Penn on CNN right now

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Discussing voting. And I quote - "We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Updated sig!!!

[circuit slave]

Penn? Sean Penn? When you say right now, do you mean right right now? :D , because right now I gotsta git my Washington Week on!--------on PBS, so I won't be watching that.

Well, you tell Sean Penn I said to shut his lame Hollywood opinion up or I'm not gonna buy Fast Times at Ridgemont High on DVD.

What kinda stupid comment is that? Evil? There are people around the world who don't even have the privilege to vote. He should say something wiser like just plain vote. What is it anyway? only 47% of the people exercise their civic duty anyways. Yeah, let's not vote at all. :rolleyes:

[crimresearch]

Obviously this Penn person is just a stooge of the vast media conspiracy... he wouldn't last a second on JREF, with wishy washy crap like that.
:p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by circuit slave
Penn? Sean Penn? When you say right now, do you mean right right now? :D , because right now I gotsta git my Washington Week on!--------on PBS, so I won't be watching that.

Well, you tell Sean Penn I said to shut his lame Hollywood opinion up or I'm not gonna buy Fast Times at Ridgemont High on DVD.

What kinda stupid comment is that? Evil? There are people around the world who don't even have the privilege to vote. He should say something wiser like just plain vote. What is it anyway? only 47% of the people exercise their civic duty anyways. Yeah, let's not vote at all. :rolleyes:

Penn Jillette. I hope you were being sarcastic, or was it really not obvious?

[circuit slave]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Penn Jillette. I hope you were being sarcastic, or was it really not obvious?


er......oops! ...uh.....oh , that Penn.....well did he do any of those cool tricks with Teller? :D

[HarryKeogh]

I disagree.

IMO, keeping Bush in the White House not only won't create a viable third party, but has devastating consequences for women, gays and lesbians, our economy, our foreign relations, the environment, the Supreme Court, and the poor.

sorry,I'd love to see a third party (and no need to stop at three either) but there's too much at stake this election for me to sit on my couch, not vote and help one guy who I really despise win.

btw TCS...I thought that you believed Libertarian politics were screwy?! Why place so much weight on Penn's (big time Lib) political views?

[bignickel]

Another St. Louis voice must weigh in (and then head to bed, because he's going the geek-fest that is Archon in the morning):

I believed that back in 2000. After years of 'lessor of two evils', I wanted to vote for a candidate instead of against one. Because that's the only real way to start having a real change take place; voting for the candidate that stays closest to the center will never change the status quo.

"Republicans and Democrats are the same group", said I, "just color-coded to make us think there are 2 parties."

So, I voted for Nader. Who had some issues I agreed with, and who wasn't a complete meglomaniacal lunatic at the time (as opposed to now). Didn't really swing Missouri (not even close), but if after 8 years of properity, a vice President can't pick up a more-than-50% margin, why should he be Pres? The election's his to lose. And no matter who we have in office, other than Nader, thing's are going to stay pretty much the same as they always have, right?

Ah. But then WTC happened. Then Afghanistan happened. Then the Patriot Act happened. Then Iraq happened. Then 'Freedom Fries' happened...

So, pretty much every day since Afghanistan has been a walpeen hammer on the side of my head going NO! NO! ! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Don't get me wrong: I still think that America deserves the President that it ends up with.

I just don't think that the rest of world does.

Maybe some day we can have a nice, boring election where nothing major will be happening in the next 4 years, just like the 90's, and I can vote on the issues I want again instead of tossing some guy out of office...

[Dorian Gray]

Til the landslide takes you down

[CFLarsen]

"We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil."

That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

I think I spot a pattern with Libertarians here: A profound dissatisfaction with life. It is everybody else's fault, everybody else is stupid and evil, only Libertarianism can save the world.

Let's assume that very few people vote. I'm not sure if there needs to be a certain amount of people voting before the election is declared valid, but if there is not, it would only mean that those who did vote - a very small minority - would grab all the power.

Penn seems to advocate "Divide and lose".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

I think I spot a pattern with Libertarians here: A profound dissatisfaction with life. It is everybody else's fault, everybody else is stupid and evil, only Libertarianism can save the world.

Let's assume that very few people vote. I'm not sure if there needs to be a certain amount of people voting before the election is declared valid, but if there is not, it would only mean that those who did vote - a very small minority - would grab all the power.

Penn seems to advocate "Divide and lose".

Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

[epepke]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by epepke
Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

Vegas is real, its Branson thats fake.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by epepke
Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by crimresearch
He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title. So why don't you call up CNN and tell them you want them to put you on so you can talk about how important it is that we all vote on November 2?

Let us all know as soon as you get booked so we can all tune in.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx
Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

I have often--snidely--remarked that if as many people who claimed to be Libertarian or have Libertarian sympathies actually voted Libertarian, the Republicans would be a third party by now.

Who knows? I might even be right. :D

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by BPSCG
So why don't you call up CNN and tell them you want them to put you on so you can talk about how important it is that we all vote on November 2?

Let us all know as soon as you get booked so we can all tune in.

What's that got to do with anything?

If Penn had used his time slot to insist that everyone should vote for Badnarik, I would agree with the 'who cares what celebrities think about politics' sentiment...but civics isn't politics.

How is the lack of non-famous people on CNN relevant to that distinction?

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title.

Ayup. Every other citizen gets to speak on CNN. Right, right.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

So here is my standard voting procedure.

1) Unless a particular candidate is offensive, as I found bush for religious reasons in the last election, then for the major elections I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party.

2) For minor elections(railroad commisioner) I make my statement by picking the third party candidate if offered.


But lately I'm thinking of changing my whole system. I'm thinking of going from a party based voting system, to a single issue based voting system. Single issue voters seem to get more attention from the candidates than those that vote for party platforms.

If I change my system, it would look something like this:

1) I vote for the person who pledges to work on my issue.

2) I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party if neither person pledges to work on my issue.

3) I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party if the incumbant/incumbant party hasn't made any progress working on my issue.

4) I vote for the incumbant/incumbat party if the incumbant/incumbant party has made progress working on my issue.

In all three cases, I write to the campaign of all candidates and explain my vote, and my system for voting.


My issue of choice is the drug war. There has already been made the connection between terrorist funding and the drug war. It makes the streets more dangerous. It makes the world more dangerous. It ruins American's lives.




*edited to add: Even in the issue system, I still wouldn't vote for a party that based its entire platform on that issue. I need a party that has plans to do the rest of the governing they need to.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by epepke
Ayup. Every other citizen gets to speak on CNN. Right, right.


So Penn shouldn't be allowed to present a skeptical viewpoint like "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil..." on CNN *because* he is famous?

Or because it offends your partisan sensibilities?
:rolleyes:

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So Penn shouldn't be allowed to present a skeptical viewpoint like "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil..." on CNN *because* he is famous?

Or because it offends your partisan sensibilities?
:rolleyes:

Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants, to do whatever he wants with the wealth and opportunities that he has managed to sieze, etc. etc.

I would have thought this was a simple concept. It constantly amuses me how when I express an opinion, people such as yourself interpret it as an attempt to Restrict Someone Else's Rights, or What They Should Be Allowed.

However, I also have the right to react, and the way that I react is that I consider his opinion on politics or voting or gardening or how to treat an ingrown toenail or how good chicken liver tastes or anything outside of their area of expertise just the same as I treat the opinion of any joker who sits down next to me at a bar. Not that Penn would ever do that, since he makes such a big deal out of being a teetotaler, so maybe it's a Starbucks. So he's a Celebrity, so he gets to be on CNN. Big fat hairy deal.

Your reaction suggests that this is somehow offensive to you, or it makes you angry, or something I cannot even guess at. Are you willing and able to describe that?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by epepke
Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants, to do whatever he wants with the wealth and opportunities that he has managed to sieze, etc. etc.

I would have thought this was a simple concept. It constantly amuses me how when I express an opinion, people such as yourself interpret it as an attempt to Restrict Someone Else's Rights, or What They Should Be Allowed.

However, I also have the right to react, and the way that I react is that I consider his opinion on politics or voting or gardening or how to treat an ingrown toenail or how good chicken liver tastes or anything outside of their area of expertise just the same as I treat the opinion of any joker who sits down next to me at a bar. Not that Penn would ever do that, since he makes such a big deal out of being a teetotaler, so maybe it's a Starbucks. So he's a Celebrity, so he gets to be on CNN. Big fat hairy deal.

Your reaction suggests that this is somehow offensive to you, or it makes you angry, or something I cannot even guess at. Are you willing and able to describe that?

Are you willing and able to provide a link to the quote where I said anything like that?

