INGO Challenge = Proof #2

[SavageEagle]

because it always degrades into stupid and crazy conspiracies by certain members(not you) when you try to fight claims of one sensationalist entertainer with another you tend to go nowhere but downhill quick.

Is it so hard to demand evidence though? If they routinely won't offer any, then just skim through it when they post until they do. This is the internet. Unless someone's willing to engage in whatever manner you expect, or within the point of the thread, then why engage them? And conspiracies aren't all bad if you can get strong evidence to support it.

The thing that gets me is that he basically dares someone, anyone to call him on that red phone and no one ever does. I bet he would crap his pants if it ever rang! He is entertaining to say the least and some stuff he has on is very thought provoking, but it's just like any info out there - if the facts support it its probably not too far from the truth.

The show doesn't air until hours after its recorded. No one CAN call that phone when he asks them and as far as I know, the number's not listed.Besides, who says they DON'T call and he just doesn't tell us. Like maybe the puppet masters of his very show telling him to back off... It's possible. But it's just speculation of course.

 

[bambek]

I admit I didn't read this whole thread but, a good gauge for someone's character is if they will admit, publicly, when they are wrong. Which very few people ever really do. I have seen Mr. Beck do this on more than one occasion. Who is right 100% all the time? Answer no-one. Question is....will you admit it when you're not? Focus on this aspect of character when looking at leaders, in news or anywhere else!

 

[shibumiseeker]

Not to change the subject,but speaking of Popular Mechanics,What happened to the 56000 mile elevator they were talking about building down at the Equator? Popular Mechanics said it would be done by 2015.

Basic engineering.

We're still awaiting that materials breakthrough. Maybe with buckytubes, but as of yet we don't have anything both strong enough and light enough to support the stress let alone carry any useful weight.

 

[jdhaines]

Basic engineering.

We're still awaiting that materials breakthrough. Maybe with buckytubes, but as of yet we don't have anything both strong enough and light enough to support the stress let alone carry any useful weight.

I went to a seminar back when I was finishing my BS in Materials Engineering and have heard it discussed again during my Master's classes that the materials are there. The buckytubes/nanotubes have the material properties, the issue is production. They are produced in such small quantities, and so slowly at this point that to make something like the elevator would take an outrageous amount of time and money. Until we find a way to mass produce the tubes in the types of quantities that we need, it won't happen.

Another piece of the puzzle is that the "structure" at the top of the elevator whether it be a space station or some other off-loading assembly would have to stay in perfect sync with the earth as nanotubes are no good at sideways deflection. If things got out of synce and the elevator shafts were to break all that work would be for nothing. Some serious major challenges in that project and I would be surprised if we saw it before 2030 if ever. Very neat idea though.

@SavageEagle...
QUOTE=SavageEagle;1241344]Same as the first thread. This one should be a little easier.

Prove Glenn Beck wrong.

[snip]

Concrete, hard evidence. Not some blog or forum posting. News articles are only acceptable if accompanied by a time-line or some other piece of proof.
[/QUOTE]

Are you purposely ignoring my attempt on page 2? Can't we put this to rest now?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I went to a seminar back when I was finishing my BS in Materials Engineering and have heard it discussed again during my Master's classes that the materials are there. The buckytubes/nanotubes have the material properties, the issue is production. They are produced in such small quantities, and so slowly at this point that to make something like the elevator would take an outrageous amount of time and money. Until we find a way to mass produce the tubes in the types of quantities that we need, it won't happen.

That's what I should have said, "in production." The best mass produced synthetics are still off by two orders of magnitude in strength. I see great promise in the bucky structures and othe nanotube architecture, but I think we're a couple of breakthroughs away from being able to utilize it on a mass scale. It WILL change humanity once we do, in much the same way internetworking has, IMO

 

[jdhaines]

That's what I should have said, "in production." The best mass produced synthetics are still off by two orders of magnitude in strength. I see great promise in the bucky structures and othe nanotube architecture, but I think we're a couple of breakthroughs away from being able to utlize it on a mass scale. It WILL change humanity once we do, in much the same way internetworking has, IMO

Can't disagree with that!

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm you're huckleberry...

Glenn Beck's Assertion:
Video: Link Here
Segment starts at 3:48
Segment ends at 6:28

1. Assertion: ~5:58 he claims that the law being voided will require doctors to "Commit murder or you can't work here anymore"
2. Assertion: ~6:15 he claims that doctors will not be able to refuse to do a procedure that they believe is murder [after the repeal of the law]

His essential talking point is that once Bush's "Freedom of Conscious Act" (Official name Provider Refusal Rule, which took effect the day of Obama's Inauguration) is repealed, Doctor's will be forced to perform procedures against their moral and religious values. I feel that conservatively this is his primary statement. We can argue whether he meant this, but it seems pretty clear to me. If we can all agree this was his statement, I'll work towards showing he was completely wrong.

