# why the left hates glen beck



## actsnoblemartin

my theory: because he isnt a liberal

Because he is right

Because he cares and loves his country


----------



## Mr. Capitalism

We don't hate Glenn Beck.  We are amused by him for one reason alone, he appears to be nuts.


----------



## WillowTree

Mr. Capitalism said:


> We don't hate Glenn Beck.  We are amused by him for one reason alone, he appears to be nuts.



yes, I guess to a communist he does appear nuts. I can see that.


----------



## California Girl

They hate him because he is dangerous.  When he goes after an individual, he makes damned sure he has verifiable facts to back up what he says. He has a pretty good research team behind him. Millions of people watching him simply because he comes across as a decent, and flawed, man. American like decent, flawed, people. Because mainly we are decent, flawed, people. So they relate to him. He is the epitome of what we admire - a self made man who has made mistakes, put them right, admitted them and used his experience to make him a better human being.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

One has to understand Glen Beck.  He doesn't take his opportunity to express his feelings about America lightly.  Beck knows what Americans want to hear about and Americans know that Beck has got their back.  NO OTHER HOST OF ANY SHOW CAN CLAIM THIS....NOT A SINGLE ONE.  He is the ONLY news commentator who has COMMON SENSE and isn't beholden to anyone on the right OR left.  In my book...Beck is a class act.  When I watch his show I know that I will hear about things that are important to thinking Americans who are tired of the bullshit coming from Washington.


----------



## Nosmo King

Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.  

Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.

Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.  

Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!

The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.


----------



## rightwinger

Hate him?

Beck is very good at what he does. Appealing to a simplistic love America but hate Americans viewership


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Nosmo King said:


> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.



The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.

Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.


----------



## California Girl

Nosmo King said:


> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.



No, Beck is a Boat Rocker. He doesn't monger fear, he asks questions. That the questions are too hard for the government to answer honestly is not his fault. That blame lies squarely in Washington....

Beck hammered Bush too. No lefties whined about him then - so why all of a sudden is he the bad guy? LOL. 

LOL at the Palin shit - Palin is, I am sure, a nice person but qualifed to govern this country - OVER MY COLD, DEAD, BODY!


----------



## Mr. Capitalism

No, you are right, we are all terrified at the power and mind of Glenn Beck.  You've caught us.


----------



## rayboyusmc

Glenn Beck is there to make more money period.

All his little hysterics are no more than something to get ratings.

As to the facts, if you defend him on that, you don't know what facts are.

Change the word hate to: pathetic little Limbaugh wanna be.


----------



## California Girl

rayboyusmc said:


> Glenn Beck is there to make more money period.
> 
> All his little hysterics are no more than something to get ratings.
> 
> As to the facts, if you defend him on that, you don't know what facts are.
> 
> Change the word hate to: pathetic little Limbaugh wanna be.



But, but, but..... he was always bang on accurate about Bush!  At least, he was according to the left - who loved him then. 

Now that he's going after your boy, it's all booo hoooo. 

Stupidity will not be covered by any Public Option. You need to cure yourself.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

California Girl said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is there to make more money period.
> 
> All his little hysterics are no more than something to get ratings.
> 
> As to the facts, if you defend him on that, you don't know what facts are.
> 
> Change the word hate to: pathetic little Limbaugh wanna be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but..... he was always bang on accurate about Bush!  At least, he was according to the left - who loved him then.
> 
> Now that he's going after your boy, it's all booo hoooo.
> 
> Stupidity will not be covered by any Public Option. You need to cure yourself.
Click to expand...


B B BU BU BUT BUT that's different when he was against Bush...


----------



## masquerade

PatekPhilippe said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.*
> 
> Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.
Click to expand...



I do believe that is one of the funniest comments I've read.
How is it that republicans are taking television away from liberals?  By 'conservatives' having a voice on FOX News?   Why are you so threatened?  The remainder of news stations and programming are mainly liberal?

As far as taking away the internet goes ... my fear lies with Obama.  I believe HE wants control over the internet.  Last I looked, he was a far-left liberal.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

masquerade said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.*
> 
> Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that is one of the funniest comments I've read.
> How is it that republicans are taking television away from liberals?  By 'conservatives' having a voice on FOX News?   Why are you so threatened?  The remainder of news stations and programming are mainly liberal?
> 
> As far as taking away the internet goes ... my fear lies with Obama.  I believe HE wants control over the internet.  Last I looked, he was a far-left liberal.
Click to expand...


It's used in a sense that the television news shows that have the highest viewership are now conservative in nature....namely Fox News.  The Democrats mastered the internet quite early.....I believe Dean was a pioneer in internet fund raising and laid the ground work for Obama in Dean's '04 campaign.  The Rep's are fast learners.  They are making significant strides in the use of the internet to influence the masses.....perhaps this is why Obama wants to control it as you put it.


----------



## theHawk

Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.


----------



## California Girl

theHawk said:


> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.



It is the hypocracy that I find laughable. 

During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue. 

Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage. 

That's pathetic and indefensible.


----------



## Article 15

California Girl said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
Click to expand...


Beck wasn't liked by the left back then either.

Let's not pretend that he treated each administration the same.


----------



## California Girl

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck wasn't liked by the left back then either.
> 
> Let's not pretend that he treated each administration the same.
Click to expand...



LOL. He was quoted and used as a source by the left time and time again. You know that. I know that. Anyone who paid attention to politics back in the day knows that. 

It's ridiculous to now criticize the man when even politicians on the left quoted Beck as a source. The reason why politicians on both sides dislike the man is because he is difficult to counter - because he is very good at backing up what he says.

Whine about it if you want but that's the truth. Live with it.


----------



## theHawk

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck wasn't liked by the left back then either.
> 
> Let's not pretend that he treated each administration the same.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he didn't treat Bush the same because Bush didn't fill his administration with a bunch of communist misfits.


----------



## Article 15

California Girl said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck wasn't liked by the left back then either.
> 
> Let's not pretend that he treated each administration the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. He was quoted and used as a source by the left time and time again. You know that. I know that. Anyone who paid attention to politics back in the day knows that.
> 
> It's ridiculous to now criticize the man when even politicians on the left quoted Beck as a source. The reason why politicians on both sides dislike the man is because he is difficult to counter - because he is very good at backing up what he says.
> 
> Whine about it if you want but that's the truth. Live with it.
Click to expand...


Nobody on this end is whining.  

Where you remember the left quoting him back then I remember his hate filled anti-muslim go-go GWOT rants.  He might have been quoted by them occasionally but he was far from the darling you describe.


----------



## masquerade

PatekPhilippe said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.*
> 
> Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that is one of the funniest comments I've read.
> How is it that republicans are taking television away from liberals?  By 'conservatives' having a voice on FOX News?   Why are you so threatened?  The remainder of news stations and programming are mainly liberal?
> 
> As far as taking away the internet goes ... my fear lies with Obama.  I believe HE wants control over the internet.  Last I looked, he was a far-left liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's used in a sense that the television news shows that have the highest viewership are now conservative in nature....namely Fox News.*  The Democrats mastered the internet quite early.....I believe Dean was a pioneer in internet fund raising and laid the ground work for Obama in Dean's '04 campaign.  The Rep's are fast learners.  They are making significant strides in the use of the internet to influence the masses.....perhaps this is why Obama wants to control it as you put it.
Click to expand...


Yes, the #1 cable news show is FOX News!  Wooo Hooo!!!
And yes, they are conservative in nature, but all sides get a voice on FOX News.  ( here come the attacking comments .... )  But let us keep in mind that all walks of life have tuned into FOX News to hear the truth, which in turn skyrockets their ratings.  Liberals, conservatives and yes ... independents!


----------



## California Girl

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck wasn't liked by the left back then either.
> 
> Let's not pretend that he treated each administration the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. He was quoted and used as a source by the left time and time again. You know that. I know that. Anyone who paid attention to politics back in the day knows that.
> 
> It's ridiculous to now criticize the man when even politicians on the left quoted Beck as a source. The reason why politicians on both sides dislike the man is because he is difficult to counter - because he is very good at backing up what he says.
> 
> Whine about it if you want but that's the truth. Live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on this end is whining.
> 
> Where you remember the left quoting him back then I remember his hate filled anti-muslim go-go GWOT rants.  He might have been quoted by them occasionally but he was far from the darling you describe.
Click to expand...


I never called him the darling of the left, I said that the left thought he was great when he went after Bush - and that is fact. They quoted him endlessly on various issues when he criticised Bush's Admin. 

Here's my problem now.... The left rabidly attack Beck - no matter what - they claim everything he says now is lies, bullshit, blah blah blah. Now, if he was good enough for the left to quote as a source back in the Bush days, then he is good enough to recognize now. You cannot have it both ways. That is just logic. 

I'm not saying the guy is always right BUT he is good at what he does, he was absolutely accurate about Van Jones.... He is absolutely accurate about the links between Obama, his Adminstration, socialists, marxists, communists, etc, etc, etc. 

Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves. 

Instead of shooting the messenger - attack the message. If you are comfortable with socialism, marxism and communism becoming an acceptable part of our political system, fine. Argue your case but don't deny it because that makes you look stupid.  I know you are not a stupid person, Article.


----------



## Article 15

California Girl said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. He was quoted and used as a source by the left time and time again. You know that. I know that. Anyone who paid attention to politics back in the day knows that.
> 
> It's ridiculous to now criticize the man when even politicians on the left quoted Beck as a source. The reason why politicians on both sides dislike the man is because he is difficult to counter - because he is very good at backing up what he says.
> 
> Whine about it if you want but that's the truth. Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on this end is whining.
> 
> Where you remember the left quoting him back then I remember his hate filled anti-muslim go-go GWOT rants.  He might have been quoted by them occasionally but he was far from the darling you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never called him the darling of the left, I said that the left thought he was great when he went after Bush - and that is fact. They quoted him endlessly on various issues when he criticised Bush's Admin.
> 
> Here's my problem now.... The left rabidly attack Beck - no matter what - they claim everything he says now is lies, bullshit, blah blah blah. Now, if he was good enough for the left to quote as a source back in the Bush days, then he is good enough to recognize now. You cannot have it both ways. That is just logic.
> 
> I'm not saying the guy is always right BUT he is good at what he does, he was absolutely accurate about Van Jones.... He is absolutely accurate about the links between Obama, his Adminstration, socialists, marxists, communists, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves.
> 
> Instead of shooting the messenger - attack the message. If you are comfortable with socialism, marxism and communism becoming an acceptable part of our political system, fine. Argue your case but don't deny it because that makes you look stupid.  I know you are not a stupid person, Article.
Click to expand...




Beck is certainly good at what he does but don't take that too closely to heart.  Connections and links don't necessarily mean what Beck makes them out to be.  Beck is a master of loosely tying things together to paint a picture of the worst possible scenario.  It's like he's blowing a bubble ... at first it's tight, well constructed and solid but the more hot air he  blows it the bubble becomes less stable and uniform, it's protrudes out the sides, and eventually pops.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

I'm sure Van Jones sees things a little differently.


----------



## California Girl

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on this end is whining.
> 
> Where you remember the left quoting him back then I remember his hate filled anti-muslim go-go GWOT rants.  He might have been quoted by them occasionally but he was far from the darling you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never called him the darling of the left, I said that the left thought he was great when he went after Bush - and that is fact. They quoted him endlessly on various issues when he criticised Bush's Admin.
> 
> Here's my problem now.... The left rabidly attack Beck - no matter what - they claim everything he says now is lies, bullshit, blah blah blah. Now, if he was good enough for the left to quote as a source back in the Bush days, then he is good enough to recognize now. You cannot have it both ways. That is just logic.
> 
> I'm not saying the guy is always right BUT he is good at what he does, he was absolutely accurate about Van Jones.... He is absolutely accurate about the links between Obama, his Adminstration, socialists, marxists, communists, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves.
> 
> Instead of shooting the messenger - attack the message. If you are comfortable with socialism, marxism and communism becoming an acceptable part of our political system, fine. Argue your case but don't deny it because that makes you look stupid.  I know you are not a stupid person, Article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is certainly good at what he does but don't take that too closely to heart.  Connections and links don't necessarily mean what Beck makes them out to be.  Beck is a master of loosely tying things together to paint a picture of the worst possible scenario.  It's like he's blowing a bubble ... at first it's tight, well constructed and solid but the more hot air he  blows it the bubble becomes less stable and uniform, it's protrudes out the sides, and eventually pops.
Click to expand...


And yet, I have seen nothing - factual - from the left to break the links he is currently making. Why not?

He rarely defines how people should think. He gathers information, links it together and asks questions. 

I believe in asking questions. Even if I don't like the answers. I would rather have fact than opinion. Beck is very good at facts.... he draws his conclusions and he asks questions. I draw my own conclusions - sometimes they match his, sometimes they do not. And I ask questions too. I can't count how many emails the WH have had from me. Never get answers though. So much for OPEN and TRANSPARENT government.... And, so much for Obama and his instruction to Americans abroad to be part of the process of government. When he was over here he spoke to Americans living in Europe and instructed us that it was our duty to participate. Well, I'm participating - I'd quite like him to meet his end of the bargain. So far, he has not.


----------



## Si modo

I am not comfortable at all with _so many_ insiders and actual employees of this administration who are Marxists.  I don't care who discovers it, it is unacceptable to me.


----------



## Si modo

ANYONE who says that one of their two favorite political philosophers is Mao deserves no position inside a government that is a constitutional republic.

She must have had her fingers crossed when she took the oath.  Not honorable.


----------



## amrchaos

Nosmo King said:


> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.



Pity and Dismissal viewed as Fear and Loathing--Nosmo may have something here.


----------



## amrchaos

California Girl said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
Click to expand...



Pull out these "Love letters from the Kremlin", why don't you!!  The commies have people to identify and shoot!!


----------



## Si modo

amrchaos said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pull out these "Love letters from the Kremlin", why don't you!!  The commies have people to identify and shoot!!
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?


----------



## Zoom-boing

California Girl said:


> Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves.



Others have connected the dots, it's not just Beck.  


ACORN Part I: Rathke, ACORN, SEIU, the Tides Foundation


----------



## California Girl

Zoom-boing said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others have connected the dots, it's not just Beck.
> 
> 
> ACORN Part I: Rathke, ACORN, SEIU, the Tides Foundation
Click to expand...


Indeed.... Fortunately, Beck has a HUGE viewership. It's no wonder the Administration is afraid of him. LOL. I would be too! 

Sadly, we have replaced one Admin who answered to big business special interest with one that answers to 'community organization' special interest groups.

What we need is one that has only one special interest group..... '"We, The People".


----------



## Zoom-boing

California Girl said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those links exist. They are there for anyone with internet access, intellect and some time to make for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others have connected the dots, it's not just Beck.
> 
> 
> ACORN Part I: Rathke, ACORN, SEIU, the Tides Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Indeed.... Fortunately, Beck has a HUGE viewership. It's no wonder the Administration is afraid of him. LOL. I would be too! *
> 
> Sadly, we have replaced one Admin who answered to big business special interest with one that answers to 'community organization' special interest groups.
> 
> *What we need is one that has only one special interest group..... '"We, The People".*
Click to expand...



Beck better watch his back or he's going to turn up dead.  

Absolutely!!!


----------



## Oldandtired

For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?

Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?

Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.

He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...

Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue


----------



## ddye

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country


I don't "hate" Glenn Beck, I laugh at Glenn Beck. He's an ex-shock jock who has found a way to make a shitload of money off of gullible goobers who will grasp at any "evil" conspiracy theory that validates their simpleminded populist political beliefs.

Doug


----------



## Charles Stucker

Si modo said:


> ANYONE who says that one of their two favorite political philosophers is Mao deserves no position inside a government that is a constitutional republic.


Gee, one of my favorite eastern philosophers is Lao (as in Lao Tzu) - does that make me a budding eastern despot?


----------



## Si modo

Charles Stucker said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANYONE who says that one of their two favorite political philosophers is Mao deserves no position inside a government that is a constitutional republic.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, one of my favorite eastern philosophers is Lao (as in Lao Tzu) - does that make me a budding eastern despot?
Click to expand...

Ummm.  _Political philosophers_.  How absurd.  And, gee, do you work at the highest levels of our government and did you have to take an oath to do so?


----------



## rightwinger

Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'

I say let him spout


----------



## Zoom-boing

rightwinger said:


> Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'
> 
> *I say let him spout*




Yes, let's do.


----------



## ddye

Oldandtired said:


> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue


Here's what Beck does:

"Now I don't have ALL of the facts, and I'm not saying this is true, as a matter of fact, I HOPE it's not true, but I do have evidence that Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the enslavement of earthlings. Again, please believe me when I say that I sincerely hope this story isn't true."

And then he'll have some half baked nitwit conspiracy theorist to back up his "evidence".

And no, I wouldn't waste the time "rebutting" that self serving, weepy-for-dollars crap machine. Jeez, the guy said that Obama hated white people, then two minutes later said that Obama didn't hate white people...

Doug


----------



## Zoom-boing

Oldandtired said:


> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply* tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue*



What, no takers?  Figures.  They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much 

He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports

He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????


----------



## Zoom-boing

Zoom-boing said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply* tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, no takers?  Figures.  *They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck*.
Click to expand...


Case in point:



nodoginnafight said:


> Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much
> 
> He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
> or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports
> 
> He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????


----------



## Oldandtired

ddye said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" Glenn Beck, I laugh at Glenn Beck. He's an ex-shock jock who has found a way to make a shitload of money off of gullible goobers who will grasp at any "evil" conspiracy theory that validates their simpleminded populist political beliefs.
> 
> Doug
Click to expand...


Doug...I do not listen to conspiracy theories...that is for those looking to be entertained. Likewise, I do not listen to "hear say".....but I have seen the flim clips of these people....and Beck is fair as he allows the entire clip to run so it can not be taken out of context...and I gotta tell you...something ois very strange with the people he has around him.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Zoom-boing said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply* tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, no takers?  Figures.  *They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much
> 
> He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
> or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports
> 
> He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?

Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........

Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.


----------



## California Girl

ddye said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Beck does:
> 
> "Now I don't have ALL of the facts, and I'm not saying this is true, as a matter of fact, I HOPE it's not true, but I do have evidence that Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the enslavement of earthlings. Again, please believe me when I say that I sincerely hope this story isn't true."
> 
> And then he'll have some half baked nitwit conspiracy theorist to back up his "evidence".
> 
> And no, I wouldn't waste the time "rebutting" that self serving, weepy-for-dollars crap machine. Jeez, the guy said that Obama hated white people, then two minutes later said that Obama didn't hate white people...
> 
> Doug
Click to expand...


Actually, Doug, no that's not what he does. 

He says 'Here's what I KNOW, and here's what I THINK.... and then he asks 'could that mean Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the destruction of earthlings?'

There's a big difference. One is making a statement based on some fact, the other is asking a question based on the evidence at hand. 

Do try to think logically.