I said I agreed with you about celebrities pushing their political opinions down people's throats via their easy media access...and now you accuse me of having a problem *because* I agree with you?

Troll...
:rolleyes:

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Are you willing and able to provide a link to the quote where I said anything like that?

No need for a link, because it's right here in the history:

So Penn shouldn't be allowed to present a skeptical viewpoint like "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil..." on CNN *because* he is famous?

Emphasis mine. Your words. Your presumption. You own it, dude.

My response is also in the history.

Shouldn't.
Be.
Allowed.
To.

Fess up. You wrote it. You want to modify or retract it, OK by me. I don't hold a grudge.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
btw TCS...I thought that you believed Libertarian politics were screwy?! Why place so much weight on Penn's (big time Lib) political views?

They are.

Because he was spot on. Maybe he is putting his own party in the loony camp.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by bignickel
Don't get me wrong: I still think that America deserves the President that it ends up with.


I would agree with this. I would also expand it to include senators and congressmen too.

[crimresearch]

I cheerfully confess that I asked you to clarify your position by asking the question you cited above.

If you want to pretend that I made a *statement* (instead of a question) that *I* believed that Penn shouldn't be allowed to speak on CNN you are an idiot.

If you want to pretend that I claimed*you* were making that assertion, instead of *asking* you if that were your assertion, then you are a dishonest troll.

And if you are just pissed off because another poster here dared to correct you on your mislabelling of Penn as a mere entertainer, (when he is in fact a professional skeptic), and your mislabelling of his skeptical comment about voting as a political statement, then you are just another JREF bigot.

In any case, you bring nothing useful to the discourse...buh-bye.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by corplinx
There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

I would agree with that.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Cleon
I have often--snidely--remarked that if as many people who claimed to be Libertarian or have Libertarian sympathies actually voted Libertarian, the Republicans would be a third party by now.

Who knows? I might even be right. :D

I think a lot of people would, except the Libertarian Party has this annoying habit of nominating loony "constitutional experts" who have, apparently, never read the constitution! Or have a very low comprehension rate.

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I cheerfully confess that I asked you to clarify your position by asking the question you cited above.

If you want to pretend that I made a *statement* (instead of a question) that *I* believed that Penn shouldn't be allowed to speak on CNN you are an idiot.

If you want to pretend that I claimed*you* were making that assertion, instead of *asking* you if that were your assertion, then you are a dishonest troll.

I think you're really reaching here. I think I answered you adequately, without invective or insult, even without the indirect invective and insult hidden in "if" clauses. Look for the paragraph beginning "Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants." If you think that I did not, then you are welcome to point out where I didn't and ask for clarification.

And if you are just pissed off because another poster here dared to correct you on your mislabelling of Penn as a mere entertainer, (when he is in fact a professional skeptic), and your mislabelling of his skeptical comment about voting as a political statement, then you are just another JREF bigot.

In fact, I am not pi**ed off but rather amused. However, this may shed some light on your reaction, and we may be nearing a breakthrough. Is the fact that I consider Penn an entertainer what set you off? Because that's quite accurate. I do. I do not know what "professional skeptic" means. I certainly don't know what it means well enough to be able to decide whether he is one. Is it merely that one has made money promoting skepticism, or is there more? I appreciate magicians getting involved in skepticism, as they have useful skills that they can bring to the table, but the notion of "professional skeptic" mystifies me. If the term were to have any significance, I would estimate that it had something to do with combining real scientific training with training in conjuring. I don't know how much scientific training Penn has, and in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not willing to declare that he is a professional skeptic.

Perhaps you can convince me. Perhaps you can directly address the fact that I consider Penn to be primarily an entertainer with some interests related to skepticism. I firmly believe that it is possible to get this right, and I don't even expect university accolades. However, based on my viewings of the famous and most recent cable show by Penn and Teller, the name of which I dare not mention, I am not convinced.

In any case, you bring nothing useful to the discourse...buh-bye.

