polled bad among the choir he preaches to, and 'capitalist' polled good... 'nuff said.

Post a Reply

Please login to post a reply.