----------



## Oldandtired

ddye said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Beck does:
> 
> "Now I don't have ALL of the facts, and I'm not saying this is true, as a matter of fact, I HOPE it's not true, but I do have evidence that Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the enslavement of earthlings. Again, please believe me when I say that I sincerely hope this story isn't true."
> 
> And then he'll have some half baked nitwit conspiracy theorist to back up his "evidence".
> 
> And no, I wouldn't waste the time "rebutting" that self serving, weepy-for-dollars crap machine. Jeez, the guy said that Obama hated white people, then two minutes later said that Obama didn't hate white people...
> 
> Doug
Click to expand...


No Doug...he airs FULL clips on what people say......and he offers FULL pages out of books they have written....and then, YES...he draws up a conclusion of conspiracy.....But I listen to the clips and I listen the the book excerpts....and I say to myself.....300 million poeple in America...and so few with such far radical views....and THEY are the ones he chooses?

It is strange...a conspiracy? No. That is for those looking for entertainment....but strange? VERY.


----------



## Coyote

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.

Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".


----------



## Oldandtired

nodoginnafight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, no takers?  Figures.  *They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much
> 
> He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
> or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports
> 
> He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
Click to expand...


But the question is.....exactly what FACTS has he presented that are untrue?
Conspiracy? That is assumption...noit fact....but as for the facts.....exactly what is not true?


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
Click to expand...


But please...tell me what he states as fact that is not true?
Have you listeened to the speeches of some of Obama's administration?
Beck spreads the fear...yes....but it is the poeple Obama surrounds himself with that creates the fear.


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> *He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> *
> Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue



No, he creates it by taking seemingly inocuous bits of material, questioning them in a manner that insinuates something henious and building on it without regard to integrity or accountability or truth.  What he does is exactly what some of his detractors did back to him in the "Glenn Beck killed and raped a young girl" rumor experiment.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the question is.....exactly what FACTS has he presented that are untrue?
> Conspiracy? That is assumption...noit fact....but as for the facts.....exactly what is not true?
Click to expand...


Why ask me? Why not ask the people who accused him of saying untrue things?


----------



## nodoginnafight

I just said he's a clown who is an embarassment to the people who find themselves in agreement with his positions. Want me to justify that? Ok ...... wait ....... just lemme get these tears out of my eyes......


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But please...tell me what he states as fact that is not true?
> Have you listeened to the speeches of some of Obama's administration?
> Beck spreads the fear...yes....but it is the poeple Obama surrounds himself with that creates the fear.
Click to expand...


I've already done that.

He stated that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it.  Untrue.

He stated that Jennings covered up the statuatory rape of a 15 yr old.  Again, not true.

Beck turns ordinary material into something to be afraid of.  Like "death panels", and not being allowed to choose your own doctor etc etc.  

If Beck had been a leftwing pundit - he would have Bush on dias with Hitler.  How is that for ridiculous fear mongering?  It's been done.


----------



## Oldandtired

nodoginnafight said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the question is.....exactly what FACTS has he presented that are untrue?
> Conspiracy? That is assumption...noit fact....but as for the facts.....exactly what is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why ask me? Why not ask the people who accused him of saying untrue things?
Click to expand...


I was asking you becuase you refer to him as a hatemonger so I assumed you watch him......or how would you know he is a hatemonger...
I am aware you did not say he lied.....

but to be frank......I, too, despise ANYONE who supports political philosophies of Mao...and I also despise those that parise Castro...and I too loathe those that offer accolades to Cahvez..

SO I do not see him as a hate monger...I see him as one that loathes what many loathe....those that murder in cold blood...and yes, I loathe anyone who praises such people.


----------



## Nosmo King

PatekPhilippe said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Left HATES Glenn Beck.  The Left FEARS Sarah Palin.
> 
> Justifications to ward off the truth.  The Conservative desperately want to believe this HATE and FEAR mantra.  While the truth is closer to PITY and DISMISS.
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger in the Morton Downey, Jr./Father Coughlin mold.  They precise kind of demagogue the Conservatives have always been drawn to.  Laughably ignorant, this variety of 'pundit' appeals to those who know deep down that their political stances are on shaky social grounds and untenable economic grounds.  Letting the insurance companies, for example, continue to raise premiums, deny service and raise premiums just to avoid what they wish to call "Socialism" is a great example of how untenable the Conservative stance is.
> 
> Conservatives equate "freedom' with exploitation; "liberty" with profit and "Capitalism" with mercantilism.  They think Sarah 'the quitter' Palin is qualified intellectually and practically to run the United States of America!
> 
> The Left neither hates nor fears the champions of the Right.  We pity them and are incredulous as to why they are popular with what we hope are decent, smart people on the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.
> 
> Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Measuring Beck's veracity against Nielsen ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales.


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please...tell me what he states as fact that is not true?
> Have you listeened to the speeches of some of Obama's administration?
> Beck spreads the fear...yes....but it is the poeple Obama surrounds himself with that creates the fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done that.
> 
> He stated that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it.  Untrue.
> 
> He stated that Jennings covered up the statuatory rape of a 15 yr old.  Again, not true.
> 
> Beck turns ordinary material into something to be afraid of.  Like "death panels", and not being allowed to choose your own doctor etc etc.
> 
> If Beck had been a leftwing pundit - he would have Bush on dias with Hitler.  How is that for ridiculous fear mongering?  It's been done.
Click to expand...


Van Jones WAS arrested and the charges were dropped.
He never said Jennings covered it up...what he said was that Jennings never reported the "rape" to authorities.
As for healthcare....I read the original bill...and I too saw it strange with the "end of life" counseling.....
And by the way....HE called for the impeachment of Bush.


----------



## Si modo

Still, folks seem passive about a woman at the highest level of our constitutional democracy who is on tape as saying one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao.


----------



## ddye

California Girl said:


> ddye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that refer to Beck as a fear monger...exactly what has he pointed out to the public that is inaccurate?
> 
> Pointing out that certain individuals in the white house have praised Chavez as a hero, Mao as one of two favorite political philosophers, Castro as a bright and insightful person, admit to be intrigued with communism, believe in forced sterilization, and so on will create fear, yes....but is that the messangers fault?
> 
> Sure, he does it in an entertaining way with faux tears and  an "alert" atmosphere....but the truth is the truth, and to be frank....we should be afraid.
> 
> He is not creating the fear...he is simply spreading the fear....but th people that Obama surrounds himself with are the ones creating the fear...
> 
> Or....simply tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Beck does:
> 
> "Now I don't have ALL of the facts, and I'm not saying this is true, as a matter of fact, I HOPE it's not true, but I do have evidence that Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the enslavement of earthlings. Again, please believe me when I say that I sincerely hope this story isn't true."
> 
> And then he'll have some half baked nitwit conspiracy theorist to back up his "evidence".
> 
> And no, I wouldn't waste the time "rebutting" that self serving, weepy-for-dollars crap machine. Jeez, the guy said that Obama hated white people, then two minutes later said that Obama didn't hate white people...
> 
> Doug
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Doug, no that's not what he does.
> 
> He says 'Here's what I KNOW, and here's what I THINK.... and then he asks 'could that mean Obama is a Martian Shapeshifter bent on the destruction of earthlings?'
> 
> There's a big difference. One is making a statement based on some fact, the other is asking a question based on the evidence at hand.
> 
> Do try to think logically.
Click to expand...

Look, as far as his "evidence"...

People need to realize that in this day and age, there are smart people on both sides who specialize in manufacturing great sounding talking points, and manufacturing supporting "evidence" out of bits and pieces of the whole. Both sides do it.

Beck uses those smart people to weave convincing sounding theories.  Lots of people in the media do that. Beck just seems to have the market cornered on goobers who desperately want to believe the absolute worst things possible about the other side.

Doug


----------



## Oldandtired

Si modo said:


> Still, folks seem passive about a woman at the highest level of our constitutional democracy who is on tape as saying one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao.



The exact point I have been skirting around. Beck may serve the message in a way that many do not appreciate.....but why is his style of broadcasting more important than the disturbing facts themselves.

Likewise.....I need to ask...does it not bother ANYONE that such information has been ignored by NBC, CBS and ABC?

Sure.....attack beck...his approach deserves it.....but how in the world does this stuff stay under the radar....even AFTER beck exposes it?

All they do is attack beck...I say time is to forget beck and ask....

"why does no one care about the valid facts that the fear monger, hate monger has exposed?"


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please...tell me what he states as fact that is not true?
> Have you listeened to the speeches of some of Obama's administration?
> Beck spreads the fear...yes....but it is the poeple Obama surrounds himself with that creates the fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done that.
> 
> He stated that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it.  Untrue.
> 
> He stated that Jennings covered up the statuatory rape of a 15 yr old.  Again, not true.
> 
> Beck turns ordinary material into something to be afraid of.  Like "death panels", and not being allowed to choose your own doctor etc etc.
> 
> If Beck had been a leftwing pundit - he would have Bush on dias with Hitler.  How is that for ridiculous fear mongering?  It's been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Van Jones WAS arrested and the charges were dropped.
Click to expand...


Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.  



> He never said Jennings covered it up...what he said was that Jennings never reported the "rape" to authorities.



But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.



> As for healthcare....I read the original bill...and I too saw it strange with the "end of life" counseling.....



End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.  



> And by the way....HE called for the impeachment of Bush.



Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done that.
> 
> He stated that Van Jones was involved in the Rodney King riots and arrested for it.  Untrue.
> 
> He stated that Jennings covered up the statuatory rape of a 15 yr old.  Again, not true.
> 
> Beck turns ordinary material into something to be afraid of.  Like "death panels", and not being allowed to choose your own doctor etc etc.
> 
> If Beck had been a leftwing pundit - he would have Bush on dias with Hitler.  How is that for ridiculous fear mongering?  It's been done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones WAS arrested and the charges were dropped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for healthcare....I read the original bill...and I too saw it strange with the "end of life" counseling.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way....HE called for the impeachment of Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.
Click to expand...


Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.

He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.

Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the question is.....exactly what FACTS has he presented that are untrue?
> Conspiracy? That is assumption...noit fact....but as for the facts.....exactly what is not true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why ask me? Why not ask the people who accused him of saying untrue things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you becuase you refer to him as a hatemonger so I assumed you watch him......or how would you know he is a hatemonger...
> I am aware you did not say he lied.....
> 
> but to be frank......I, too, despise ANYONE who supports political philosophies of Mao...and I also despise those that parise Castro...and I too loathe those that offer accolades to Cahvez..
> 
> SO I do not see him as a hate monger...*I see him as one that loathes what many loathe*....those that murder in cold blood...and yes, I loathe anyone who praises such people.
Click to expand...


When does that cross the line into hate mongering?


----------



## saveliberty

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



I think you left out he backs up his thoughts with facts and research, but also shows his emotions.  Seems like liberals have a tendency to corner the market on showing them.


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why ask me? Why not ask the people who accused him of saying untrue things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking you becuase you refer to him as a hatemonger so I assumed you watch him......or how would you know he is a hatemonger...
> I am aware you did not say he lied.....
> 
> but to be frank......I, too, despise ANYONE who supports political philosophies of Mao...and I also despise those that parise Castro...and I too loathe those that offer accolades to Cahvez..
> 
> SO I do not see him as a hate monger...*I see him as one that loathes what many loathe*....those that murder in cold blood...and yes, I loathe anyone who praises such people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does that cross the line into hate mongering?
Click to expand...


Hatemopnger is a term you can use...I see him as an entertainer that CAPITALIZES on warranted hate....so yes...he can be labelled as a hate monger...

But notice how ther TRUE facts are not debated....just the messager's style...

I dont care for Becks approach...it gets in the way of the facts...but the facts are still important...yet when they are brought up to the WH and to others...the response is "Beck is a hate monger" or "fear monger"...

But what about the facts?


----------



## Si modo

Oldandtired said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, folks seem passive about a woman at the highest level of our constitutional democracy who is on tape as saying one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact point I have been skirting around. Beck may serve the message in a way that many do not appreciate.....but why is his style of broadcasting more important than the disturbing facts themselves.
> 
> Likewise.....I need to ask...does it not bother ANYONE that such information has been ignored by NBC, CBS and ABC?
> 
> Sure.....attack beck...his approach deserves it.....but how in the world does this stuff stay under the radar....even AFTER beck exposes it?
> 
> All they do is attack beck...I say time is to forget beck and ask....
> 
> "why does no one care about the valid facts that the fear monger, hate monger has exposed?"
Click to expand...

For example, the evidence has been presented - a tape of Dunn stating that she likes Mao's political philosophy.

Logically refuting that requires that you provide evidence that the tape of her speaking is not true.  Logically refuting it does NOT involve pointing to the incompetence of others.


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones WAS arrested and the charges were dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way....HE called for the impeachment of Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
Click to expand...


He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?

What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?

What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.

Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
Click to expand...

  Dunn is on tape speaking publicly that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> you refer to him as a hatemonger


Please point me to that post

(you can't because it doesn't exist)


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
Click to expand...


My debate with you is over. You stated FACTS THAT WERE BACKED UP WITH FLIM CLIPS as false....so you are nothing more than a left wing hack to me.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, folks seem passive about a woman at the highest level of our constitutional democracy who is on tape as saying one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact point I have been skirting around. Beck may serve the message in a way that many do not appreciate.....but why is his style of broadcasting more important than the disturbing facts themselves.
> 
> Likewise.....I need to ask...does it not bother ANYONE that such information has been ignored by NBC, CBS and ABC?
> 
> Sure.....attack beck...his approach deserves it.....but how in the world does this stuff stay under the radar....even AFTER beck exposes it?
> 
> All they do is attack beck...I say time is to forget beck and ask....
> 
> "why does no one care about the valid facts that the fear monger, hate monger has exposed?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example, the evidence has been presented - a tape of Dunn stating that she likes Mao's political philosophy.
> 
> Logically refuting that requires that you provide evidence that the tape of her speaking is not true.  Logically refuting it does NOT involve pointing to the incompetence of others.
Click to expand...


Except Beck did not state it quite that way.  He used words like "worships" and "idolizes" and "her hero" in describing what she said about Mao Zedong.  



> http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044Beck's quote:  "This is her hero's work!" After commenting that Mao "killed 70 million people," Beck falsely claimed of Dunn: "It's insanity! This is her hero's work! Seventy million dead!"
> 
> Beck suggests Dunn "idolize" Mao. After asking, "America, how many radicals is it going to take?" Beck stated: "[W]e're not just talking about progressives now, we're talking *about revolutionaries that idolize Mao*."




What she actually said in that segment was that that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers" and she cited some quotes in relation to particular situations- a far cry from the implied meaning that she worshipped Mao's ideology.  In this, she is in the company of conservative figures have cited quotes or tactics of Mao.

*Is that fear mongering?*


----------



## California Girl

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except - he was never at the Rodney King riots and he spent no time in jail (which was also mentioned).  He was arrested with a group of others at a demonstration - not at any riots least of all the big ones in Los Angeles.  Beck made it sound as if he was a participant in the riots and I am sure that is what he meant to make it sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> But again - the kid was not 15, was of legal age, and no "rape" occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - think about it!  It's a common sense thing and has more to do with making decisions about what you want and letting others know before you are in a position where you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  It doesn't erase his hate mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
Click to expand...


Have you read Sunsteins book on 'nudging'? 

If not, you should. 

Fact is that Sunstein and his cohorts have written about various systems that Americans would view as unacceptable..... unless of course we are 'nudged' towards these potential policies. 

I'm not for one moment suggesting that that is what they will do but one has to consider the words of the people that the POTUS surrounds himself with. Now, I work with academics and I understand the difference between academic theory and what happens in policy and practice..... however, I have some serious questions about who these people are, and why they are in our government.


----------



## Oldandtired

nodoginnafight said:


> you refer to him as a hatemonger
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to that post
> 
> 
> You didnt,....you called him a clown....anbd he is a clown......I did not intentionally quote you...I was making a point.....when IU say "you can"...I mean..."anyone can"....sorry.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My debate with you is over. You stated FACTS THAT WERE BACKED UP WITH FLIM CLIPS as false....so you are nothing more than a left wing hack to me.
Click to expand...


Film clips of Van Jones participating in the Los Angeles Rodney King Riots?  Convicted felon?

I don't think I'm the hack here.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the question is.....exactly what FACTS has he presented that are untrue?
> Conspiracy? That is assumption...noit fact....but as for the facts.....exactly what is not true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why ask me? Why not ask the people who accused him of saying untrue things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you becuase you refer to him as a hatemonger so I assumed you watch him......or how would you know he is a hatemonger...
> I am aware you did not say he lied.....
> 
> but to be frank......I, too, despise ANYONE who supports political philosophies of Mao...and I also despise those that parise Castro...and I too loathe those that offer accolades to Cahvez..
> 
> SO I do not see him as a hate monger...I see him as one that loathes what many loathe....those that murder in cold blood...and yes, I loathe anyone who praises such people.
Click to expand...


I don't see the "you can" which can be read as "one can" that you are talking about. But no sweat - I've gotten posters confused during a rapid exchange myself.


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My debate with you is over. You stated FACTS THAT WERE BACKED UP WITH FLIM CLIPS as false....so you are nothing more than a left wing hack to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Film clips of Van Jones participating in the Los Angeles Rodney King Riots?  Convicted felon?
> 
> I don't think I'm the hack here.
Click to expand...


You just proved you are.
Interesting.....


----------



## Hellokitty

What she actually said in that segment was that that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers" and she cited some quotes in relation to particular situations- a far cry from the implied meaning that she worshipped Mao's ideology.  In this, she is in the company of conservative figures have cited quotes or tactics of Mao.

*Is that fear mongering?*[/QUOTE]


What I found very disturbing was how Dunn seemed to use quote from Mother Teresa as a way to lend credibility to Mao.


----------



## Coyote

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck called it rape based on JENNIINGS sayingh he was 15 years old....once Jennings corrected it and said he was 16, Beck called it poor jjudgement and no longer rape.
> 
> He was arrested....and charges were dropped. Dont see how that means he was not arrested.
> 
> Whatever...deflect from the truth...he has exposed some very disturbing information regarding some appointees...and all I hear in response is a bashing of Beck for his approach....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was never at the Rodney King riots and Beck referred to him as a "convicted felon".  How is that deflecting from the truth?
> 
> What about his claims that czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population?
> 
> What about his claim that Anita Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong?  False.
> 
> Or that Sunstein advocates forced organ donation or his claim that if Sunstein's writings were put into policy we wouldn't be allowed to get rid of rats?  If not out right lies they are based on deliberate distortions designed to induce fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read Sunsteins book on 'nudging'?
> 
> If not, you should.
> 
> Fact is that Sunstein and his cohorts have written about various systems that Americans would view as unacceptable..... unless of course we are 'nudged' towards these potential policies.
> 
> I'm not for one moment suggesting that that is what they will do but one has to consider the words of the people that the POTUS surrounds himself with. Now, I work with academics and I understand the difference between academic theory and what happens in policy and practice..... however, I have some serious questions about who these people are, and why they are in our government.
Click to expand...