Yes, you can attempt to fire me. It will have little effect, unless it does. You'll know if it does, because I'll get kickbanned by the moderators.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by epepke
I think you're really reaching here. I think I answered you adequately, without invective or insult, even without the indirect invective and insult hidden in "if" clauses. Look for the paragraph beginning "Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants." If you think that I did not, then you are welcome to point out where I didn't and ask for clarification.
In fact, I am not pi**ed off but rather amused. However, this may shed some light on your reaction, and we may be nearing a breakthrough. Is the fact that I consider Penn an entertainer what set you off? Because that's quite accurate. I do. I do not know what "professional skeptic" means. I certainly don't know what it means well enough to be able to decide whether he is one. Is it merely that one has made money promoting skepticism, or is there more? I appreciate magicians getting involved in skepticism, as they have useful skills that they can bring to the table, but the notion of "professional skeptic" mystifies me. If the term were to have any significance, I would estimate that it had something to do with combining real scientific training with training in conjuring. I don't know how much scientific training Penn has, and in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not willing to declare that he is a professional skeptic.
Perhaps you can convince me. Perhaps you can directly address the fact that I consider Penn to be primarily an entertainer with some interests related to skepticism. I firmly believe that it is possible to get this right, and I don't even expect university accolades. However, based on my viewings of the famous and most recent cable show by Penn and Teller, the name of which I dare not mention, I am not convinced.
Yes, you can attempt to fire me. It will have little effect, unless it does. You'll know if it does, because I'll get kickbanned by the moderators.

No, I doubt that your posting on Randi's forum and claiming to have no idea what a professional skeptic is will trigger your banning, sorry to disappoint. It will go a long way towards illuminating which side of the skeptical fence you are on.

I do however, suspect that if you follow the usual JREF Axis of Intolerance pattern of claiming that questions asking you to *clarify* your position are 'assertions' and if you continue to tapdance, evade, and to fabricate strawman positions and things I never said, that I will probably be putting you on ignore with the other trolls and bigots...

But in the meantime, feel free to present all the evidence you have that Penn was on CNN merely because all the other 'entertainers' had better bookings.
:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

So? Isn't it most likely that if he votes, it will be for the Libertarian candidate?

Originally posted by corplinx
There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

This goes for every political party.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Let us all know as soon as you get booked so we can all tune in.

Or out.

[demon]

"We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil."....Penn


"America is a one-party state which, with typical extravagance, has two of them." Julius Nyere (I think)

They make a nice set of bookends.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Or out.

Found any black people yet Claus? Or are you still working from remote viewings?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Found any black people yet Claus? Or are you still working from remote viewings?

That was completely incomprehensible.

[crimresearch]

Well, I understand why you are here...No doubt 'helping the JREF mission' by defending those who attack a well known skeptic like Penn, but you shouldn't need me to remind you of how many threads you've run away from when painted into a corner by logical questions...the one about black people that you are currently evading just being the latest that I am aware of.

You know...This one:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jocko
So you're assuming. sans evidence, that blacks comprise a disproportionate percentage of the felon population.

Nice. Do you even know what a black person looks like, out there in the Scandinavian hinterland?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45948&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, I understand why you are here...No doubt 'helping the JREF mission' by defending those who attack a well known skeptic like Penn

It may come as a surprise to you, but skeptics - such as Penn - are not exempt from criticism. If they were, it would not be skepticism.

Do you really think that Penn should not be questioned?

Originally posted by crimresearch
the one about black people that you are currently evading just being the latest that I am aware of.

Huh??

[corplinx]

If you question Penn, you make baby jesus cry.





* Corplinx works for the company that owns the Rio. The Rio is the property where Penn and Teller perform their act. Despite this, Corplinx maintains his neutrality when discussing Penn and Teller.

[crimresearch]

Sylvia couldn't have done better herself Claus...'Huh'? is such a devastating logical put down when confronted with mere facts and quotes.

As far as the very narrow topic currently under discussion as to whether Penn's celebrity status means that he shouldn't be allowed to make skeptical comments like " If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil." ...

I've been crystal clear that I think he should...feel free to weigh in anytime as to how it advances the JREF mission to argue the opposite.

Or you can always resort to your usual form, and just make up a statement from whole cloth, slap quotation marks around it, and then claim I said it, with no links or proof.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Sylvia couldn't have done better herself Claus...'Huh'? is such a devastating logical put down when confronted with mere facts and quotes.

As far as the very narrow topic currently under discussion as to whether Penn's celebrity status means that he shouldn't be allowed to make skeptical comments like " If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil." ...

I've been crystal cleaar that I think he should...feel free to weigh in anytime as to how it advances the JREF mission to argue the opposite.

Or you can always resort to your usual form, and just make up a statement from whole cloth, slap quotation marks around it, and then claim I said it, with no links or proof.

No, I would just like to know what thread about "blacks" I have been evading. If you are going to accuse me of something, at least have the courtesy of providing a link, so I will be able to defend myself.