Support Glenn Beck is Wrong:

1. Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter VIII, Section 300a-7 (Link Here) States that:
2. Federal law already protects doctors from both requiring procedures against their moral obligations as well as discrimination from the organization if they decide not to perform a procedure. The new law that Bush proposed right at the end of his presidency does not change that. It simply requires an organization to certify that it is complying with the new rule
   Source
3. The biggest reason that the bill is being repealed is that both those for the law and against the law have agreed that it can be taken much to broadly. It can allow anyone in the medical field (including a cashier or pharmacy tech at walgreens) to refuse service and be protected. (The cashier could refuse to sell you Viagra medication simply because of moral reasons). This was the primary reason for the Obama group's repeal of the law.
   Source: My general understanding from multiple sources (Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4)

Extra Information: This law was mixed with some environmental things in a lame duck ruling thrown in right at the end of Bush Jr.'s presidency. Glenn Beck made a huge deal out of this and acted like if we repeal this law we will be forcing doctors to kill babies and grandmothers ("Bye Bye Grammy" ~GB in the segment above). He overstated his position, overexaggerated the law, and was completely wrong about the implications that doctors will have to perform abortions or be fired.

My Rant: I generally like Beck and I see him as a venting tool. If no one on TV was saying the things we think, people would be even more pissed off than they are. He is a blow off valve for the far-right. You'll notice that nothing he says or does brings about any change. He says things that we can all shake our head, sit back in the chair and say "Wow, he's right. I'm glad someone is thinking about this and saying it on TV." Then we all relax a bit more and go about our day. If no one was saying these things it would feel more like a government controlled media than it already does. That said, I think if we looked more deeply into many things he says we would find these similar half truths in many of the things he discusses.

Full Disclosure: I got the idea for this topic from Glenn Beck Sucks but then took off and did my own research on both what Glenn claimed and what the truth was behind it all.

Side Note: Funny that Glenn said he's an alcoholic. I didn't know that.


This was fun, don't take it too seriously, although I really feel like I'm right on this based on my research.

Alright. I'm sorry I forgot to go back on this one and respond.

First, Beck was wrong as according to this:
H.R. 1233: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

and this:
H.R.1233: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

...the bill never made it out of committee.

Here's the part that deals with Abortions:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POPULATION CONTROL.

No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such program or activity is foreign or domestic.

So pretty much everything he said was moot. Possibly, he mixed up this bill with provisions in the Healthcare bill, but I doubt it. Basically, the bill was about population control and not abortions, but it looks like a bill to support existing law than anything else. Which is why it probably never made it out of committee.

So apparently GB was wrong about this.



Anyway, This can count as 1, but I'm talking more about bigger claims. When it comes to GB, I want someone to debunk him on things like "Crime, INC", and some of his bigger claims from the last 6 months. This one was kinda a small one, but it is what it is.

So, two more. Something substantial. Something relevant to today. Maybe something we should care about come November.

Good catch though JD.

 

[jdhaines]

Hey, no biggy.

Alright, I'll see what I can come up with. I kind of like searching for stuff like this. The problem is the big stuff usually is claimed simply because it can't be proven or disproven. People have full time jobs trying to debunk things like this. If they can't find something concrete, I'm not sure us hacks will be able to. I'll consider it an open challenge though.

 

[SavageEagle]

If it's easier, I'll pick the two issues to look up?

 

[tyler34]

And conspiracies aren't all bad if you can get strong evidence to support it.

theres the kicker, if there is strong evidence for it it fails be a conspiracy. plus no one can agree on evidence when it comes to conspiracy so it's a cycle of sorts.

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

If it's easier, I'll pick the two issues to look up?

Ok pick 2 and ONE BETTER NOT BE FEMA CAMPS THAT IS 100% TRUE YOU NOT....

 

[SavageEagle]

theres the kicker, if there is strong evidence for it it fails be a conspiracy. plus no one can agree on evidence when it comes to conspiracy so it's a cycle of sorts.

Hence the, uh, smiley face at the end.... But no matter how much evidence you provide, to some, it will always be theory.

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

2007 CNN Glenn Beck Opposes NAFTA & Mexican Truckers
YouTube - Glenn Beck opposes Mexican Truckers on American roads

2009 FOX Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA & Mexican Truckers
YouTube - Rep. Brady (R-TX) Discussed Mexican Trucking Issue with Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck Siding with a Communist against Ron Paul and his supporters:
YouTube - Glenn Beck - Ron Paul - Terrorism?

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

Beck, O’Reilly Call for More Taxation

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4I2f0ZO6g&feature=player_embedded

 

[SavageEagle]

Lots and lots of research. I'll dig into it tomorrow, along with those links, cause I think my daughter might be disappointed if I do it on her B-day.