No, I actually haven't - only excerpts, but I'm tempted to check it out.  You make a good a good distinction with the difference between academic theory and policy/practice and I think that what these tend to do is latch onto is portions of that theory as if it were potential policy and strip it of context.

They do not bother me so much, but I am also fairly liberal so that's no surprise.  I was much more bothered by the people surrounding President Bush.


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'
> 
> I say let him spout



I didn't get the memo that informed us that we needed permission to speak now. Is that a new policy of the Obamanation?


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> My debate with you is over. You stated FACTS THAT WERE BACKED UP WITH FLIM CLIPS as false....so you are nothing more than a left wing hack to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Film clips of Van Jones participating in the Los Angeles Rodney King Riots?  Convicted felon?
> 
> I don't think I'm the hack here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you are.
> Interesting.....
Click to expand...


Whatever.  I'm not going to keep banging my head against a wall.


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact point I have been skirting around. Beck may serve the message in a way that many do not appreciate.....but why is his style of broadcasting more important than the disturbing facts themselves.
> 
> Likewise.....I need to ask...does it not bother ANYONE that such information has been ignored by NBC, CBS and ABC?
> 
> Sure.....attack beck...his approach deserves it.....but how in the world does this stuff stay under the radar....even AFTER beck exposes it?
> 
> All they do is attack beck...I say time is to forget beck and ask....
> 
> "why does no one care about the valid facts that the fear monger, hate monger has exposed?"
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the evidence has been presented - a tape of Dunn stating that she likes Mao's political philosophy.
> 
> Logically refuting that requires that you provide evidence that the tape of her speaking is not true.  Logically refuting it does NOT involve pointing to the incompetence of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Beck did not state it quite that way.  He used words like "worships" and "idolizes" and "her hero" in describing what she said about Mao Zedong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044Beck's quote:  "This is her hero's work!" After commenting that Mao "killed 70 million people," Beck falsely claimed of Dunn: "It's insanity! This is her hero's work! Seventy million dead!"
> 
> Beck suggests Dunn "idolize" Mao. After asking, "America, how many radicals is it going to take?" Beck stated: "[W]e're not just talking about progressives now, we're talking *about revolutionaries that idolize Mao*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What she actually said in that segment was that that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers" and she cited some quotes in relation to particular situations- a far cry from the implied meaning that she worshipped Mao's ideology.  In this, she is in the company of conservative figures have cited quotes or tactics of Mao.
> 
> *Is that fear mongering?*
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter to me what Beck said - I filtered him out and fast forwarded through him.  I saw the tape of Dunn herself saying that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers.  That is unacceptable to me.

Her words and her views are beyond inconsistent with the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.


----------



## Oldandtired

rightwinger said:


> Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'
> 
> I say let him spout



So you dont care about any of the facts he brings up....you simply care about how he makes a party look bad.

Interesting....says a lot about you.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I never previously accused Beck of lying. Others have and provided their own documentation (The question was, "How many Beck lies can you find by searching 'Glenn Beck lies' in your favorite search engine?":

"Wow, that is impossible to count. Beck's excessive lying problem is so extensive that trying to get an accurate count is impossible. Here's a list that I compiled trying to answer this in the past. You can find all of this in about 5 minutes of searching ... of course, it took me a little longer to wrap it and make it pretty for ya!

1) 5/21/09 I originally wasn&#8217;t going to use this because it really doesn&#8217;t have to do with politics. I don&#8217;t want all the wing nuts to cry &#8220;they are liberals&#8221; etc just because of the people in it, which really has nothing to do with this. However, Beck is caught in an obvious lie, then his body language goes crazy (like when you&#8217;re caught in a lie), then he explains that he is not an investigative reporter, not a reporter, but a commentator who does not check facts at all. Those are his words &#8230; not mine. Why would someone go on air and smear someone for no good reason? What kind of jerk would do this?

TV Squad

2) 7/13/09 This next clip is Beck talking about Judge Sotomayor&#8217;s first day of conformation hearings for the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the first day of the hearing consisted of opening statements by each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and NO actual questioning &#8230; Beck obviously didn&#8217;t know or care that was the case before he began his bashing: 

Think Progress » Glenn Beck complains about softball questions to Sotomayor on day that no questions were asked. 

3) 1/7/08 & 5/12/08 This next clip is HILIARIOUS! This is a funny look at Beck being anti-health care at CNN then at Fox, Beck, all of a sudden loves health care. What a hypocrite! It&#8217;s funny how the clip is done. Enjoy this one &#8230; its funny. 

Raw Story

4) 4/21/09 This is a clip from Beck&#8217;s radio show. In the midst of urging his listeners to cut down old trees for Earth Day, Glenn Beck argued that carbon dioxide is not poison. Beck asked, &#8220;How can carbon dioxide be poison when it is naturally occurring and trees need it to grow?&#8221; 
3 Steps to Prove that CO2 is Poisonous : 
You will need a plastic bag, a role of tape, a friend (This test is also good for convincing your friends who don't believe that they need oxygen to survive). 
1). Take the plastic bag, and put it over your head. (Note: Check the plastic bag for any holes before you place it over your head. The test will not work with a ripped or torn bag). 
2). Have your friend securely tape the bag around your neck. (You could try to do this on your own, but it is much easier to have a friend do it for you). 
3). Breathe normally. 
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Glenn-Bec&#8230; 

5) 7/28/09 These clips show Beck&#8217;s racist comments against Obama... He has now lost over 40 sponsors because of these comments. Very Disturbing &#8230; how can some of you take this guy seriously or support him in these comments? The first clip is from a center right morning show (on MSNBC) and don&#8217;t even come with &#8220;they are left wing loons.&#8221; The Morning Joe show is NOT a lefty show and the host, Joe Scarborough, who was not there this particular day, is a Republican and the panel is very bipartisan. The second clip is the entire interview on Fox and Friends. I love how Beck can contradict himself in less than 10 seconds &#8230; &#8220;I&#8217;m not saying that he doesn&#8217;t like white people &#8230; I&#8217;m saying he has a problem &#8230; he has a &#8230; this guy is, I believe, a racist.&#8221; Nice. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtwjrXhB1&#8230;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ndc2LX2u&#8230; 

6) 2/12/09 & 9/21/07 This is hypocrisy at its finest. In this clip Glenn Beck slams Jesse Jackson, saying that calling Barack Obama white is a "racist statement". Beck called Barack Obama "very white" on his radio show on February 12th. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_&#8230;


7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obama&#8217;s swearing in by saying, &#8220;I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.&#8221; The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy&#8217;s assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Beck&#8217;s rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.

Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obama&#8217;s do-over swearing in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_off&#8230;


8) 9/12 rally Here Beck is on Fox and Friends quoting the university of &#8220;I don&#8217;t remember,&#8221; saying the 9/12 crowd was around 1.7 million people. Meanwhile all independent analysts, like the local fire department, put the crowd at the 9/12 Fox rally at around 50,000 to 70,000, which is more than generous. Beck is caught in another lie! 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/&#8230;"


----------



## nodoginnafight

Sorry for the double post - some of the above links (imho) are not lies - imho - but some certrainly appear to be pretty obvious lies. Really doesn't matter to me THAT much - but people were asking for some verifications - so here are some - consider them as you choose.


----------



## rightwinger

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'
> 
> I say let him spout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the memo that informed us that we needed permission to speak now. Is that a new policy of the Obamanation?
Click to expand...


Of course you don't need permission to speak. But Glenn needs sponsors to be on the air. I'd just as soon let him open his mouth for a couple hours a day.  Its the best political tool the Democrats have


----------



## California Girl

Coyote said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
Click to expand...


That's intelligent!  When you can't argue facts, resort to name calling.


----------



## Coyote

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's intelligent!  When you can't argue facts, resort to name calling.
Click to expand...


Look at what I was responding to.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Now I guess from the list I quoted above - people can view each however they see fit. But there is one lie that stands out in my mind above all others:

7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obama&#8217;s swearing in by saying, *&#8220;I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.&#8221; *The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy&#8217;s assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Beck&#8217;s rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.

Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obama&#8217;s do-over swearing in.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/22/glenn-beck-bible/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States


Now, I can understand someone just being mistaken about the Bible at every swearing in issue ... but he said "I checked ..." 
He obviously didn't check - and saying "I checked" when you know good and well that you didn't check is not an oversight, or a slip of the tongue, or getting mixed up .... it's just plain lying.

That's my take on it anyway.

Note: I've seen the quote in print in several locations but everytime I try to access a clip - the source says the clip has been removed for terms of use violations - so take that for what it is worth as well.


----------



## Si modo

nodoginnafight said:


> Now I guess from the list I quoted above - people can view each however they see fit. But there is one lie that stands out in my mind above all others:
> 
> 7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obama&#8217;s swearing in by saying, *&#8220;I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.&#8221; *The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy&#8217;s assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Beck&#8217;s rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.
> 
> Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obama&#8217;s do-over swearing in.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_off&#8230;
> 
> Now, I can understand someone just being mistaken about the Bible at every swearing in issue ... but he said "I checked ..."
> He obviously didn't check - and saying "I checked" when you know good and well that you didn't check is not an oversight, or a slip of the tongue, or getting mixed up .... it's just plain lying.
> 
> That's my take on it anyway.


And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.

Those ideals are inconsistent with a constitutional democracy.  These persons are at the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.  They have taken an oath to defend our constitution.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the evidence has been presented - a tape of Dunn stating that she likes Mao's political philosophy.
> 
> Logically refuting that requires that you provide evidence that the tape of her speaking is not true.  Logically refuting it does NOT involve pointing to the incompetence of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Beck did not state it quite that way.  He used words like "worships" and "idolizes" and "her hero" in describing what she said about Mao Zedong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044Beck's quote:  "This is her hero's work!" After commenting that Mao "killed 70 million people," Beck falsely claimed of Dunn: "It's insanity! This is her hero's work! Seventy million dead!"
> 
> Beck suggests Dunn "idolize" Mao. After asking, "America, how many radicals is it going to take?" Beck stated: "[W]e're not just talking about progressives now, we're talking *about revolutionaries that idolize Mao*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What she actually said in that segment was that that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers" and she cited some quotes in relation to particular situations- a far cry from the implied meaning that she worshipped Mao's ideology.  In this, she is in the company of conservative figures have cited quotes or tactics of Mao.
> 
> *Is that fear mongering?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what Beck said - I filtered him out and fast forwarded through him.  I saw the tape of Dunn herself saying that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers.  That is unacceptable to me.
> 
> Her words and her views are beyond inconsistent with the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.
Click to expand...



There is a vast difference between quoting from political or military philosphy and supporting a political ideology.  If you think there isn't, than you need to question many quite respected figures:

Stephen Shadegg, a political campaign manager for Goldwater wrote in "How to Win an Election" quoted Mao:[/U]  "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."
(Harper's Magazine, November 1964) 

Even President Bush recommended that Rove read Mao's biography.

Military strategists have used his strategies or philosophies.

They are successful.  That does not mean they follow or approve of his ideology.


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck serves a purpose for the left. Along with Boss Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity the left gets to paint them as the face of the republican party.  They get to say "If you support the republicans....here is what you support'
> 
> I say let him spout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get the memo that informed us that we needed permission to speak now. Is that a new policy of the Obamanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't need permission to speak. But Glenn needs sponsors to be on the air. I'd just as soon let him open his mouth for a couple hours a day.  Its the best political tool the Democrats have
Click to expand...


He has plenty of sponsors. In fact (although I can't actually evidence it), he has sponsors lining up for his program. The Color of Change tried to destroy him by contacting every sponsor and telling them that they would boycott their products if they didn't withdraw their sponsorship. Unfortunately for them, there's another slightly lesser known but apparently more supported group called Defend Glenn Beck who also contacted every sponsor and told them that they'd boycott if they pulled their sponsorship. Fact is, the sponsors will go where the viewers are so they aren't going anywhere. 

Glenn Beck still has his sponsors. 

Point of fact: he did accuse Obama of being a racist. So have I - because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Obama is a racist.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Lets look at the real reasons why the lefty loons hate Beck.

1) Nancy Killifer (Tax cheat) Beck exposed her, she's history!
2) Tom Daschle (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, he's history!
3) Bill Richardson (Corrupt Clown) Beck exposed him, he's history!
4) Reverend Wright (Racist, anti-american preacher) Beck exposed him, Obama thew him under the bus!
5) Van Jones (communist scumbag) Beck exposed him, he's history!
6) ACORN (Corrupt liberal organization) Beck exposed them, they're history!
7) Charley Rangel (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, the DNC threw him under the bus.

And now, lets take a look at the lefty dirtbags Beck is going after, and RIGHTFULLY exposing:
1) Kevin Jennings (piece of garbage)
2) Cass Sunstein (insane piece of garbage)
3) Valerie Jarret (corrupt piece of garbage)
4) Anita Dunne (Mao loving piece of garbage)
5) Harold Koh (Sharia law loving, anti-american piece of garbage)
6) Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving, anti-american piece of garbage, and the most dangerous of the bunch)

The above named are going to get hammered. They will be history.

And lets not forget the most important piece of garbage that Beck absolutely MUST continue to expose:
Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself!

Yeah, you lefty's are watching the pillars of your twisted minds crumble by the day.

Thank you Glenn Beck!
You're a true american!


----------



## rdean

No one hates clowns.  They are there to laugh at.  It's the right who takes them seriously.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> *And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.
> *



Where?



> Those ideals are inconsistent with a constitutional democracy.  These persons are at the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.  They have taken an oath to defend our constitution.



Where have they indicated that they want us to be a communist nation?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Si Modo: I thought we were discussing Beck? You may have a very valid point - but folks are going to think you are just trying to distract attention away from Beck and whether or not he lies or whether or not the left hates him or why the left hates him, etc ....


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Beck did not state it quite that way.  He used words like "worships" and "idolizes" and "her hero" in describing what she said about Mao Zedong.
> 
> 
> 
> What she actually said in that segment was that that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers" and she cited some quotes in relation to particular situations- a far cry from the implied meaning that she worshipped Mao's ideology.  In this, she is in the company of conservative figures have cited quotes or tactics of Mao.
> 
> *Is that fear mongering?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what Beck said - I filtered him out and fast forwarded through him.  I saw the tape of Dunn herself saying that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers.  That is unacceptable to me.
> 
> Her words and her views are beyond inconsistent with the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a vast difference between quoting from political or military philosphy and supporting a political ideology.  If you think there isn't, than you need to question many quite respected figures:
> 
> Stephen Shadegg, a political campaign manager for Goldwater wrote in "How to Win an Election" quoted Mao:[/U]  "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."
> (Harper's Magazine, November 1964)
> 
> Even President Bush recommended that Rove read Mao's biography.
> 
> Military strategists have used his strategies or philosophies.
> 
> They are successful.  That does not mean they follow or approve of his ideology.
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't matter to me what Beck said.  A White House advisor said herself, on tape and in public, that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao.

That view and ideal is inconsistent with someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution in a constitutional democracy.

Focus not on what you _think_ I said.

If that is the sort of person with whom you are comfortable having at the highest levels of our government - a constitutional democracy - fine for you.  I'm not pleased that so many are passive about this infiltration, though.  And, if the passives are not willing to fight it, I will.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I guess from the list I quoted above - people can view each however they see fit. But there is one lie that stands out in my mind above all others:
> 
> 7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obamas swearing in by saying, *I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible. *The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedys assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Becks rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.
> 
> Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obamas do-over swearing in.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_off
> 
> Now, I can understand someone just being mistaken about the Bible at every swearing in issue ... but he said "I checked ..."
> He obviously didn't check - and saying "I checked" when you know good and well that you didn't check is not an oversight, or a slip of the tongue, or getting mixed up .... it's just plain lying.
> 
> That's my take on it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.
> *
> 
> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those ideals are inconsistent with a constitutional democracy.  These persons are at the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.  They have taken an oath to defend our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have they indicated that they want us to be a communist nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't watch Beck so I really don't know for sure about these accusations - did he really say "I checked" did he really lie about the other things? If there are more reasonable explanations, I think they are more germaine to this thread than "dunn and others." Dunn and others may be an important topic to discuss - maybe important enough for their very own thread ??????? - and I'll be interested to look in on that one and hopefully learn something ..... but what I'm looking for HERE is whether Glenn Beck really lied about these things.
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I guess from the list I quoted above - people can view each however they see fit. But there is one lie that stands out in my mind above all others:
> 
> 7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obamas swearing in by saying, *I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible. *The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedys assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Becks rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.
> 
> Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obamas do-over swearing in.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_off
> 
> Now, I can understand someone just being mistaken about the Bible at every swearing in issue ... but he said "I checked ..."
> He obviously didn't check - and saying "I checked" when you know good and well that you didn't check is not an oversight, or a slip of the tongue, or getting mixed up .... it's just plain lying.
> 
> That's my take on it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.
> *
> 
> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those ideals are inconsistent with a constitutional democracy.  These persons are at the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.  They have taken an oath to defend our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have they indicated that they want us to be a communist nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunn was on tape saying that Mao and Mother Teresa are who two favorite political philosophers...and she said it to high schoolers....
> 
> Call me nuts....but a man who is responsible for 50 million deaths of his own people should NEVER be put on ANY type of pedestal...He could be the best chef in the world but is not worthy of such notation based on his OTHER actions.
> 
> Even today, when great gridiron heros are discussed, most overloook Simpson...and the few that do add him ion usually say.."well, if you include Sinpson"...
> 
> But she did not even put that "asterisk" next to his name....she simply included him in as her two FAVORITE political philosophers.
> 
> Now....if she said....witrh all of his faults, he was spot on with this philosophy...and then went on to point out one smart thing he did or said...I could ALMOST accept it. But listen to the tape...she makes him sound like he should be revered.
> 
> It was sickening to listen to.
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

nodoginnafight said:


> Si Modo: I thought we were discussing Beck? You may have a very valid point - but folks are going to think you are just trying to distract attention away from Beck and whether or not he lies or whether or not the left hates him or why the left hates him, etc ....


I am no fan of Beck.  I'm not here to defend him.  I AM here to defend recent information he has revealed.

Regardless of his or anyone's record in other areas, I would be a fool to put my hands over my ears and sing 'la la la la la' just because I may not like the man.

For example, I think A Khan (the father of nuclear proliferation and a real life Bond-type villain) makes a piece of shit look like a potential lover to me.  However, when Khan spoke in August during an interview on a Pakistani station, I listened to what he said and I gleaned some valuable information.