I would also like to know if you really think Penn should not be questioned. You seem to make this point. However, I could be wrong. I would, if that is the case, like to know why you are attacking me for questioning Penn.

I don't see that questioning Penn would not advance the JREF mission. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I would just like to know what thread about "blacks" I have been evading. If you are going to accuse me of something, at least have the courtesy of providing a link, so I will be able to defend myself.

I would also like to know if you really think Penn should not be questioned. You seem to make this point. However, I could be wrong. I would, if that is the case, like to know why you are attacking me for questioning Penn.

I don't see that questioning Penn would not advance the JREF mission. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

You are really getting good at this Claus..of course the link that I did provide to that very quote ( along with the very specific answers already given to your repeated questions) must be invisible to your eyes alone...is that your story now? You can't see black people, and you can't read links if they are posted by minorities?
:dl:

What a shame...some of us are on here debunking medical myths in one thread, debunking Qi in another thread, providing factual links to reports on modern slavery and corrupt police organizations in other threads, ....while Claus is 'advancing the JREF mission' by posting falsehoods as 'fact' and siding with the anti-skeptic crowd, ignoring factual links by claiming they aren't there, forging non-existent quotes, and alway tapdancing, tapdancing, tapdancing...

:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You are really getting good at this Claus..of course the link that I did provide to that very quote ( along with the very specific answers already given to your repeated questions) must be invisible to your eyes alone...is that your story now? You can't see black people, and you can't read links if they are posted by minorities?
:dl:

What a shame...some of us are on here debunking medical myths in one thread, debunking Qi in another thread, providing factual links to reports on modern slavery and corrupt police organizations in other threads, ....while Claus is 'advancing the JREF mission' by posting falsehoods as 'fact' and siding with the anti-skeptic crowd, ignoring factual links by claiming they aren't there, forging non-existent quotes, and alway tapdancing, tapdancing, tapdancing...

:rolleyes:

O.........K.

No reference to the thread where I evade questions about blacks.

No answers as to why Penn shouldn't be questioned.

No answers as to why questioning Penn would not advance the JREF mission.

But a lot of smoke, lies and false allegations.

Gotcha.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by crimresearch
What's that got to do with anything?

If Penn had used his time slot to insist that everyone should vote for Badnarik, I would agree with the 'who cares what celebrities think about politics' sentiment...but civics isn't politics.And who cares what celebrities think of civics?

Penn is an entertainer, a magician, a professional skeptic. If CNN wants to do a show or news segment having to do with entertainment, magic, or skepticism, he'd be a terrific person to have on.

But having him on to talk about the election or his candidate or the importance of voting, or anything at all not having to do with his particular area of expertise, is simply using a celebrity as a pimp for ratings. If CNN wants to get someone on to talk about the importance of voting, why don't they invite the president of the League of Women Voters? Is it because she'd be a ratings tank?

Didn't we all just have a good laugh at Cameron Diaz's expense when she went on Oprah's show and made an idiot of herself while talking about the importance of voting?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And who cares what celebrities think of civics?

Penn is an entertainer, a magician, a professional skeptic. If CNN wants to do a show or news segment having to do with entertainment, magic, or skepticism, he'd be a terrific person to have on.

But having him on to talk about the election or his candidate or the importance of voting, or anything at all not having to do with his particular area of expertise, is simply using a celebrity as a pimp for ratings. If CNN wants to get someone on to talk about the importance of voting, why don't they invite the president of the League of Women Voters? Is it because she'd be a ratings tank?

Didn't we all just have a good laugh at Cameron Diaz's expense when she went on Oprah's show and made an idiot of herself while talking about the importance of voting?

Agreed...was Penn on CNN doing magic tricks, or was he on there presenting the skeptical view of our electoral system?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
O.........K.

No reference to the thread where I evade questions about blacks.

No answers as to why Penn shouldn't be questioned.

No answers as to why questioning Penn would not advance the JREF mission.

But a lot of smoke, lies and false allegations.

Gotcha.

OK, sure you do, your Aryanness...please do explain how my posting the link to the very thread where you ran away from your ignorant statements about blacks in Florida, and were called on it, constitutes 'no reference'?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45948&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Does that link which everyone else can clearly see, not exist for you because it was posted by a minority, or because you have used some paranormal powers to wish it away?

And while you are at it, please explain how my very specific answers to the Penn question, which again, everyone can see, don't exist...Invisibility, or your blinders?

And feel free to explain (since you have dodged this one too) how criticising Penn for presenting the skeptical view of voting on CNN, advances the JREF cause...same as the above, enlighten us as to how all of these pixels magically disappear from *your* computer screen.
:rolleyes:, etc.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
OK, sure you do, your Aryanness...please do explain how my posting the link to the very thread where you ran away from your ignorant statements about blacks in Florida, and were called on it, constitutes 'no reference'?

I will ignore your pathetic innuendo that I am a racist, and will instead focus on the thread in question. I have asked you to refer to it, but you have - so far - refused to identify it.

Why is that?

Originally posted by crimresearch
Does that link which everyone else can clearly see, not exist for you because it was posted by a minority, or because you have used some paranormal powers to wish it away?

Where is that link??? Can I at least see it???

Originally posted by crimresearch
And while you are at it, please explain how my very specific answers to the Penn question, which again, everyone can see, don't exist...Invisibility, or your blinders?

I have asked for references. You are not able to provide these. Not my problem.

Originally posted by crimresearch
And feel free to explain (since you have dodged this one too) how criticising Penn for presenting the skeptical view of voting on CNN, advances the JREF cause...same as the above, enlighten us s to how all of these pixels magically disappear from *your* comuter screen.
:rolleyes:, etc.

If you think that criticizing a skeptic means that I am not advancing the JREF mission, then I submit that you have seriously misinterpreted what the JREF mission is all about.

How am I "forging non-existent quotes"?

Where do I post "falsehoods"?

[crimresearch]

Where is that link??? Can I at least see it???

Everyone *else* can clearly see that I have posted it repeatedly, and they can click on it and see that the post I quoted sits there intact.

Why can't you?

They can also look at the time stamps and see that you keep pretending it doesn't exist well *after* I have posted it.

Why can't you?

And for that matter, they can look back in the previous threads and see your forged quote , complete with the 'Crimresearch..according to you' and the quotation marks around your completely fabricated words.
Then they can move down and read the part where I asked you to link to that quote. which you failed to do.

Why can't you see that either?

They can also see your false statements about blacks in Florida, Soviet tanks in Styria, etc.

Why can't you?

And of course, nothing is preventing them from seeing the posts I've made about Penn.

Why can't you?

I'll wager that if there really is is a problem, that it lies entirely with you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Where is that link??? Can I at least see it???

Everyone *else* can clearly see that I have posted it repeatedly, and they can click on it and see that the post I quoted sits there intact.

Why can't you?

They can also look at the time stamps and see that you keep pretending it doesn't exist well *after* I have posted it.

Why can't you?

And for that matter, they can look back in the previous threads and see your forged quote , complete with the 'Crimresearch..according to you' and the quotation marks around your completely fabricated words.
Then they can move down and read the part where I asked you to link to that quote. which you failed to do.

Why can't you see that either?

They can also see your false statements about blacks in Florida, Soviet tanks in Styria, etc.

Why can't you?

And of course, nothing is preventing them from seeing the posts I've made about Penn.

Why can't you?

I'll wager that if there really is is a problem, that it lies entirely with you.

I am truly sorry, but I have not been able to locate a link in this thread, posted by you.

I am also truly sorry, but I cannot for the life of me see the forged quotes I made. Perhaps you would be so kind and re-post them for me?

I am similarly sorry, but I cannot see where I posted false statements about blacks in Florida. Perhaps you would be so kind and re-post them for me?

I am equally sorry, but where have I posted false statements about Soviet tanks in Styria?

WHY IS IT SO BLOODY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO POST LINKS TO THE THREADS WHERE I COMMIT THESE HEINOUS CRIMES?

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
sorry,I'd love to see a third party (and no need to stop at three either) but there's too much at stake this election for me to sit on my couch, not vote and help one guy who I really despise win.

That's what people said in 2000...and 1996...and 1992.....

If not now, when?

[crimresearch]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45948&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

for the 3rd time, you racist troll...consider yourself on ignore with the rest of your racebaiting buddies

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

When Badnarik spoke in Vegas, Penn spoke out for him and endorsed him.

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/09/17/speaking-of-nevada/
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/09/13/candidates-stand-up-for-talking-dirty/

[svero]

thread reminds me of this cartoon

http://cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=7690

- S

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
When Badnarik spoke in Vegas, Penn spoke out for him and endorsed him.