----------



## Oldandtired

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.
> *
> 
> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have they indicated that they want us to be a communist nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Beck so I really don't know for sure about these accusations - did he really say "I checked" did he really lie about the other things? If there are more reasonable explanations, I think they are more germaine to this thread than "dunn and others." Dunn and others may be an important topic to discuss - maybe important enough for their very own thread ??????? - and I'll be interested to look in on that one and hopefully learn something ..... but what I'm looking for HERE is whether Glenn Beck really lied about these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not lie...he did not exaggerate...he allowed us to listen to ALL of Dunns remarks...and the others as well.
> Chavez was heralded by the #2 FCC appointee as well....for his dealing with the press...you know...the press he shut down?
> 
> It is quite concerning mny friend.....
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what Beck said - I filtered him out and fast forwarded through him.  I saw the tape of Dunn herself saying that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers.  That is unacceptable to me.
> 
> Her words and her views are beyond inconsistent with the highest levels of a constitutional democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a vast difference between quoting from political or military philosphy and supporting a political ideology.  If you think there isn't, than you need to question many quite respected figures:
> 
> Stephen Shadegg, a political campaign manager for Goldwater wrote in "How to Win an Election" quoted Mao:[/U]  "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."
> (Harper's Magazine, November 1964)
> 
> Even President Bush recommended that Rove read Mao's biography.
> 
> Military strategists have used his strategies or philosophies.
> 
> They are successful.  That does not mean they follow or approve of his ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter to me what Beck said.  A White House advisor said herself, on tape and in public, that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao.
> 
> That view and ideal is inconsistent with someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution in a constitutional democracy.
> 
> Focus not on what you _think_ I said.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about what Beck said.  I'm talking about what YOU said.  I am telling you there is a difference between political philosophy and ideology and you are blurring that distinction in an attempt to make it sound as if she supports that ideology and it is incompatible with a constitutional democracy.  There is no evidence anywhere to suggest she holds to those ideological beliefs - none.  Simply saying that Mao and Mother Theresa are two of her favorite political philosophers isn't enough particularly when you look at it in the context of what she was saying.



> If that is the sort of person with whom you are comfortable having at the highest levels of our government - a constitutional democracy - fine for you.  I'm not pleased that so many are passive about this infiltration, though.  And, if the passives are not willing to fight it, I will.



In your misguided assumptions, I am sure that you will require a return to loyalty oaths too.


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a vast difference between quoting from political or military philosphy and supporting a political ideology.  If you think there isn't, than you need to question many quite respected figures:
> 
> Stephen Shadegg, a political campaign manager for Goldwater wrote in "How to Win an Election" quoted Mao:[/U]  "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not."
> (Harper's Magazine, November 1964)
> 
> Even President Bush recommended that Rove read Mao's biography.
> 
> Military strategists have used his strategies or philosophies.
> 
> They are successful.  That does not mean they follow or approve of his ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter to me what Beck said.  A White House advisor said herself, on tape and in public, that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao.
> 
> That view and ideal is inconsistent with someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution in a constitutional democracy.
> 
> Focus not on what you _think_ I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about what Beck said.  I'm talking about what YOU said.  I am telling you there is a difference between political philosophy and ideology and you are blurring that distinction in an attempt to make it sound as if she supports that ideology and it is incompatible with a constitutional democracy.  There is no evidence anywhere to suggest she holds to those ideological beliefs - none.  Simply saying that Mao and Mother Theresa are two of her favorite political philosophers isn't enough particularly when you look at it in the context of what she was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the sort of person with whom you are comfortable having at the highest levels of our government - a constitutional democracy - fine for you.  I'm not pleased that so many are passive about this infiltration, though.  And, if the passives are not willing to fight it, I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your misguided assumptions, I am sure that you will require a return to loyalty oaths too.
Click to expand...

OK.  I make no assumptions - we are a constitutional democracy.  Fact.  She is at the office of the highest level of that constitutional democracy.  Fact.  Federal government employees take an oath to defend the Constitution.  Fact.  She has publicly stated that one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao.  Fact.  If you are talking about assumptions about you, note my use of 'if' above and that should clear that up immediately.

She is on tape saying that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao.  Mao's political philosophy is COMMUNISM.  Communism is beyond inconsistent with a constitutional democracy.  She took an oath to defend our constitution.

Your conflating the knowledge of Mao's political philosophy with one who admires it (being one of her favorites) is illogical.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Coyote said:


> End of life counseling has nothing to do with "death panels" - .


Yet.

It would be far too easy for a bureaucratic nightmare to evolve wherein we might get:

So Simple Only a Child Could Understand	by Charles Stucker

The gravesite was still, only a father and son leaving flowers beside the newly turned earth. 
Dad, will I go mad like grandpa?
Your grandfather wasnt mad.
The State Assisted Serenity Board proved it in court.
The State Assisted Suicide Board you mean, the father muttered angrily, proved to a jury of twenty-somethings that your grandfather wanted to live.
Thats the same thing.
No son its not. Youll understand when youre older.
Will you accept the boards recommendation if they think you should go to heaven?
No.
I will, I dont want to be mad.
Too late, you already are.  

Permission is given to reproduce and distribute freely so long as the story is unedited and credit is given the author.


----------



## California Girl

rdean said:


> No one hates clowns.  They are there to laugh at.  It's the right who takes them seriously.



Good grief. For the love of God, how many more times do we have to go through this....

During the Bush Administration, Beck was quoted time after time by the LEFT... for his accusations against Bush. The LEFT did not laugh at Beck then - they quoted him. They used his comments and work as a stick with which to beat Bush. 

So, given that he was not a clown during the Bush Administration, logic tells us that he is not a clown now. 

You cannot have it both ways. Which bit of this is hard to understand?


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates clowns.  They are there to laugh at.  It's the right who takes them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. For the love of God, how many more times do we have to go through this....
> 
> During the Bush Administration, Beck was quoted time after time by the LEFT... for his accusations against Bush. The LEFT did not laugh at Beck then - they quoted him. They used his comments and work as a stick with which to beat Bush.
> 
> So, given that he was not a clown during the Bush Administration, logic tells us that he is not a clown now.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways. Which bit of this is hard to understand?
Click to expand...

For rdean, pretty much anything is difficult for him to understand (unless it's some emotionally driven rant about his pet paranoias about the GOP or religion).


----------



## nodoginnafight

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Beck so I really don't know for sure about these accusations - did he really say "I checked" did he really lie about the other things? If there are more reasonable explanations, I think they are more germaine to this thread than "dunn and others." Dunn and others may be an important topic to discuss - maybe important enough for their very own thread ??????? - and I'll be interested to look in on that one and hopefully learn something ..... but what I'm looking for HERE is whether Glenn Beck really lied about these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not lie...he did not exaggerate...he allowed us to listen to ALL of Dunns remarks...and the others as well.
> Chavez was heralded by the #2 FCC appointee as well....for his dealing with the press...you know...the press he shut down?
> 
> It is quite concerning mny friend.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I was asking about. I was asking about whether or not he lied in the instances I cited. He may have told the truth in the instance YOU are reffering to (I don't know) but does he ALWAYS tell the truth - does he lie? I posted several links that suggest he does - but I am patiently waiting to see if any alternative explanation can be offered.
> 
> The links came from from some guy I've nebver heard of, so if they're fake - I'd be interested in finding that out. Once I find out someone has faked something - I know they aren't to be trusted. (Can be useful info)
> 
> Since YOU were the one who asked for ANY evidence of lie - I would have thought you'd be all over those claims and evidence.
> 
> No?
Click to expand...


----------



## Wicked Jester

Two more reasons why the lefty's hate Beck:

1) His ratings are continuing to soar.
2) He is causing CLEAR THINKING americans to take a second look at the prez and his administration. The second looks are definitely having a negative impact on their approval ratings. People are beginning to see what the prez. and his administration is all about, and they are obviously not liking what they are seeing. That's a very good thing.

It is absolutely comical to see a few of these clowns admit that they don't watch Beck, but they sure seem to know what he's talking about. These are the clowns you can't take seriously on any issue.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wicked Jester said:


> Lets look at the real reasons why the lefty loons hate Beck.
> 
> 1) Nancy Killifer (Tax cheat) Beck exposed her, she's history!
> 2) Tom Daschle (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 3) Bill Richardson (Corrupt Clown) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 4) Reverend Wright (Racist, anti-american preacher) Beck exposed him, Obama thew him under the bus!
> 5) Van Jones (communist scumbag) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 6) ACORN (Corrupt liberal organization) Beck exposed them, they're history!
> 7) Charley Rangel (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, the DNC threw him under the bus.
> 
> And now, lets take a look at the lefty dirtbags Beck is going after, and RIGHTFULLY exposing:
> 1) Kevin Jennings (piece of garbage)
> 2) Cass Sunstein (insane piece of garbage)
> 3) Valerie Jarret (corrupt piece of garbage)
> 4) Anita Dunne (Mao loving piece of garbage)
> 5) Harold Koh (Sharia law loving, anti-american piece of garbage)
> 6) Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving, anti-american piece of garbage, and the most dangerous of the bunch)
> 
> The above named are going to get hammered. They will be history.
> 
> And lets not forget the most important piece of garbage that Beck absolutely MUST continue to expose:
> Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself!
> 
> Yeah, you lefty's are watching the pillars of your twisted minds crumble by the day.
> 
> Thank you Glenn Beck!
> You're a true american!



So, I suppose that the first 7 listed were tossed aside because Beck didn't get his facts straight. He lied. Yeah, that's why Obama and the dem's fought so hard to keep them.

Fact is, Obama and the dem's didn't put up any kind of fight, because they knew Beck had them pegged dead center with facts!

And I Suppose the last 6 listed didn't have anything to do with Obama WEAKLY WHINING about FOX news.

Fact is, Obama and the dems know damn good and well that the facts on those scumbags can never be disputed, they are being proven, and they will fall like rocks, just like the other 7 dirtbags.


Fact is, Obama knows that Beck is honing in on him WITH FACTS. That is why Obama so WEAKLY WHINED about FOX NEWS!


----------



## California Girl

Coyote said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the reason is much simpler.  He's a hatemonger.
> 
> Our country doesn't need that kind of "love".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's intelligent!  When you can't argue facts, resort to name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at what I was responding to.
Click to expand...


What bit of that post is name calling?  He's not a liberal, he is right, he loves his country.....  and you call him a 'hatemonger'.  

Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.


----------



## Coyote

Oldandtired said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, Dunn (and others) are on tape admitting and even bragging about their Marxist and communist ideals.
> *
> 
> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have they indicated that they want us to be a communist nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunn was on tape saying that Mao and Mother Teresa are who two favorite political philosophers...and she said it to high schoolers....
> 
> 
> Call me nuts....but a man who is responsible for 50 million deaths of his own people should NEVER be put on ANY type of pedestal...He could be the best chef in the world but is not worthy of such notation based on his OTHER actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me nuts but I fail to see how he is being put on a pedestal.  Unlike Beck's lies - she did not call him her "hero".  Frankly, this condemnation based on an appreciation for some of his quotes smacks of partisan hypocrisy when you consider that many have quoted him.
> 
> The reality of Mao is complex, a bit like Machievelli.  But that doesn't mean their philosophies don't have some merit or - more important something to learn from.  Mao, like Machievelli is required reading in a number of disciplines and not because he was a mass murder.  Appreciating some of his philosophy is not the same thing as condoning his behavior or how he used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even today, when great gridiron heros are discussed, most overloook Simpson...and the few that do add him ion usually say.."well, if you include Sinpson"...
> 
> But she did not even put that "asterisk" next to his name....she simply included him in as her two FAVORITE political philosophers.
> 
> *Now....if she said....witrh all of his faults, he was spot on with this philosophy...and then went on to point out one smart thing he did or said...I could ALMOST accept it. But listen to the tape...she makes him sound like he should be revered.*
> 
> It was sickening to listen to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying but frankly - why should she have to do that?  Consider the context in which she was speaking and the message she was trying to impart to her audience (and not, it wasn't a marxist message either).  Her detractors picked out one item and ran with it all out of proportion and bereft of context.  It's nuts.
> 
> You still didn't answer the questions:
> Where did Dunn bragging about her Marxist and communist ideals.
> Where has she indicated that she wants us to be a communist nation?
Click to expand...


----------



## nodoginnafight

> So, given that he was not a clown during the Bush Administration, logic tells us that he is not a clown now.



What if we thought he was a clown then too?
Do we still get a balloon?


----------



## nodoginnafight

so nothing on those links old and tired?

OK, but you were the one who asked for them.

Anyone else?


----------



## theHawk

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's intelligent!  When you can't argue facts, resort to name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what I was responding to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bit of that post is name calling?  He's not a liberal, he is right, he loves his country.....  and you call him a 'hatemonger'.
> 
> Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
Click to expand...


Thats all these libs can do, call him a 'clown', and a 'hatemonger'.  They can't actually defend any of the shitbag liberals that Beck has exposed, so they revert to the oldest and most predictable tactic - discredit the messenger.


----------



## Coyote

California Girl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's intelligent!  When you can't argue facts, resort to name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what I was responding to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bit of that post is name calling?  He's not a liberal, he is right, he loves his country.....  and you call him a 'hatemonger'.
> 
> Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
Click to expand...


I call him a hate-monger based on my opinion of what he is saying.  That is hardly name calling.  He is using deliberate distortions in an attempt to - do what?  Create hatred towards his targets?  A mob mentality?  I've given numerous examples.  If I were name calling I'd be calling him a moron, Retardican, conservitard and a host of similar stupid things.

"He is right" - well, that is a matter of opinion.  "He loves his country".  That is debatable and a matter of opinion.  He has a strange way of showing it.


----------



## Oldandtired

nodoginnafight said:


> so nothing on those links old and tired?
> 
> OK, but you were the one who asked for them.
> 
> Anyone else?



Busy at work. Will look at them later. Sorry....had the site minimized for the last couple hours. Did not mean to ignore you.


----------



## theHawk

Coyote said:


> The reality of Mao is complex, a bit like Machievelli.  But that doesn't mean their philosophies don't have some merit or - more important something to learn from.  Mao, like Machievelli is required reading in a number of disciplines and not because he was a mass murder.  Appreciating some of his philosophy is not the same thing as condoning his behavior or how he used it.



Ah of course, all those communists like Marx, Che, Castro, Mao have some merit in their philosophies.  We just have to ignore all those "bad things" that came as a result of their philosophies.  We can all still learn alot from them.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> so nothing on those links old and tired?
> 
> OK, but you were the one who asked for them.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Busy at work. Will look at them later. Sorry....had the site minimized for the last couple hours. Did not mean to ignore you.
Click to expand...


No sweat my friend - I am interested in your input because I trust it to balance the input I got from the guy who posted those links. If I don't run into you again today, have a great weekend.


----------



## Wicked Jester

theHawk said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what I was responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bit of that post is name calling?  He's not a liberal, he is right, he loves his country.....  and you call him a 'hatemonger'.
> 
> Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats all these libs can do, call him a 'clown', and a 'hatemonger'.  They can't actually defend any of the shitbag liberals that Beck has exposed, so they revert to the oldest and most predictable tactic - discredit the messenger.
Click to expand...


Shall I throw up my list of the 7 liberal dirtbags that Beck has already bagged and tagged WITH FACTS. And the 6 liberal dirtbags that Beck is on the brink of tagging and bagging WITH FACTS?

Because I will!
Really, I WILL!


----------



## QUENTIN

I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.

I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.

This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator. 

Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.

I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, no takers?  Figures.  *They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much
> 
> He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
> or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports
> 
> He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
Click to expand...


Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?  Learn to read.  I SAID you leftists come on and DUCK AND DODGE instead of answering questions like Old and Tired (among many others) post.  Old and Tired's question was:  tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue.  Did you answer it?  NO, you just called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah, which is the typical response.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?


Part of the quote you orginally posted - you know, the part you edited out for THIS post - began with a statement about folks calling him a fear monger.

If you did not consider that part of the quote applicable when you applied it to me, I wonder why you didn't edit it out *THAT* time like you did *THIS* time.........

points to ponder indeed ........


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Old and Tired's question was: tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue. DId you answer it? NO,


As a matter of fact I did.

I see you still haven't re-sited that lil' ol' mud slinger of yours. Please scroll back a bit and you'll see the links I posted. Being the upstanding and honest poster that you are, I'm sure you'll feel compelled to apologize to me. I probably won't be here as I have to run - so I'll accept it now and assure you - no hard feeling.


----------



## theHawk

Coyote said:


> I call him a hate-monger based on my opinion of what he is saying.  That is hardly name calling.  He is using deliberate distortions in an attempt to - do what?  Create hatred towards his targets?  A mob mentality?  I've given numerous examples.  If I were name calling I'd be calling him a moron, Retardican, conservitard and a host of similar stupid things.
> 
> "He is right" - well, that is a matter of opinion.  "He loves his country".  That is debatable and a matter of opinion.  He has a strange way of showing it.



Hate is a very strong word that gets thrown around alot.  He certainly is trying to stir up anger, no doubt about that.  But anger can be a good thing, espeically if its over an injustice or something that is morally wrong.  That is certainly the case with these "czars".

People should be outraged that open communists and appeasers are now so high up in our government.  This country over the last century stood up against communism and we lost a lot of people in that confrontation.  But we prevailed.  Some of us actually like to remember what a real threat communism was, and still is.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Nosmo King said:


> Beck is a classic fear monger



Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "

Day 1

 Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?

 Why the rush on health care reform, cap-and-trade?

 Who is writing these bills?

 Will Washington read and understand the bills?

 Why are you called "grassroots" if you are for, but "Astroturf" if you are against?

 Our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

 We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red ink?

 The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN: How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

 If it was so important for Congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it, why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent six months later?

 Former President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them; how exactly does that work?

 Why wont member of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

 Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

 Was the "cash for clunkers" program meant to save the Earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

 How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special adviser to the president?

 Did President Obama know of Van Jones radical political beliefs when he named him special adviser?

 The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill; why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

 If politicians arent writing the bills and arent reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1,000-page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

 If the "public option" health care plan is so good, why wont politicians agree to have that as their plan?

 If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn whats on our mind, why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

 Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldnt come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

 Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

 Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through Congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crisis go to waste?

 What are the president's "czars" paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Nosmo King said:


> Beck is a classic fear monger



Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "

Day 2

&#8226; Who is "surrounding" the president in the White House?

&#8226; Do any of the president's advisers have criminal records?

&#8226; Are the president's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

&#8226; Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

&#8226; What role do they have in crafting bills?

&#8226; What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders; where are they now?

&#8226; What qualifications must one have to be a presidential adviser?

&#8226; What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

&#8226; Do the "czars" have power?

&#8226; Should a communist have the ear of the president of the United States?

&#8226; What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

&#8226; Does the president know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

&#8226; How many people in the administration are connected to the Movement for a Democratic Society?

&#8226; What role does George Soros play... constitutionally?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Nosmo King said:


> Beck is a classic fear monger



Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "

Day 3

&#8226; Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"?

&#8226; Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves?

&#8226; Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?

&#8226; Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?


&#8226; Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?

&#8226; Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?

&#8226; Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?

If Lloyd has his way, stations who don't comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine &#8212; that helps support public broadcasting:

&#8226; What will be the definition of "public interest"?

&#8226; Who defines "public interest"?

&#8226; Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them)


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Nosmo King said:


> Beck is a classic fear monger



Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "

Day 4

&#8226; Why do we need a civilian force?

&#8226; Who is posing a threat to us?

&#8226; Who will this "force" be made up of?

&#8226; Who is the real enemy?

&#8226; Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?

&#8226; Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXTdfxYQkS4]YouTube - Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly [FOX News][/ame]

Nosmo King Is an classic asshat.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Zoom-boing said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?  Learn to read.  I SAID you leftists come on and DUCK AND DODGE instead of answering questions like Old and Tired (among many others) post.  Old and Tired's question was:  tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue.  Did you answer it?  NO, you just called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah, which is the typical response.
Click to expand...



Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.

Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision. 
Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels.

I mean do you need anymore because that whole program is like 49 minutes of total falsehood. If he's not lying or bitching he's crying. How do you even call him a rightwing talk show host when he comes off as such a whinning homo? I dislike any grown man that gets on live national television and cries because he's scared of socialism.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?
> 
> 
> 
> *Part of the quote you orginally posted - you know, the part you edited out for THIS post - began with a statement about folks calling him a fear monger.*
> 
> If you did not consider that part of the quote applicable when you applied it to me, I wonder why you didn't edit it out *THAT* time like you did *THIS* time.........
> 
> points to ponder indeed ........
Click to expand...



You're an idiot.  I didn't edit anything.  I quoted Old and Tired's post #35 on page 3 and put in my comment (post #42, page 3) about the lefists ducking and dodging rather than answering questions.  I put it in because I was referring to what I HAD BOLDED IN HIS POST, which WASN'T the 'fear mongering' part.  LEARN TO READ.



nodoginnafight said:


> Old and Tired's question was: tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue. DId you answer it? NO,
> 
> 
> 
> *As a matter of fact I did.*
> 
> I see you still have re-sited that lil' ol' mud slinger of yours. Please scroll back a bit and you'll see the links I posted. Being the upstanding and honest poster that you are, I'm sure you'll feel compelled to apologize to me. I probably won't be here as I have to run - so I'll accept it now and assure you - no hard feeling.
Click to expand...


AFTER I posted my comment.  So you want me to start commenting on posts that don't exist?????

BTW, see the part in your quote above that I bolded? THAT'S the part I am responding to.  

I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny.


----------



## QUENTIN

Of course he's a fear-monger.

His entire career is based on making people terribly afraid of the imaginary impending doom of some socialist iron curtain descending upon the country. It's laughable. 

He talks about "czars" as though they're anything like their communist Russian equivalent or as though, you know, they weren't an invention of the conservative-beloved Reagan Administration and had no actual executive authority of any kind, only an advisory role.

He acts as though the "Green Jobs Czar," a highly-qualified expert on green jobs, having whatever political leanings he did matters one iota or is going to affect the country.

He acts as though the minuscule little community service organization ACORN, which received ~3 million dollars of government funding a year, or in the last 20 years combined roughly what Halliburton was paid by the government EVERY SINGLE DAY since the start of the Iraq War, an organization that primarily helps poor people pay their bills and provides bare minimum social services to impoverished people has some Washington power or influence and has a nefarious plot or any ability to take over the country or influence an election.

Acts as though a few ACORN employees filling out phony voter registration forms like "Mickey Mouse" so that they get a bonus from their employer, something ACORN itself caught and brought to public attention, is some grand scheme to stuff ballots, as though it has any actual impact on the election at all unless a 6-foot-tall talking mouse shows up on election day. 

Acts as though Obama, who on nearly every issue has merely upheld the status quo and continued the policies of the Bush Administration with at best superficial, insignificant changes and pretty rhetoric justifying it, is a far-far-left secret anarcho-communist-fascist-Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim rather than a totally establishment politician beholden to the same corporate interests as every other president of the last 40 years whose policies reflect just that.

Acts as though the country is on the verge of collapse not because of our endless devotion to expansionist overseas warfare or utter dependence upon corporations who have their own profit margins rather than the public good in mind and who have bought our entire representative political body wholesale to ensure that profit, but because Obama's supposedly gonna take away your guns and bible and paycheck and freedom and give them to black people and illegal immigrants.

Acts as though a 3% increase in the top income tax bracket is "sociulizm!" when it's still lower than it was under Reagan, far lower than it was under Nixon, and 60% lower than it was under Eisenhower, nowhere near the 80-90% it was for most of our country's history since we started collecting income tax but is rather a very modest increase over the lowest level in 60 years that returns it to a still quite low and non-progressive, wealthy-friendly level.

He actually said he thinks universal healthcare, something every developed nation in the world has but the U.S., something that has proven in every country its been implemented to be considerably more cost-effective and effective, is a form of reparations.

He actually said that the half-white president who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents and filled his cabinet with white people has a "deep-seated hatred of white people."

You think he's not a fear-monger? He wept like a little girl with a skinned knee as he worried outloud about "loving my country and fearing for it" for all the wrong reasons. He started a campaign to get everyone to live in a perpetual state of fear, chaos, and confusion like they did the day after we suffered the most significant terrorist attack in our nation's history.

The dude is a disingenuous phony, both an intentional liar on many issues and woefully misinformed on many others, and absolutely an unrepentant fear-monger, that's his number one tactic and approach to everything he says and does: "Listen to me because I've got some very dire news about X, be afraid, be very afraid...and buy my book."


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision.
> .


Source?


----------



## Wicked Jester

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "
> 
> Day 4
> 
>  Why do we need a civilian force?
> 
>  Who is posing a threat to us?
> 
>  Who will this "force" be made up of?
> 
>  Who is the real enemy?
> 
>  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
> 
>  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXTdfxYQkS4]YouTube - Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly [FOX News][/ame]
> 
> Nosmo King Is an classic asshat.
Click to expand...


Yep, that sure sounds like "FEARMONGERING" to me!

What it is, is an example of QUESTIONS that all americans WHO TRULY LOVE THIS GREAT COUNTRY should be asking right now.

Obama and his administration are desperately trying to take this country down a path that will lead to the demise of everything that has made, and continues to make this country great. We cannot let this happen. They must be stopped, at all costs.

Great posts Mr.!


----------



## nodoginnafight

uptownlivin90 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?  Learn to read.  I SAID you leftists come on and DUCK AND DODGE instead of answering questions like Old and Tired (among many others) post.  Old and Tired's question was:  tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue.  Did you answer it?  NO, you just called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah, which is the typical response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision.
> Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels.
> 
> I mean do you need anymore because that whole program is like 49 minutes of total falsehood. If he's not lying or bitching he's crying. How do you even call him a rightwing talk show host when he comes off as such a whinning homo? I dislike any grown man that gets on live national television and cries because he's scared of socialism.
Click to expand...


on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obama&#8217;s do-over swearing in.
Thar he blows,the lies of Glenn Beck the Great White Dope


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

nodoginnafight said:


> on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
> Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
> I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.


Before you  dogpile your support,  do you know what he said is a fact?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Zoom-boing said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?
> 
> 
> 
> *Part of the quote you orginally posted - you know, the part you edited out for THIS post - began with a statement about folks calling him a fear monger.*
> 
> If you did not consider that part of the quote applicable when you applied it to me, I wonder why you didn't edit it out *THAT* time like you did *THIS* time.........
> 
> points to ponder indeed ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  I didn't edit anything.  I quoted Old and Tired's post #35 on page 3 and put in my comment (post #42, page 3) about the lefists ducking and dodging rather than answering questions.  I put it in because I was referring to what I HAD BOLDED IN HIS POST, which WASN'T the 'fear mongering' part.  LEARN TO READ.
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old and Tired's question was: tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue. DId you answer it? NO,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *As a matter of fact I did.*
> 
> I see you still have re-sited that lil' ol' mud slinger of yours. Please scroll back a bit and you'll see the links I posted. Being the upstanding and honest poster that you are, I'm sure you'll feel compelled to apologize to me. I probably won't be here as I have to run - so I'll accept it now and assure you - no hard feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER I posted my comment.  So you want me to start commenting on posts that don't exist?????
> 
> BTW, see the part in your quote above that I bolded? THAT'S the part I am responding to.
> 
> I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny.
Click to expand...




No - my post of the links (1:32 p.m.) came LONG before your very recent claim that I hadn't answered the question (3:05 p.m.). Is that an honest mistake or a deliberate lie?

Your post saying "I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny" *AFTER* I posted that I have to run, is telling. Is that a tactic employed by an honest poster? That appears to provide strong evidence on my previous question regarding honest mistake or deliberate lie.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Mr.Fitnah said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
> Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
> I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.
> 
> 
> 
> Before you  dogpile your support,  do you know what he said is a fact?
Click to expand...


Yes I do - do you?


----------



## Coyote

theHawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call him a hate-monger based on my opinion of what he is saying.  That is hardly name calling.  He is using deliberate distortions in an attempt to - do what?  Create hatred towards his targets?  A mob mentality?  I've given numerous examples.  If I were name calling I'd be calling him a moron, Retardican, conservitard and a host of similar stupid things.
> 
> "He is right" - well, that is a matter of opinion.  "He loves his country".  That is debatable and a matter of opinion.  He has a strange way of showing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate is a very strong word that gets thrown around alot.*  He certainly is trying to stir up anger, no doubt about that.  But anger can be a good thing, espeically if its over an injustice or something that is morally wrong.  That is certainly the case with these "czars".
Click to expand...

 
You might have a point there, I'll give you that.  But I look at it from what he says.  Even when it's not an outright lie it's deliberate distortions - hooking together things to make a person look like he or she believes or does or says something terrible.

For example Dunn and Mao - look at what she actually said and look at what Glenn Beck said about it.  It's using tactics of fear - fear of communist inroads into our government or homosexuals taking over our schools with some sort of hidden agenda to foment anger and it's a fine fine line between fear and anger, and anger and hate and acting on it.  It doesn't take much to push a group of people over that line.  Look at McCain/Palin's inciting their supporters by insinuating Obama supported terrorists.  Freedom of the press is power but with it comes responsibility that is often shirked these days. Why doesn't Beck simply state the facts?  He doesn't - he tries to craft a message and if the facts don't fit, he'll find other material to attach to it to make it sound better.

In the end: is it rightous anger or bitter partisanship - a partisanship that refused to give anything to the president - whether it's a SCOTUS nominee, policy advisors or credit when he's handled something well.



> People should be outraged that open communists and appeasers are now so high up in our government.  This country over the last century stood up against communism and we lost a lot of people in that confrontation.  But we prevailed.  Some of us actually like to remember what a real threat communism was, and still is.



Communism is largely dead.  It's a failed economic system and the only remaining countries that are communist are either experimenting with a free market economy or heavily propt up by other countries.  People need to get past an irrational fear of it - because that is what it is.  Stirring up Marxist/Communist fears smacks more of a desperation on the part of the right to find anything - no matter how minor or long ago, and blow it up out of proportion and out of context.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obama&#8217;s do-over swearing in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This video has been (conveniently  ) removed due to terms of use violation
> 
> 
> 
> Thar he blows,the lies of Glenn Beck the Great White Dope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Philadelphia Progressive Examiner is not a source.
> Please try again
Click to expand...


----------



## Wicked Jester

nodoginnafight said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?  Learn to read.  I SAID you leftists come on and DUCK AND DODGE instead of answering questions like Old and Tired (among many others) post.  Old and Tired's question was:  tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue.  Did you answer it?  NO, you just called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah, which is the typical response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision.
> Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels.
> 
> I mean do you need anymore because that whole program is like 49 minutes of total falsehood. If he's not lying or bitching he's crying. How do you even call him a rightwing talk show host when he comes off as such a whinning homo? I dislike any grown man that gets on live national television and cries because he's scared of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
> Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
> I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.
Click to expand...

If he didn't check his facts, then why didn't your beloved messiah and his administration of fools, that you so disgustingly fawn over like a love sick child, put up ANY kind of a fight for the 7 liberal scumbags that Beck caused to be tossed?

Just admit it. You hate him because he's tearing down this sham presidency and administration one by one. And he's doing it with FACTS. There's 6 more on the radar now, and Obama won't be far behind!. 
And that just drives your loony liberal ass friggin' bonkers.

Be prepared, because once he's finished, you're going to be bat shit fucking crazy!


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call him a hate-monger based on my opinion of what he is saying.  That is hardly name calling.  He is using deliberate distortions in an attempt to - do what?  Create hatred towards his targets?  A mob mentality?  I've given numerous examples.  If I were name calling I'd be calling him a moron, Retardican, conservitard and a host of similar stupid things.
> 
> "He is right" - well, that is a matter of opinion.  "He loves his country".  That is debatable and a matter of opinion.  He has a strange way of showing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate is a very strong word that gets thrown around alot.*  He certainly is trying to stir up anger, no doubt about that.  But anger can be a good thing, espeically if its over an injustice or something that is morally wrong.  That is certainly the case with these "czars".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might have a point there, I'll give you that.  But I look at it from what he says.  Even when it's not an outright lie it's deliberate distortions - hooking together things to make a person look like he or she believes or does or says something terrible.
> 
> For example Dunn and Mao - look at what she actually said and look at what Glenn Beck said about it.  It's using tactics of fear - fear of communist inroads into our government or homosexuals taking over our schools with some sort of hidden agenda to foment anger and it's a fine fine line between fear and anger, and anger and hate and acting on it.  It doesn't take much to push a group of people over that line.  Look at McCain/Palin's inciting their supporters by insinuating Obama supported terrorists.  Freedom of the press is power but with it comes responsibility that is often shirked these days. Why doesn't Beck simply state the facts?  He doesn't - he tries to craft a message and if the facts don't fit, he'll find other material to attach to it to make it sound better.
> 
> In the end: is it rightous anger or bitter partisanship - a partisanship that refused to give anything to the president - whether it's a SCOTUS nominee, policy advisors or credit when he's handled something well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People should be outraged that open communists and appeasers are now so high up in our government.  This country over the last century stood up against communism and we lost a lot of people in that confrontation.  But we prevailed.  Some of us actually like to remember what a real threat communism was, and still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communism is largely dead.  It's a failed economic system and the only remaining countries that are communist are either experimenting with a free market economy or heavily propt up by other countries.  People need to get past an irrational fear of it - because that is what it is.  Stirring up Marxist/Communist fears smacks more of a desperation on the part of the right to find anything - no matter how minor or long ago, and blow it up out of proportion and out of context.
Click to expand...

Although many communist regimes have failed, as those who have any common sense knows they will eventually, communism itself is not.  And, the bigger danger to our system is communism within.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

nodoginnafight said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
> Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
> I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.
> 
> 
> 
> Before you  dogpile your support,  do you know what he said is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do - do you?
Click to expand...


He has yet to provide the proof.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "
> 
> Day 4
> 
>  Why do we need a civilian force?
> 
>  Who is posing a threat to us?
> 
>  Who will this "force" be made up of?
> 
>  Who is the real enemy?
> 
>  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
> 
>  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXTdfxYQkS4]YouTube - Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly [FOX News][/ame]
Click to expand...


The guys a fag. Seriously. He is absolutely full of himself... clearly.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think Progress » Glenn Beck freaks out about the missing Bible at Obamas do-over swearing in.
> 
> 
> 
> This video has been (conveniently  ) removed due to terms of use violation
> 
> 
> 
> Thar he blows,the lies of Glenn Beck the Great White Dope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Philadelphia Progressive Examiner is not a source.
> Please try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeup because the examiner has magical powers to take videos off of youtube, and I usually wouldn't use it as such if I were debating against facts. Fortunetly... it's Glenn Beck... so that's really all your gonna get until you find somebody who's... credable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Although many communist regimes have failed, as those who have any common sense knows they will eventually, communism itself is not.  And, the bigger danger to our system is communism within.



In what way?


----------



## Wicked Jester

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "
> 
> Day 4
> 
>  Why do we need a civilian force?
> 
>  Who is posing a threat to us?
> 
>  Who will this "force" be made up of?
> 
>  Who is the real enemy?
> 
>  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
> 
>  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXTdfxYQkS4]YouTube - Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly [FOX News][/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guys a fag. Seriously. He is absolutely full of himself... clearly.
Click to expand...


Oh, now that's intelligent!

LMAO!

He's tearing down this sham president and his administration, ONE by ONE!


----------



## California Girl

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a classic fear monger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "
> 
> Day 4
> 
>  Why do we need a civilian force?
> 
>  Who is posing a threat to us?
> 
>  Who will this "force" be made up of?
> 
>  Who is the real enemy?
> 
>  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
> 
>  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guys a fag. Seriously. He is absolutely full of himself... clearly.
Click to expand...


Yet again, we have someone who actually makes the point for us....  

Can't attack the message, attack the messenger.  The only person you make look stupid with your remark is yourself.  Congratulations.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Part of the quote you orginally posted - you know, the part you edited out for THIS post - began with a statement about folks calling him a fear monger.*
> 
> If you did not consider that part of the quote applicable when you applied it to me, I wonder why you didn't edit it out *THAT* time like you did *THIS* time.........
> 
> points to ponder indeed ........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  I didn't edit anything.  I quoted Old and Tired's post #35 on page 3 and put in my comment (post #42, page 3) about the lefists ducking and dodging rather than answering questions.  I put it in because I was referring to what I HAD BOLDED IN HIS POST, which WASN'T the 'fear mongering' part.  LEARN TO READ.
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As a matter of fact I did.*
> 
> I see you still have re-sited that lil' ol' mud slinger of yours. Please scroll back a bit and you'll see the links I posted. Being the upstanding and honest poster that you are, I'm sure you'll feel compelled to apologize to me. I probably won't be here as I have to run - so I'll accept it now and assure you - no hard feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER I posted my comment.  So you want me to start commenting on posts that don't exist?????
> 
> BTW, see the part in your quote above that I bolded? THAT'S the part I am responding to.
> 
> I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - my post of the links (1:32 p.m.) came LONG before your very recent claim that I hadn't answered the question (3:05 p.m.). Is that an honest mistake or a deliberate lie?
> 
> Your post saying "I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny" *AFTER* I posted that I have to run, is telling. Is that a tactic employed by an honest poster? That appears to provide strong evidence on my previous question regarding honest mistake or deliberate lie.
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension is not your friend.

My first post today was the one to Old and Tired re:  no one answering his question at 11:56a.m. - page 3, post #42.

Your first post today was at at 11:58a.m. - page 3, post #43.

I responded to your post at 12:00 noon. - page 3, post #44.

At 11:56a.m. no one had answered Old and Tired's question.   So, you still want me to respond to posts that don't exist at the time of my posting????

Once again, I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny, several times.