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/09/17/speaking-of-nevada/
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/09/13/candidates-stand-up-for-talking-dirty/

So when he referred to loony third party candidates, he has first hand knowledge!

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by shanek
That's what people said in 2000...and 1996...and 1992.....

If not now, when?

sorry, I think there's more at stake now than in any election held since I started voting (1989)

well at least you have Karl Rove on your side (stay home, don't vote! he'd be all over that)

"We demand more candidates"...as we cut more taxes and get deeper into debt

"It's a matter of principle"...as Bush appoints two more judges to the Supreme Court"

"We won't play along with the system"...as the Clean Air Act continues to clean the air...of birds.

no thanks, sometimes you have to swallow your pride and put your ego aside (though personally I'd still vote democrat even if more parties were on the bill).

[thaiboxerken]

I think I spot a pattern with Libertarians here: A profound dissatisfaction with life. It is everybody else's fault, everybody else is stupid and evil, only Libertarianism can save the world.

How is this different from the conservative and liberal parties?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45948&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

O......K.

Let's see: I post facts from the US census, and this means - according to you - that I posted false statements about blacks in Florida.

Still no evidence of the rest. Guess it is of the same quality as the above.

Originally posted by crimresearch
for the 3rd time, you racist troll...consider yourself on ignore with the rest of your racebaiting buddies

O......K.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
How is this different from the conservative and liberal parties?

I haven't spotted the same profound dissatisfaction with life in conservatives and liberals. I can see some dissatisfaction with some aspects of society and a willingness to change it by political means. But I cannot see an all-out sneering at society.

[epepke]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I haven't spotted the same profound dissatisfaction with life in conservatives and liberals. I can see some dissatisfaction with some aspects of society and a willingness to change it by political means. But I cannot see an all-out sneering at society.

You can see it sometimes in the extreme left. (Whom I won't call liberal, because I think it besmirches liberalism.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by epepke
You can see it sometimes in the extreme left. (Whom I won't call liberal, because I think it besmirches liberalism.)

You don't have to. Liberals are right-wing in Europe. ;)

[epepke]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You don't have to. Liberals are right-wing in Europe. ;)

And in Cambridge, Mass.

I guess I'm not so much in disagreement with Libertarians, though. Some of the Libertarian ideas don't seem so bad to me. On the other hand, I don't think that a society based on Libertarian ideals would last more than a couple of weeks. Some tinpot dictator would take over.

In any event, I've seen the Show that May Not be Named by Penn and Teller, and it seems to me that most episodes are heavy on libertarianism and light on facts. I've written about this before, and so have others: there's a thread in the Education forum now by kittynh that points out that an asthmatic has an altogether different notion of what second-hand smoke means from a healthy person. I used to have asthma, and I can remember one excruciating evening as a kid spent in a bar with my parents, a friend of the family, and his paramour, who played one of the horses in the Broadway run of Equus. I think the only thing that kept me from going into anaphylactic shock was that I had learned to control my breathing.

Anyway, it always strikes me as being far more about Being a Libertarian than it does about skepticism.

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
sorry, I think there's more at stake now than in any election held since I started voting (1989)

Again, that's what people said in 2000...and 1996...and 1992.....

well at least you have Karl Rove on your side (stay home, don't vote! he'd be all over that)

When did I ever say I was going to stay home and not vote?

"We demand more candidates"...as we cut more taxes and get deeper into debt

Because neither of the two ruling party candidates will do anything to stop that. The problem is spending, and unless that is cut, it's either pay now or pay later.

"It's a matter of principle"...as Bush appoints two more judges to the Supreme Court"

FUD...as if Kerry's apointees would care any more about the Constitution than Bush's would.

"We won't play along with the system"...as the Clean Air Act continues to clean the air...of birds.

Again, something that will be no different regardless of whether we elect Bush or Kerry.

So, how is your vote for an establishment party candidate going to make any difference at all?

If you vote for the same old, same old, don't be surprised when that's what you get. And, regardless of who wins this election, you'll be right back here in 2008, telling us how much there is at stake and why this time we have to vote for the lesser evil. Again, I ask you, if not now, when?

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by shanek
FUD...as if Kerry's apointees would care any more about the Constitution than Bush's would.