----------



## California Girl

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video has been (conveniently  ) removed due to terms of use violation
> 
> 
> 
> Philadelphia Progressive Examiner is not a source.
> Please try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeup because the examiner has magical powers to take videos off of youtube, and I usually wouldn't use it as such if I were debating against facts. Fortunetly... it's Glenn Beck... so that's really all your gonna get until you find somebody who's... *credable.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Must resist the temptation....
> 
> Must resist the temptation.....
> 
> MUST RESIST THE.....
> 
> 
> *Runs out of thread before the temptation to point out dumbassedness overtakes her*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## nodoginnafight

Mr.Fitnah said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you  dogpile your support,  do you know what he said is a fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do - do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has yet to provide the proof.
Click to expand...


Video or in print?

The in-print documentation is all over the place. 

On the several places that posted the video, all the ones I saw say the video has been removed for violation of terms of use.

I guess one possible explanation could be that Beck was the target of a smear campaign - but if the Did Glenn Beck Rape .... crap is still out there, I don't understand how this could be regarded as more libelous or slanderous and subject to removal for THAT. But I guess that's possible.

It's also possible that the applicable network never granted permission for those sites to carry the clip and had it removed on THOSE grounds ....

I personally don't know the answer to that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video has been (conveniently  ) removed due to terms of use violation
> 
> 
> 
> Philadelphia Progressive Examiner is not a source.
> Please try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeup because the examiner has magical powers to take videos off of youtube, and I usually wouldn't use it as such if I were debating against facts. Fortunetly... it's Glenn Beck... so that's really all your gonna get until you find somebody who's... credable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you had the facts?
> What you have is hollow rhetoric  and empty charges that have  been repeated without attribution .
> Not facts,  just charges .
> This is how the  the progressive attack machine   that is being used to  silence opponents of Obamas policies and tactic works.
> 
> Lies  are  the marching orders to crush the resistance to Obamanomics
Click to expand...


----------



## uptownlivin90

Wicked Jester said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck: "Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly "
> 
> Day 4
> 
>  Why do we need a civilian force?
> 
>  Who is posing a threat to us?
> 
>  Who will this "force" be made up of?
> 
>  Who is the real enemy?
> 
>  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
> 
>  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck: Speak Without Fear & Question Boldly [FOX News]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guys a fag. Seriously. He is absolutely full of himself... clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now that's intelligent!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> He's tearing down this sham president and his administration, ONE by ONE!
Click to expand...


What's intelligent is getting on TV for an hour every day and spewing out vague facts about "organizations" and "lobbyist groups" that are tied to communism and therefore tied to totalitarianism... blah blah blah and scaring the shit out of people for no reason. It's wonderful for ratings, this guy is not a political commentator, he's a paid public relations man... he's a journalist for Christ's sake he get's paid to make you watch him. However, when one of Glenn Beck's nutjob listeners decides that Obama is too dangerous to live... and puts a bullet through the man's head... Beck (watch this) and Dobbs are both going to be on TV crying again calling it an American tragedy, and calling the hillbilly that did it a terrorist and a racist bastard. But trust... Beck will not sink with his ship. He will not take responsability for the revolution he wants, he will not lead it, and when it happens he'll abandon it.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeup because the examiner has magical powers to take videos off of youtube, and I usually wouldn't use it as such if I were debating against facts. Fortunetly... it's Glenn Beck... so that's really all your gonna get until you find somebody who's... credable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you had the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Beck had the facts?
Click to expand...


----------



## Zoom-boing

uptownlivin90 said:


> What's intelligent is getting on TV for an hour every day and spewing out vague facts about "organizations" and "lobbyist groups" that are tied to communism and therefore tied to totalitarianism... blah blah blah and scaring the shit out of people for no reason. It's wonderful for ratings, this guy is not a political commentator, he's a paid public relations man... he's a journalist for Christ's sake he get's paid to make you watch him. However, when one of Glenn Beck's nutjob listeners decides that Obama is too dangerous to live... and puts a bullet through the man's head... Beck (watch this) and Dobbs are both going to be on TV crying again calling it an American tragedy, and calling the hillbilly that did it a terrorist and a racist bastard. But trust... Beck will not sink with his ship. He will not take responsability for the revolution he wants, he will not lead it, and when it happens he'll abandon it.




It isn't just Beck connecting the dots.  

ACORN Part I: Rathke, ACORN, SEIU, the Tides Foundation


----------



## nodoginnafight

But if the claim "Glenn Beck is lying" is so slanderous that it must be removed, I wonder why the link to The View episode in which he's caught in a lie is still available.
Is it maybe because different networks are involved and in the case of the View, the network was not so inclined to provide cover?
That's a possible explanation .....


----------



## Wicked Jester

California Girl said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeup because the examiner has magical powers to take videos off of youtube, and I usually wouldn't use it as such if I were debating against facts. Fortunetly... it's Glenn Beck... so that's really all your gonna get until you find somebody who's... *credable.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Must resist the temptation....
> 
> Must resist the temptation.....
> 
> MUST RESIST THE.....
> 
> 
> *Runs out of thread before the temptation to point out dumbassedness overtakes her*
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Now, that's just classic!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## nodoginnafight

btw - zoom-boing are you STILL trying to claim that my post of 1:32 p.m. came AFTER your post of 3:05 p.m? Or are ya maybe thinking that apology really is in order ???????????


----------



## Coyote

theHawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of Mao is complex, a bit like Machievelli.  But that doesn't mean their philosophies don't have some merit or - more important something to learn from.  Mao, like Machievelli is required reading in a number of disciplines and not because he was a mass murder.  Appreciating some of his philosophy is not the same thing as condoning his behavior or how he used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah of course, all those communists like Marx, Che, Castro, Mao have some merit in their philosophies.  We just have to ignore all those "bad things" that came as a result of their philosophies.  We can all still learn alot from them.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.  You are lumping everyone into one category based on a broad political generalization.  They are all "communists' therefore their words have no merit.  That's a stupid assumption.

I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. Many of the founders of our country and constitution were slave owners.  While some opposed slavery, but did not bring about abolition others supported it.  Does that negate all their work to define our government and constitution?  Or is it not so simple as it seems on the surface?


----------



## Wicked Jester

uptownlivin90 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guys a fag. Seriously. He is absolutely full of himself... clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now that's intelligent!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> He's tearing down this sham president and his administration, ONE by ONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's intelligent is getting on TV for an hour every day and spewing out vague facts about "organizations" and "lobbyist groups" that are tied to communism and therefore tied to totalitarianism... blah blah blah and scaring the shit out of people for no reason. It's wonderful for ratings, this guy is not a political commentator, he's a paid public relations man... he's a journalist for Christ's sake he get's paid to make you watch him. However, when one of Glenn Beck's nutjob listeners decides that Obama is too dangerous to live... and puts a bullet through the man's head... Beck (watch this) and Dobbs are both going to be on TV crying again calling it an American tragedy, and calling the hillbilly that did it a terrorist and a racist bastard. But trust... Beck will not sink with his ship. He will not take responsability for the revolution he wants, he will not lead it, and when it happens he'll abandon it.
Click to expand...


JFK: Killed by a LEFTWING marxist loon.
Ford: survived TWO assasination attempts by TWO seperate LIBERAL nutjobs.
Reagan. Survived an assasination attempt by a lovesick LIBERAL nutjob.
Glenn Beck: Receives death threats daily by LIBERAL nutjobs. Causing him to have to pay big bucks for security to protect himself, his family, and his staff.

So, who does Obama REALLY have to fear?


----------



## Godboy

People on the left hate Glenn Beck because he is a right winger. I, as a right winger myself, hate Glenn Beck because hes corny as fuck. He feigns emotions on his show, added with dramatic pauses and dramatic facial expressions. That fuck tard is soooo god damn disingenuous, and its annoying as hell. He needs to drop the act and simply speak from the heart like a normal fucking person. If he is unable to do that, he needs to get off the air and make room for a better right wing commentator. Glenn Beck sucks balls.


----------



## Oldandtired

Coyote said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of Mao is complex, a bit like Machievelli.  But that doesn't mean their philosophies don't have some merit or - more important something to learn from.  Mao, like Machievelli is required reading in a number of disciplines and not because he was a mass murder.  Appreciating some of his philosophy is not the same thing as condoning his behavior or how he used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah of course, all those communists like Marx, Che, Castro, Mao have some merit in their philosophies.  We just have to ignore all those "bad things" that came as a result of their philosophies.  We can all still learn alot from them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You are lumping everyone into one category based on a broad political generalization.  They are all "communists' therefore their words have no merit.  That's a stupid assumption.
> 
> I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. Many of the founders of our country and constitution were slave owners.  While some opposed slavery, but did not bring about abolition others supported it.  Does that negate all their work to define our government and constitution?  Or is it not so simple as it seems on the surface?
Click to expand...


I think you are an ass and I think many of your responses are rediculous and childish.
However...I appreciate the point you made here and it gives me reason to consider my stance.
Need to work. Week almost over...BBL....


----------



## Charles Stucker

uptownlivin90 said:


> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.


I am more inclined to believe that Beck simply did not realize he was mistaken. How many presidents have been sworn in during Beck's life? Enough that he probably did not realize it was tradition, not a universal part of the ceremony.

It is generally a mistake to weaken an argument with this kind of point.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of Mao is complex, a bit like Machievelli.  But that doesn't mean their philosophies don't have some merit or - more important something to learn from.  Mao, like Machievelli is required reading in a number of disciplines and not because he was a mass murder.  Appreciating some of his philosophy is not the same thing as condoning his behavior or how he used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah of course, all those communists like Marx, Che, Castro, Mao have some merit in their philosophies.  We just have to ignore all those "bad things" that came as a result of their philosophies.  We can all still learn alot from them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You are lumping everyone into one category based on a broad political generalization.  They are all "communists' therefore their words have no merit.  That's a stupid assumption.
> 
> I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. Many of the founders of our country and constitution were slave owners.  While some opposed slavery, but did not bring about abolition others supported it.  Does that negate all their work to define our government and constitution?  Or is it not so simple as it seems on the surface?
Click to expand...


Nuanced thought is not everyone's forte. Some find it easier to paint with a very broad brush - it keeps them from having to thing too hard or from having to critically examine several different perspectives.

And yet - somethings create such a strong and immediate reaction that "going with your gut instinct" is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.

I guess it depends on one's individual tolerances.

I don't feel like I have to research NAMBLA to know I detest what they stand for. Does that make me ignorant? Maybe - but if so - I can live with that.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Charles Stucker said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck lied when he said that no president has ever been sworn into office without swearing on the Bible. Quincy Adams didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I am more inclined to believe that Beck simply did not realize he was mistaken. How many presidents have been sworn in during Beck's life? Enough that he probably did not realize it was tradition, not a universal part of the ceremony.
> 
> It is generally a mistake to weaken an argument with this kind of point.
Click to expand...


I could accept that easily and quickly had he not insisted, "I checked." He knew without question (as do WE in hindsight) that he obviously did not check. Did he BELIEVE that he really had checked???? I don't think so.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Zoom-boing said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's intelligent is getting on TV for an hour every day and spewing out vague facts about "organizations" and "lobbyist groups" that are tied to communism and therefore tied to totalitarianism... blah blah blah and scaring the shit out of people for no reason. It's wonderful for ratings, this guy is not a political commentator, he's a paid public relations man... he's a journalist for Christ's sake he get's paid to make you watch him. However, when one of Glenn Beck's nutjob listeners decides that Obama is too dangerous to live... and puts a bullet through the man's head... Beck (watch this) and Dobbs are both going to be on TV crying again calling it an American tragedy, and calling the hillbilly that did it a terrorist and a racist bastard. But trust... Beck will not sink with his ship. He will not take responsability for the revolution he wants, he will not lead it, and when it happens he'll abandon it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just Beck connecting the dots.
> 
> ACORN Part I: Rathke, ACORN, SEIU, the Tides Foundation
Click to expand...


Look I heard it all before, Hell I subscribe to Alex Jones just to see what's new in the conspiracy theory world. I don't deny that there's alot of back behind the scenes shit that goes on behind peoples back on both the left and the right. Here's the problem I have, Glenn Beck doesn't have a clue how deep his little conspiracy theories go, and if you want to trace everything back far enough, your going to go f-ing crazy and just give up believe me... been there too. Eventually you'll realize, that it's ALL just one big crazy illusion. Point is we had a flawed system from the start, and it has nothing to do with socialism because it was flawed before socialism exsisted. Fact is all these titles "socialist" "left" and "right" etc it's one big farce to keep people separated in their own little worlds. Urban vs Rural, black vs. white, when we're all fighting the same enemy, and that enemy is the one that's dishing out Glenn Beck's paycheck everyday. Go-figure.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> btw - zoom-boing are you STILL trying to claim that my post of 1:32 p.m. came AFTER your post of 3:05 p.m? Or are ya maybe thinking that apology really is in order ???????????



Can you not follow this?  

My first post today was the one to Old and Tired re:  no one answering his question at 11:56a.m. - page 3, post #42.

Your first post today was at at 11:58a.m. - page 3, post #43.

I responded to your post at 12:00 noon. - page 3, post #44.

You responded to my noon post at at 12:04pm. - page 4, post #46.

At 11:56a.m. no one had answered Old and Tired's question.   So, you still want me to respond to posts that don't exist at the time of my posting????

My next post in this thread was at 3:05p.m. - page 9, post #121.  This post was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POST #46, _which was made at 12:04pm_.  Did I respond to your 1:32p.m. post at all? * NO*, as I hadn't gotten that far . . . .because I was responding to your earlier post.     Dear God you are dense.  Nice twist in trying to put words into my mouth saying that I claimed anything about your 1:32pm post coming after my 3:05pm post.   

Even with the page numbers, post numbers and time of posting you still can't follow this?  Cripes.

Once again I'll take your silence as an apology for being a ninny, several times . . . no, many times over.


----------



## Douger

I loved the circus when I was a kid !!!
Now they just have Faux "News"

Actually. I haven't watched mainstream TV or Movies in over 5 years.
 I do turn on some documentaries I find in the schedules of History, Discovery, Biography and Animal Planet.
I also turn on the local news every now and again when I hear something on the morning radio or receive a Google Alert like the earthquake here last Jan.and a landslide wiping a bridge out this summer.
As soon as they bring in an international brainwashing feed I turn the bitch off.

I look at the Drudge every week or so just to make sure I was right.


----------



## Coyote

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah of course, all those communists like Marx, Che, Castro, Mao have some merit in their philosophies.  We just have to ignore all those "bad things" that came as a result of their philosophies.  We can all still learn alot from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You are lumping everyone into one category based on a broad political generalization.  They are all "communists' therefore their words have no merit.  That's a stupid assumption.
> 
> I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. Many of the founders of our country and constitution were slave owners.  While some opposed slavery, but did not bring about abolition others supported it.  Does that negate all their work to define our government and constitution?  Or is it not so simple as it seems on the surface?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuanced thought is not everyone's forte. Some find it easier to paint with a very broad brush - it keeps them from having to thing too hard or from having to critically examine several different perspectives.
> 
> And yet - somethings create such a strong and immediate reaction that "going with your gut instinct" is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> I guess it depends on one's individual tolerances.
> 
> I don't feel like I have to research NAMBLA to know I detest what they stand for. Does that make me ignorant? Maybe - but if so - I can live with that.
Click to expand...

 
That is true...and I generally agree.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> My next post in this thread was at 3:05p.m. - page 9, post #121. This post was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POST #46, which was made at 12:04pm. Did I respond to your 1:32p.m. post at all? NO, as I hadn't gotten that far . . . .



So maybe you should read the whole book BEFORE you try to write a review??????????

Yes, I follow exactly what you are saying - you are saying it was perfectly OK for you to post (at 3:05 p.m.) that I had NOT responded to question that I actually HAD responded to at 1:32.

And your excuse?

I didn't read that far .......

So I guess using that criteria, it is perfectly reasonable to post that Dorothy never DID get back to Kansas if you haven't finished the movie????????

And yes - I am the ninny because I do the reading BEFORE I post????????

Yes, certainly THAT must be the case.

Maybe next time you'll read a bit more before you make a claim that has already been disproven. Or are you the type who does not learn from their mistakes? So far you sound like someone who makes excuses for their mistakes and tries to blame others. But I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Charles Stucker

nodoginnafight said:


> I could accept that easily and quickly had he not insisted, "I checked." He knew without question (as do WE in hindsight) that he obviously did not check. Did he BELIEVE that he really had checked???? I don't think so.


Thank you for the clarification, I've seen that sort of lie before. "Yes I know of what I speak, I swear" - and then they don't. It is indeed a damning element as the loss of credibility from faking proof affects everyone else who is put into the same class. The example I saw (as a juror humorously) was a Police officer who insisted he "clearly remembered" an incident and who then read everything from notes and when asked to expound past his notes completely contradicted physical evidence which neither side disputed. He sounded good until you looked past his smooth performance to the underlying facts.
This has the effect of making me doubt the veracity of anything any police officer says under oath. The conclusion I drew was that the police are trained in how to sound believable and sure of themselves, even when they are not. That is not something which benefits our country, but I refuse to chance convicting an innocent person. Naturally I've been struck from juries since then as I won't lie during the questioning of the jurors.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You are lumping everyone into one category based on a broad political generalization.  They are all "communists' therefore their words have no merit.  That's a stupid assumption.
> 
> I've used this example before, but I'll use it again. Many of the founders of our country and constitution were slave owners.  While some opposed slavery, but did not bring about abolition others supported it.  Does that negate all their work to define our government and constitution?  Or is it not so simple as it seems on the surface?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuanced thought is not everyone's forte. Some find it easier to paint with a very broad brush - it keeps them from having to thing too hard or from having to critically examine several different perspectives.
> 
> And yet - somethings create such a strong and immediate reaction that "going with your gut instinct" is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> I guess it depends on one's individual tolerances.
> 
> I don't feel like I have to research NAMBLA to know I detest what they stand for. Does that make me ignorant? Maybe - but if so - I can live with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true...and I generally agree.
Click to expand...


But I also hate to provide cover for people who refuse to extend their mind beyond the level of a bumper sticker .... discouraging when you realize their vote counts exactly the same as someone who has really done their homework, huh?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Charles Stucker said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could accept that easily and quickly had he not insisted, "I checked." He knew without question (as do WE in hindsight) that he obviously did not check. Did he BELIEVE that he really had checked???? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the clarification, I've seen that sort of lie before. "Yes I know of what I speak, I swear" - and then they don't. It is indeed a damning element as the loss of credibility from faking proof affects everyone else who is put into the same class. The example I saw (as a juror humorously) was a Police officer who insisted he "clearly remembered" an incident and who then read everything from notes and when asked to expound past his notes completely contradicted physical evidence which neither side disputed. He sounded good until you looked past his smooth performance to the underlying facts.
> This has the effect of making me doubt the veracity of anything any police officer says under oath. The conclusion I drew was that the police are trained in how to sound believable and sure of themselves, even when they are not. That is not something which benefits our country, but I refuse to chance convicting an innocent person. Naturally I've been struck from juries since then as I won't lie during the questioning of the jurors.
Click to expand...


Your experience really is the scary part - how many times does that go uncaught?

On message boards it is standard operating procedure. Just yesterday some guy quoted some statistics and then another poster chimed in that those statistics had now been updated and gave the new "updated" numbers.

When pressed the first guy was forced to admit that he made the numbers up.

The "updater" mysteriously disappeared.

Funny, when it happens that way - but when you cloak your lies in the guise of documented evidence - well..... it certainly discredits that person "once and for all" in my book.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> My next post in this thread was at 3:05p.m. - page 9, post #121. This post was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POST #46, which was made at 12:04pm. Did I respond to your 1:32p.m. post at all? NO, as I hadn't gotten that far . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe you should read the whole book BEFORE you try to write a review??????????
> 
> Yes, I follow exactly what you are saying - you are saying it was perfectly OK for you to post (at 3:05 p.m.) that I had NOT responded to question that I actually HAD responded to at 1:32.
> 
> And your excuse?
> 
> I didn't read that far .......
> 
> So I guess using that criteria, it is perfectly reasonable to post that Dorothy never DID get back to Kansas if you haven't finished the movie????????
> 
> And yes - I am the ninny because I do the reading BEFORE I post????????
> 
> Yes, certainly THAT must be the case.
> 
> Maybe next time you'll read a bit more before you make a claim that has already been disproven. Or are you the type who does not learn from their mistakes? So far you sound like someone who makes excuses for their mistakes and tries to blame others. But I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...


R-E-A-D-I-N-G      C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N

This post was made by you at 12:04pm:



nodoginnafight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, no takers?  Figures.  *They can never answer this but instead duck and dodge by taking pot shots at Beck*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him? ......... HATE him ....... no no - I'm crying because I LOVE him SOOOOOOO much
> 
> He's a useful fool the left can use to discredit the right with
> or ANYONE can use to discredit ANYTHING he supports
> 
> He's just a clown - who HATES a clown??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
Click to expand...




This post was made by me, _in response to your 12:04pm post above_, at 3:05pm:



Zoom-boing said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in counter-point - did I call him a fear monger? Why deride me for not providing evidence to support someone's else's post?
> 
> Apparently you need to re-site that lil' mud-slinger of yours ..........
> 
> Hey old and tired - hope you are well today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I SAY you called him a fear monger?  Learn to read.  I SAID you leftists come on and DUCK AND DODGE instead of answering questions like Old and Tired (among many others) post.  Old and Tired's question was:  tell me exactly what Beck says that is untrue.  Did you answer it?  NO, you just called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah, which is the typical response.
Click to expand...


Tell me, at the time of your 12:04pm posting, _which I was responding to_, had you answered Old and Tired's question?  NO, you merely called Beck a clown and blah, blah, blah.  My post at 3:05pm was in response to your post at 12:04pm.   I was responding to THAT post, a post in which you had not yet answered his question.  Get it???????

Keep trying to claw your way of the quicksand.


----------



## nodoginnafight

yep, as I suspected - an excuse maker.


----------



## Zoom-boing

nodoginnafight said:


> yep, as I suspected - an excuse maker.




I pointed out your mistake and you cry that I'm an excuse maker? 

Where in your post from 12:04pm,_ the post that I was responding to at 3:05pm_, did you answer Old and Tired's question?

I'll wait.


----------



## Si modo

nodoginnafight said:


> yep, as I suspected - an excuse maker.


Mistakes happen.  She wasn't telling you that you said something about fear-mongering.  Sometimes we all read things a certain way that they are not meant to be.  It's completely normal, especially when we have only one communication tool available to us (just the written word).   You wouldn't want us to think that you are not normal, I hope.


----------



## Charles Stucker

nodoginnafight said:


> Your experience really is the scary part - how many times does that go uncaught?
> 
> On message boards it is standard operating procedure. Just yesterday some guy quoted some statistics and then another poster chimed in that those statistics had now been updated and gave the new "updated" numbers.
> 
> When pressed the first guy was forced to admit that he made the numbers up.



I would suspect that it generally goes uncaught. For a police officer investigating a crime scene is normal daily drudgery, AKA work. It takes months (or longer) for cases to reach trial. How well does anyone remember another day of work six months later?

People pulling numbers out of the air are humorous. It is easy (for me anyway) to simply postulate certain numbers -openly stating they are postulates - and draw conclusions. Why cite a study when you can do one of your own? Particularly if you can make a clear case. If you're interested in seeing exactly what I mean it is message #5 in the 1 in 8 girls thread on Current Events forum.


----------



## theHawk

Coyote said:


> For example Dunn and Mao - look at what she actually said and look at what Glenn Beck said about it.  It's using tactics of fear - fear of communist inroads into our government or homosexuals taking over our schools with some sort of hidden agenda to foment anger and it's a fine fine line between fear and anger, and anger and hate and acting on it.  It doesn't take much to push a group of people over that line.  Look at McCain/Palin's inciting their supporters by insinuating Obama supported terrorists.  Freedom of the press is power but with it comes responsibility that is often shirked these days. Why doesn't Beck simply state the facts?  He doesn't - he tries to craft a message and if the facts don't fit, he'll find other material to attach to it to make it sound better.
> 
> In the end: is it rightous anger or bitter partisanship - a partisanship that refused to give anything to the president - whether it's a SCOTUS nominee, policy advisors or credit when he's handled something well.


Glenn may be drumming up fear over Dunn's statements, but its not without merit, considering the record of exposed Obama officials.

Those people "insinuating" that Obama supported terrorists were doing so because thats what the facts showed.  No liberal, and Obama himself, could not deny his association with Ayers - a self admited terrorist.  Its showed what kind of man Obama is.  It also showed how much the left didn't care.  They were more than happy to look the other way and vote this radical into office because of his politics.  Now its true that both sides have always overlooked indiscretions commited by their candidate, but it has now been taken to a new level with Obama and his radical friends and now appointees.  If any of these very questionable associations were with any other politician, republican or democrat, they would had been thrown to the wolves.  But Obama just keeps getting pass after pass.




Coyote said:


> Communism is largely dead.  It's a failed economic system and the only remaining countries that are communist are either experimenting with a free market economy or heavily propt up by other countries.  People need to get past an irrational fear of it - because that is what it is.  Stirring up Marxist/Communist fears smacks more of a desperation on the part of the right to find anything - no matter how minor or long ago, and blow it up out of proportion and out of context.


Communism is far from dead.  China is on the verge of overtaking the US as a superpower, and I won't be surprised if it happens under Obama's watch.  Communist ideals live on in socialist ideals.  And, as Beck as pointed out, the Communist USA party has had a hand in writing the legislation thats being pushed through Washington.  They are starting to accomplish things they couldn't do with all their Red Armies over the last century.
If you doubt this movement is alive and well in our country, I suggest you read Prairie Fire.  Written by none other than Bill Ayers' little defunt group of communists.  He is a full blown communist, who wasn't against the Vietnam War, he was for the communists winning it.  This is a man that Obama  was friends with.

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

These wackos are out there,  and we have a President who doesn't mind being friends with them one bit.


----------



## pete

rayboyusmc said:


> Glenn Beck is there to make more money period.
> 
> All his little hysterics are no more than something to get ratings.
> 
> As to the facts, if you defend him on that, you don't know what facts are.
> 
> Change the word hate to: pathetic little Limbaugh wanna be.



and the shit stain in office isnt there to promote himself and make more money?
Yea he gets a check, but what comes with and after  ..... Bull Shit!

Ratings ... the community organizer is all about "ME" and "I" ... how many times am I going to be listed in the history books ... fuck "YOU" and "ME"

Hes just a wanna be the one to pass health care the one to get .... nothing to do with us.


----------



## Si modo

theHawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example Dunn and Mao - look at what she actually said and look at what Glenn Beck said about it.  It's using tactics of fear - fear of communist inroads into our government or homosexuals taking over our schools with some sort of hidden agenda to foment anger and it's a fine fine line between fear and anger, and anger and hate and acting on it.  It doesn't take much to push a group of people over that line.  Look at McCain/Palin's inciting their supporters by insinuating Obama supported terrorists.  Freedom of the press is power but with it comes responsibility that is often shirked these days. Why doesn't Beck simply state the facts?  He doesn't - he tries to craft a message and if the facts don't fit, he'll find other material to attach to it to make it sound better.
> 
> In the end: is it rightous anger or bitter partisanship - a partisanship that refused to give anything to the president - whether it's a SCOTUS nominee, policy advisors or credit when he's handled something well.
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn may be drumming up fear over Dunn's statements, but its not without merit, considering the record of exposed Obama officials.
> 
> Those people "insinuating" that Obama supported terrorists were doing so because thats what the facts showed.  No liberal, and Obama himself, could not deny his association with Ayers - a self admited terrorist.  Its showed what kind of man Obama is.  It also showed how much the left didn't care.  They were more than happy to look the other way and vote this radical into office because of his politics.  Now its true that both sides have always overlooked indiscretions commited by their candidate, but it has now been taken to a new level with Obama and his radical friends and now appointees.  If any of these very questionable associations were with any other politician, republican or democrat, they would had been thrown to the wolves.  But Obama just keeps getting pass after pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is largely dead.  It's a failed economic system and the only remaining countries that are communist are either experimenting with a free market economy or heavily propt up by other countries.  People need to get past an irrational fear of it - because that is what it is.  Stirring up Marxist/Communist fears smacks more of a desperation on the part of the right to find anything - no matter how minor or long ago, and blow it up out of proportion and out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is far from dead.  China is on the verge of overtaking the US as a superpower, and I won't be surprised if it happens under Obama's watch.  Communist ideals live on in socialist ideals.  And, as Beck as pointed out, the Communist USA party has had a hand in writing the legislation thats being pushed through Washington.  They are starting to accomplish things they couldn't do with all their Red Armies over the last century.
> If you doubt this movement is alive and well in our country, I suggest you read Prairie Fire.  Written by none other than Bill Ayers' little defunt group of communists.  He is a full blown communist, who wasn't against the Vietnam War, he was for the communists winning it.  This is a man that Obama  was friends with.
> 
> William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
> 
> These wackos are out there,  and we have a President who doesn't mind being friends with them one bit.
Click to expand...

Not just friends any longer.  We the People pay them.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Zoom-boing said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, as I suspected - an excuse maker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out your mistake and you cry that I'm an excuse maker?
> 
> Where in your post from 12:04pm,_ the post that I was responding to at 3:05pm_, did you answer Old and Tired's question?
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...


Which way did he go?

Which way did he go?

He went, 

LMAO!


----------



## uptownlivin90

theHawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example Dunn and Mao - look at what she actually said and look at what Glenn Beck said about it.  It's using tactics of fear - fear of communist inroads into our government or homosexuals taking over our schools with some sort of hidden agenda to foment anger and it's a fine fine line between fear and anger, and anger and hate and acting on it.  It doesn't take much to push a group of people over that line.  Look at McCain/Palin's inciting their supporters by insinuating Obama supported terrorists.  Freedom of the press is power but with it comes responsibility that is often shirked these days. Why doesn't Beck simply state the facts?  He doesn't - he tries to craft a message and if the facts don't fit, he'll find other material to attach to it to make it sound better.
> 
> In the end: is it rightous anger or bitter partisanship - a partisanship that refused to give anything to the president - whether it's a SCOTUS nominee, policy advisors or credit when he's handled something well.
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn may be drumming up fear over Dunn's statements, but its not without merit, considering the record of exposed Obama officials.
> 
> Those people "insinuating" that Obama supported terrorists were doing so because thats what the facts showed.  No liberal, and Obama himself, could not deny his association with Ayers - a self admited terrorist.  Its showed what kind of man Obama is.  It also showed how much the left didn't care.  They were more than happy to look the other way and vote this radical into office because of his politics.  Now its true that both sides have always overlooked indiscretions commited by their candidate, but it has now been taken to a new level with Obama and his radical friends and now appointees.  If any of these very questionable associations were with any other politician, republican or democrat, they would had been thrown to the wolves.  But Obama just keeps getting pass after pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is largely dead.  It's a failed economic system and the only remaining countries that are communist are either experimenting with a free market economy or heavily propt up by other countries.  People need to get past an irrational fear of it - because that is what it is.  Stirring up Marxist/Communist fears smacks more of a desperation on the part of the right to find anything - no matter how minor or long ago, and blow it up out of proportion and out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is far from dead.  China is on the verge of overtaking the US as a superpower, and I won't be surprised if it happens under Obama's watch.  Communist ideals live on in socialist ideals.  And, as Beck as pointed out, the Communist USA party has had a hand in writing the legislation thats being pushed through Washington.  They are starting to accomplish things they couldn't do with all their Red Armies over the last century.
> If you doubt this movement is alive and well in our country, I suggest you read Prairie Fire.  Written by none other than Bill Ayers' little defunt group of communists.  He is a full blown communist, who wasn't against the Vietnam War, he was for the communists winning it.  This is a man that Obama  was friends with.
> 
> William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
> 
> These wackos are out there,  and we have a President who doesn't mind being friends with them one bit.
Click to expand...


I did a project with an organization a couple years back that's goal was to stop violence in Prince George's County Public Schools. In order to get the project done there were various meetings that were set up in various member's homes. The co-chairman of the organization used to be a member of a separatist group, not going to say which one but it was a chicano separatist group from DC in the 1970s. The guy was gracious though. During the process of working with this group I had to work with the man very closely, knowing exactly who he was and what his organization had done. We're talking about real grassroots radical organizations that were funded by real inner city drug and prostitution rings traced far back as El Salvadorian and Colombian drug cartels. That's what this guy was apart of.

But for that time while we were working together we were working together for the good of public schools in the area. There were people of all political ideologies working together on this and during the process I got to know the man as a person and grew more to understand him and who he actually was. Nice guy, and a good father to his four children, all of whom go to PG County Schools. I said all that to say this, life will bring you to a place where you will have to meet and work with people and even be close to or friends with people who you may not neccesarily agree with, or who may be shady or dangerous characters. Obama and Bill Ayer's relationship is NATURAL in his line of work amongst anyone who works on grassroots campaign movements at all you are going to have to reach out to some people who may not be the most upstanding of citizens. That's life.

As for the Communist Party USA yes they exist, and believe me they have their own crazy conspiracy theories about "dangerous people" in the White House that have led some of them to take measures into their own hands and do stupid sh**. Just like the libertarian extremist right that Glenn Beck caters to has their own conspiracy theories about "dangerous people" in government. You can be rest assured that there are Hitler admirers, Mao admirers, segregationists, communists, socialists, former Klan-members, and other crazy individuals working in all levels of government because insanity is often erased by other qualifications. In other words you can be completely and totally out of your mind but if your qualified to be the best public relations man that's applied for this opportunity best believe your getting that damn job. There ARE former 60s radicals in all stretches of public life, and you've got to understand that the 60s were extremely different times then now, we're talking about the era of some of the most sweeping movements for change in history and counter-movements at that. Radicalism was at it's peak then as was poverty, social frsutration, political violence, and anger. 

Does the Communist Party have a hand in ACLU? Yes, of course it does. Do they have a hand in alot of left wing organizations? Yes. Because many of them have some common battles to fight. The Communist Party is against racial profiling, so is the ACLU. The Communist Party is pro-reproductive rights, so is the ACLU. If an organization represents an interest ALL people who support that particular interest are going to have a hand in the pot. Does that mean that those organizations are communist puppets? No. The same way the fact that some Klan members might be apart of the Republican Party doesn't make the Republican Party and party of Klan members. They might have some common interests. I have common interests with NRA I'm a gun rights freak. Do I have any doubt that there's some questionable characters in the NRA? Hell no. There's some straight-up separatist groups in the NRA, straight up racist white supremecist groups in the NRA. But the organization represents my interest as a gun owner.

I know this won't work to convince most of you of anything but I've said my piece on Beck. Whatever. I don't care if you disagree with Obama on his policies, I disagree with him plenty. But there is no radical takeover of this nation for Maoism, or Islam, or black nationalism, or totalitarianism... that's rediculous... fear mongering. Plain and simple.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

nodoginnafight said:


> But if the claim "Glenn Beck is lying" is so slanderous that it must be removed, I wonder why the link to The View episode in which he's caught in a lie is still available.
> Is it maybe because different networks are involved and in the case of the View, the network was not so inclined to provide cover?
> That's a possible explanation .....


Sorry that doesnt end well for you.

Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Who's the lying sack of dog mess now?


----------



## Coyote

theHawk said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn may be drumming up fear over Dunn's statements, but its not without merit, considering the record of exposed Obama officials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without merit?  Is that your way of excusing his lies?  What merit for Dunn?  God forbid she said that Mother Theresa (notice how the Glenn Becks of this world leave her out of their rabid spews) and Mao were among her favorite political philosophers.  Not without merit - they take that and suddenly she is hero worshipping Mao.  Not without merit.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those people "insinuating" that Obama supported terrorists were doing so because thats what the facts showed.  No liberal, and Obama himself, could not deny his association with Ayers - a self admited terrorist.
> 
> Its showed what kind of man Obama is.  It also showed how much the left didn't care.  They were more than happy to look the other way and vote this radical into office because of his politics.  Now its true that both sides have always overlooked indiscretions commited by their candidate, but it has now been taken to a new level with Obama and his radical friends and now appointees.  If any of these very questionable associations were with any other politician, republican or democrat, they would had been thrown to the wolves.  But Obama just keeps getting pass after pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can remind me when Ayers' last terrorist act was....since you claim he "is" (present tense) a terrorist.  Oh, and who did he kill?
> 
> I'm guessing you are going to make excuses saying once a terrorist always a terrorist but if people can't change what's your excuse for voting in a (former) alcohalic drug abuser into office - a man one button away from a nuclear holocaust?
> 
> The hypocrisy of the right never fails to amuse me.  Except it's not really very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is far from dead.  China is on the verge of overtaking the US as a superpower, and I won't be surprised if it happens under Obama's watch.  Communist ideals live on in socialist ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is so successful NOT because it's communist but because it started introducing elements of the free market into it's economy - that is not communism.
> 
> Socialism and communism are not the same thing and frankly there are some good points to socialism when mixed with a free market economy.  Look at many European countries - they have a high standard of living and a decent economy.  Oh...but...they have some socialist programs too.  Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as Beck as pointed out, the Communist USA party has had a hand in writing the legislation thats being pushed through Washington.  They are starting to accomplish things they couldn't do with all their Red Armies over the last century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like another lying Beck fearmongering stinkbomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you doubt this movement is alive and well in our country, I suggest you read Prairie Fire.  Written by none other than Bill Ayers' little defunt group of communists.  He is a full blown communist, who wasn't against the Vietnam War, he was for the communists winning it.  This is a man that Obama  was friends with.
> 
> William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And this was written...when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These wackos are out there,  and we have a President who doesn't mind being friends with them one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, there are whackos out there all right, but they have little to do with the president.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you had the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Beck had the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you made the specific charge  that beck was lying about 2 specific things.
> The only source for these claims are  left wing smear merchants  and non existent video clips.
> You are being used by the Progressive  smear campaign , or you have volunteered to help deliberately lie about someone  knowing, to harm America.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn may be drumming up fear over Dunn's statements, but its not without merit, considering the record of exposed Obama officials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without merit?  Is that your way of excusing his lies?  What merit for Dunn?  God forbid she said that Mother Theresa (notice how the Glenn Becks of this world leave her out of their rabid spews) and Mao were among her favorite political philosophers.  Not without merit - they take that and suddenly she is hero worshipping Mao.  Not without merit.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can remind me when Ayers' last terrorist act was....since you claim he "is" (present tense) a terrorist.  Oh, and who did he kill?
> 
> I'm guessing you are going to make excuses saying once a terrorist always a terrorist but if people can't change what's your excuse for voting in a (former) alcohalic drug abuser into office - a man one button away from a nuclear holocaust?
> 
> The hypocrisy of the right never fails to amuse me.  Except it's not really very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is so successful NOT because it's communist but because it started introducing elements of the free market into it's economy - that is not communism.
> 
> Socialism and communism are not the same thing and frankly there are some good points to socialism when mixed with a free market economy.  Look at many European countries - they have a high standard of living and a decent economy.  Oh...but...they have some socialist programs too.  Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like another lying Beck fearmongering stinkbomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was written...when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These wackos are out there,  and we have a President who doesn't mind being friends with them one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, there are whackos out there all right, but they have little to do with the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice equivocation .
Click to expand...