Shankek, as someone who constantly feels people should back up their words with facts(which I appreciate and agree with) your above comment isn't based on any. It's pure speculation.

by simply saying "there's no difference between the two parties" you say nothing. (as you use that argument against two of my points without any further facts)

btw..what's FUD mean anyway???

[fishbob]

the usual JREF Axis of Intolerance Can I be a member of the JREF AOI?

The only intolerance I see is for flimsy arguments, goofy analyses, and dishonesty.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by fishbob
Can I be a member of the JREF AOI?

The only intolerance I see is for flimsy arguments, goofy analyses, and dishonesty.

I wonder if we could get t-shirts made? :D

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by fishbob
Can I be a member of the JREF AOI?

The only intolerance I see is for flimsy arguments, goofy analyses, and dishonesty.

If you want to post trolling for racial arguments and argue against Hispanics and blacks, like Patrick, or openly call people N***rs without the asterisks, like Till Eulenspiegel has (until the moderators stepped in), or take the position that a minority who disagrees with you on any point must be a right wing stooge who has no right to think for themselves, like Varwoche, Claus, and several other posters have, then I'm sure I can make room for you on my ignore list.

Or you can just stand back and continue to post admiringly about those who hold such positions and make snide remarks about the 'uppity' minorities whom they are trying to drive off of this forum...its your choice.

Either way, I'll probably wind up ignoring you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Shankek, as someone who constantly feels people should back up their words with facts(which I appreciate and agree with) your above comment isn't based on any. It's pure speculation.

Oh? Does that mean that Kerry is now acknowleging that he violated the Constitution when he authorized the President to go to war at his own discretion without Congress explicitly declaring it? Does that mean that he know acknowleges that he violated the Constitution when he voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act?

btw..what's FUD mean anyway???

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Does that mean that he know acknowleges that he violated the Constitution when he voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act?


Oh, and pray tell, how exactly did he do that???

Kick back and enjoy. This should be quite humorous!!

PS: Supposedly shanek has me on ignore since I kept beating him up. Can someone quote me so that he sees it? (Unless you are on ignore too)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
...or take the position that a minority who disagrees with you on any point must be a right wing stooge who has no right to think for themselves, like Varwoche, Claus, and several other posters have...

Where have I taken such a position?

[fishbob]

Or you can just stand back and continue to post admiringly about those who hold such positions and make snide remarks about the 'uppity' minorities whom they are trying to drive off of this forum...its your choice. I don't care whether you might be some kind of minority, I doubt that anybody else here cares either. Minority or not, your idiotic, vitriolic, hyperbolic, borderline lunatic posts are not excused. And you don't get a T-shirt.

[epepke]

Originally posted by crimresearch
If you want to post trolling for racial arguments and argue against Hispanics and blacks, like Patrick, or openly call people N***rs without the asterisks, like Till Eulenspiegel has (until the moderators stepped in), or take the position that a minority who disagrees with you on any point must be a right wing stooge who has no right to think for themselves, like Varwoche, Claus, and several other posters have, then I'm sure I can make room for you on my ignore list.

Or you can just stand back and continue to post admiringly about those who hold such positions and make snide remarks about the 'uppity' minorities whom they are trying to drive off of this forum...its your choice.

Either way, I'll probably wind up ignoring you.

I'm starting to become concerned about you. In the past couple of weeks, you seem to have acquired a rather massive chip on your shoulder. I don't remember this from before. I always enjoyed your posts, even if I didn't always agree with them. However, now, you appear to be going to great lengths to find things to have an extreme reaction about. Is something wrong?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by fishbob
Can I be a member of the JREF AOI?

The only intolerance I see is for flimsy arguments, goofy analyses, and dishonesty. If there is any doubt that crim is completely devoid of intellectual integrity (hard to imagine such doubt), check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46201). Unlike most forum dramas that are difficult to untangle, this concisely encapsulates crim's sorry little trolling games. You will notice:

1) Crim posts a thread Fri night; no mention in the title what the subject is (typical)
2) Only a link -- no content (not typical -- this is more substanative than his typical post)
3) Early Sat morning, this place is dead (per usual for the weekend), no replies to Crim's cryptic thread. He then goes into his (all-too-familiar) self-serving schtick... Dropping like a rock, I see..much like anything socially aware that hits JREF. Bravo crim. Thank you for such a finely distilled example of what a knee-jerk, sanctimonious troll you are. And to think I was momentarily offended by being called a racist by this pathetic dork (the cirsumstances of which are almost humerous).