----------



## ihopehefails

They hate him because he is effective and all liberals despise those types.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

nodoginnafight said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> on of the instances I questioned earlier - the part that really got to me was his insistence, "I checked."
> Now if he really HAD checked he would have realized it wasn't true.
> I can understand an honest mistake - but saying "I checked" when he was obviously aware that he had not - goes beyond that imho.
> 
> 
> 
> Before you  dogpile your support,  do you know what he said is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do - do you?
Click to expand...

Apparently you do have a dog in the fight.
 You know how to spell the fuck in proof?
No?
Thats because there ain't No fucking proof.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Beck had the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you made the specific charge  that beck was lying about 2 specific things.
> The only source for these claims are  left wing smear merchants  and non existent video clips.
> You are being used by the Progressive  smear campaign , or you have volunteered to help deliberately lie about someone  knowing, to harm America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Glenn Beck (an entertaining media pundit) is your main source of information during a debate not even a journalist I have no obligation but to match what Glenn Beck says with what some liberal on the internet says. If you are capable of carrying on a meaningful debate without using the likes of a guy who cries on cue for a living:
> (we call crybabies like this pussies where I'm from)
> More Glenn Beck Lies Exposed
> 
> ...be my guest.
Click to expand...


----------



## uptownlivin90

Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:






The grown man who cries on TV.


----------



## Si modo

uptownlivin90 said:


> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.


And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
Click to expand...


Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made the specific charge  that beck was lying about 2 specific things.
> The only source for these claims are  left wing smear merchants  and non existent video clips.
> You are being used by the Progressive  smear campaign , or you have volunteered to help deliberately lie about someone  knowing, to harm America.
> 
> 
> 
> If Glenn Beck (an entertaining media pundit) is your main source of information during a debate not even a journalist I have no obligation but to match what Glenn Beck says with what some liberal on the internet says. If you are capable of carrying on a meaningful debate without using the likes of a guy who cries on cue for a living:
> (we call crybabies like this pussies where I'm from)
> More Glenn Beck Lies Exposed
> 
> ...be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the source. You crazy shit.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
Click to expand...

Of course make a judgment before viewing, Judge books by their covers do you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1620963-post29.html


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course make a judgment before viewing, Judge books by their covers do you?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1620963-post29.html
Click to expand...


Nope.  Unlike you, I actually read them first.  Not just the bits and pieces that make it into talking points.


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
Click to expand...

Hyperbole, yours or his, is almost always irrelevant to me.  But, regardless of that fact, I don't dismiss information when presented to me regardless of the source.  That would be allowing emotions to make me willfully ignorant.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hyperbole, yours or his, is almost always irrelevant to me.  But, regardless of that fact,* I don't dismiss information when presented to me regardless of the source.  *That would be allowing emotions to make me willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...


Then you should go to the source of said information and view it in context with pundit edification.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Si modo said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
Click to expand...


I saw that clip. Never said she admired the man. Said he was one of her favorite political philosophers, does that mean that she approves of the philosophy or likes to study it? Who the Hell knows? My favorite political figure to study is Mobutu Sésé Seko, doesn't mean I agree with a damn thing the man says. Regardless, who the Hell cares? Let me add a little perspective here. Anita Dunn is a Communications Director, she's a public relations woman. She oversees information about policy that goes in and out of the white house. Interesting job, I thoguht I might want to do it at one point but I don't like desk jobs. That's exactly what it is a freaking DESK JOB. She is more then qualified as a public relations manager, she was chosen on the basis of her public relations experience not her political ideology. In other words she was given the job because she qualified. We do not live in a nation where you can be denied a desk job based solely on political ideology. That's called discrimination. It's also called anti-American. Free spreech and freedom of thought goes in all directions.


----------



## Si modo

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, yours or his, is almost always irrelevant to me.  But, regardless of that fact,* I don't dismiss information when presented to me regardless of the source.  *That would be allowing emotions to make me willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should go to the source of said information and view it in context with pundit edification.
Click to expand...

I did (when it was available, that is.  Hmmmm).  Your point?


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, yours or his, is almost always irrelevant to me.  But, regardless of that fact,* I don't dismiss information when presented to me regardless of the source.  *That would be allowing emotions to make me willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should go to the source of said information and view it in context with pundit edification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did (when it was available, that is.  Hmmmm).  Your point?
Click to expand...


My point is there was a distinct lack of swooning over Chinese communism.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must have missed that little gem of hyperbole....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course make a judgment before viewing, Judge books by their covers do you?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1620963-post29.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Unlike you, I actually read them first.  Not just the bits and pieces that make it into talking points.
Click to expand...


Really? you labeled it hyperbole and you said you missed it ,
proving you do make judgment with out knowledge, based entirely on your prejudice, ignorance and bias.


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course make a judgment before viewing, Judge books by their covers do you?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1620963-post29.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Unlike you, I actually read them first.  Not just the bits and pieces that make it into talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? you labeled it hyperbole and you said you missed it ,
> proving you do make judgment with out knowledge, based entirely on your prejudice, ignorance and bias.
Click to expand...


I was being sarcastic.  Must have gone right over your pointy little head.


----------



## Si modo

uptownlivin90 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention hillbillies of America, this is your savior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grown man who cries on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw that clip. Never said she admired the man. Said he was one of her favorite political philosophers, does that mean that she approves of the philosophy or likes to study it? Who the Hell knows? My favorite political figure to study is Mobutu Sésé Seko, doesn't mean I agree with a damn thing the man says. Regardless, who the Hell cares? Let me add a little perspective here. Anita Dunn is a Communications Director, she's a public relations woman. She oversees information about policy that goes in and out of the white house. Interesting job, I thoguht I might want to do it at one point but I don't like desk jobs. That's exactly what it is a freaking DESK JOB. She is more then qualified as a public relations manager, she was chosen on the basis of her public relations experience not her political ideology. In other words she was given the job because she qualified. We do not live in a nation where you can be denied a desk job based solely on political ideology. That's called discrimination. It's also called anti-American. Free spreech and freedom of thought goes in all directions.
Click to expand...


She said that Mao's political philosophy (Chinese communism) is one of her two favorites.  That's simple communicative property.

The apologetics for that comment are stunning to me.

But, that's really OK.  As I said elsewhere, as long as the weak and passive stay out of my way, I am fine with their being weak and passive.


----------



## Coyote

Si modo said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that clip. Never said she admired the man. Said he was one of her favorite political philosophers, does that mean that she approves of the philosophy or likes to study it? Who the Hell knows? My favorite political figure to study is Mobutu Sésé Seko, doesn't mean I agree with a damn thing the man says. Regardless, who the Hell cares? Let me add a little perspective here. Anita Dunn is a Communications Director, she's a public relations woman. She oversees information about policy that goes in and out of the white house. Interesting job, I thoguht I might want to do it at one point but I don't like desk jobs. That's exactly what it is a freaking DESK JOB. She is more then qualified as a public relations manager, she was chosen on the basis of her public relations experience not her political ideology. In other words she was given the job because she qualified. We do not live in a nation where you can be denied a desk job based solely on political ideology. That's called discrimination. It's also called anti-American. Free spreech and freedom of thought goes in all directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said that Mao's political philosophy (Chinese communism) is one of her two favorites.  That's simple communicative property.
Click to expand...


No.  She said that Mao and Mother Theresa were two of her favorite political philosophers.



> The apologetics for that comment are stunning to me.



The lack of simple comprehension astounds me.



> But, that's really OK.  As I said elsewhere, as long as the weak and passive stay out of my way, I am fine with their being weak and passive.



Hope you're spry.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should go to the source of said information and view it in context with pundit edification.
> 
> 
> 
> I did (when it was available, that is.  Hmmmm).  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is there was a distinct lack of swooning over Chinese communism.
Click to expand...

Mao one of two people, her favorite political philosopher,  The force behind millions of political murders slave labor camps and insanity 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did (when it was available, that is.  Hmmmm).  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is there was a distinct lack of swooning over Chinese communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mao one of two people, her favorite political philosopher,  The force behind millions of political murders slave labor camps and insanity
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
Click to expand...


Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is there was a distinct lack of swooning over Chinese communism.
> 
> 
> 
> Mao one of two people, her favorite political philosopher,  The force behind millions of political murders slave labor camps and insanity
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
Click to expand...


Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
 Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa 
One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
More deathsand suffering than Hitler.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Si modo said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, he showed a tape of Dunn publicly expressing her swooning admiration of Chinese communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that clip. Never said she admired the man. Said he was one of her favorite political philosophers, does that mean that she approves of the philosophy or likes to study it? Who the Hell knows? My favorite political figure to study is Mobutu Sésé Seko, doesn't mean I agree with a damn thing the man says. Regardless, who the Hell cares? Let me add a little perspective here. Anita Dunn is a Communications Director, she's a public relations woman. She oversees information about policy that goes in and out of the white house. Interesting job, I thoguht I might want to do it at one point but I don't like desk jobs. That's exactly what it is a freaking DESK JOB. She is more then qualified as a public relations manager, she was chosen on the basis of her public relations experience not her political ideology. In other words she was given the job because she qualified. We do not live in a nation where you can be denied a desk job based solely on political ideology. That's called discrimination. It's also called anti-American. Free spreech and freedom of thought goes in all directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *She said that Mao's political philosophy (Chinese communism) is one of her two favorites*.  That's simple communicative property.
> 
> The apologetics for that comment are stunning to me.
> 
> But, that's really OK.  As I said elsewhere, as long as the weak and passive stay out of my way, I am fine with their being weak and passive.
Click to expand...


No she did not. Now your *LYING *about your own damn video tape. This is an exact transcript you have posted the video so read it as you listen:



> DUNN: A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together, and that answers the "Why not?" question. There's usually not a good reason.
> 
> *And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa *-- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.
> 
> In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.
> 
> You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
> 
> And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.



Her exact words were that her two favorite philosophers were Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. She did not once claim that Maoist philosophy was her favorite philosophy, and it would be insane to insuate so because Maoism and Morther Teresa don't mix well. She herself said this in a joking manner when she pointed out that the two aren't usually coupled together and that she uses the example of the two only to make a certain point saying:

"but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices".

Not once have I heard anyone give me one example where this woman has EVER pushed for Maoism or communism for that matter. Nice fucking try.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
6:20


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mao one of two people, her favorite political philosopher,  The force behind millions of political murders slave labor camps and insanity
> 
> YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
Click to expand...


and Jefferson, Adams, Washington...were all slave owners.  Hmmm.....what's wrong with a little historical context hmmm?  Should we judge every aspect of their genius upon that?


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mao one of two people, her favorite political philosopher,  The force behind millions of political murders slave labor camps and insanity
> 
> YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
Click to expand...


How about a little quote context? Her words were that they are the two people she turns to most TOOOOO...


> but the two people that I turn to most to basically *deliver a simple point*



OMG!!! Really? You mean she doesn't fucking pray to either of them before she goes to sleep? God damn... I have dissect people's quotes like it's the fucking Bible with you people. It's like arguing with fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. BY THE WAY nobody has answered my statement about the fact that Anita Dunn is in no position to determine US Domestic or Foreign Policy or any policy besides how to right shit down in a way that makes the President look good which is a desk job EVERY business, company, firm, and government has and applicants for such jobs are entitled to certain rights including the right not to be discriminated against based on race, gender, creed, or political ideology.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and Jefferson, Adams, Washington...were all slave owners.  Hmmm.....what's wrong with a little historical context hmmm?  Should we judge every aspect of their genius upon that?
Click to expand...


Did I ever tell you ... your my hero? LOL


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and Jefferson, Adams, Washington...were all slave owners.  Hmmm.....what's wrong with a little historical context hmmm?  Should we judge every aspect of their genius upon that?
Click to expand...


If that is the only defense you have  at your disposal .
You cannot Make Mao good ,by trying to make the founding fathers bad.
You just create logical fallacies .


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3
> 6:20



Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is comprehension a common problem with you guys?  Beck - not Dunn - brought up Mao's atrocities in an attempt to smear Dunn.  She was talking about philosophy.  Interesting that you continuously leave out Mother Theresa.  Perhaps that is because it doesn't serve your agenda well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a little quote context? Her words were that they are the two people she turns to most TOOOOO...
> 
> 
> 
> but the two people that I turn to most to basically *deliver a simple point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yak yak yak 
The point being the ends justify the means.
Even if it means genocide.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3
> 6:20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.
Click to expand...


Clearly  her words make you a liar.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]

:20


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6:20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.
Click to expand...



Clearly  her words make you a liar.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

:20


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly  her words make you a liar. Mao is one of her favs.
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
> 
> :20
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

uptownlivin90 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly  her words make you a liar. Mao is one of her favs.
> 
> 
> :20
Click to expand...


----------



## uptownlivin90

BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a little quote context? Her words were that they are the two people she turns to most TOOOOO...
> 
> 
> 
> but the two people that I turn to most to basically *deliver a simple point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yak yak yak
> The point being the ends justify the means.
> Even if it means genocide.
Click to expand...


Sure. That was the point. It most certainly wasn't that though things might look like they can't happen we must remember to stick to our own instincts rather then caving in to people who tell us we can't do certain things... it was just that genocide is good... and so are nuns.


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smear her? Whats wrong with a little historical context?
> The 2 people she turns to the most Mao and MT ?
> *Not jefferson  and Adams , Not Washington and Franklin.*
> Nope Mao and Mother  Teresa
> One nice the other the father of  untold atrocities .
> More deathsand suffering than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Jefferson, Adams, Washington...were all slave owners.  Hmmm.....what's wrong with a little historical context hmmm?  Should we judge every aspect of their genius upon that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the only defense you have  at your disposal .
> You cannot Make Mao good ,by trying to make the founding fathers bad.
> You just create logical fallacies .
Click to expand...


I'm not attempting to make him look "good" - I'm pointing out the fallacy in your own statement.

All of which really has nothing to do with what Dunn was saying - something that had zip to do with Marxism or Communism or killing bunches of people and, in fact, was a pretty inspiring message.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists. 

Mao father of slave camps genocide and hopelessness.

Jefferson Adams Franklin Washington creators of the greatest force for liberty freedom and self expression and self fulfillment  in the history of the world.

I have one rational expectation of what to expect from the government.
To  uphold the constitution .

 There is plenty of guidance in the writings of Samual Adams to help you up hold the Constitution if that is your goal.

 I do not expect  the Whitehouse to seek inspiration from Communist revolutionaries  and stack my administration with  those who seeks  them for guidance.
Why?
I guess Im just old fashioned .
I have my own Hope and dont want the kind of Change Mao, Chavez Castro, Che  and Obama are offering. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSm7ag3VeC8]YouTube - Obama's Communist revolutionaries in the government 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIwNvGQOT8]YouTube - Obama's Communist revolutionaries in the government 2[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pPMFsD4yGg[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mSiNKo7iVk[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBk7I41bls[/ame]


----------



## Fatality

uptownlivin90 said:


> Her exact words were that her two favorite philosophers were Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. She did not once claim that Maoist philosophy was her favorite philosophy



care to explain just what is a philosopher without a philosophy?

 did she like him cause he had big lips or a tight ass?


----------



## chanel

there are many many progressuves that ascribe to moral relativism. Bill ayers blows up building - ok Polansky rapes a 13 year old - ok Jennings has no problem with gay sex in bus stations - ok Acorn assists human trafficking - ok Dr Tiller - hero.I could go on and on. And when someone like Beck exposes these atrocities and decent people agree that NONE  of it is ok - they project their perverse morality and hatred on the messenger. I am so sick of far left loonies making excuses for every reprehensible act that we learn about. Yet the irony is when someone like Sanford cheats on his wife or Sarah Palins daughter get pregnant, they suddently become "church ladies" The more hypocrisy these people show, the more decent people turn to shows like Beck and Hannity. This country is divided alright. But at least I can sleep at bight knowing which side I'm on.


----------



## Fatality

chanel said:


> there are many many progressuves that ascribe to moral relativism. Bill ayers blows up building - ok Polansky rapes a 13 year old - ok Jennings has no problem with gay sex in bus stations - ok Acorn assists human trafficking - ok Dr Tiller - hero..



these are the little eichmans doing their part for the break down of western civilization, America in particular.


----------



## Sidestreamer

Mr. Capitalism said:


> No, you are right, we are all terrified at the power and mind of Glenn Beck.  You've caught us.



It goes deeper than that... I watch his show once in a while, and I really care. I REALLY FUCKING CARE! It's frightening!


----------



## Sidestreamer

I can't access the last page... my comments are for naught.


----------



## Fatality

Sidestreamer said:


> I can't access the last page... my comments are for naught.



it was going nuts last night, but now its working, anyway i can read your posts


----------



## Coyote

chanel said:


> there are many many progressuves that ascribe to moral relativism. Bill ayers blows up building - ok



Who said it was ok to blow up a building?



> Polansky rapes a 13 year old - ok



Most progressives do not think that is ok.



> Jennings has no problem with gay sex in bus stations - ok



What makes you think Jennings "has no problem with gay sex in bus stations"?  



> Acorn assists human trafficking - ok



Who said that was ok?



> Dr Tiller - hero.



So you think murdering an innocent man is ok?  There are those on the right who seem to feel that.  First they condemn it...then they turn around and say "BUT!" and revoke that condemnation.



> I could go on and on. And when someone like Beck exposes these atrocities and decent people agree that NONE  of it is ok - they project their perverse morality and hatred on the messenger. I am so sick of far left loonies making excuses for every reprehensible act that we learn about. Yet the irony is when someone like Sanford cheats on his wife or Sarah Palins daughter get pregnant, they suddently become "church ladies" The more hypocrisy these people show, the more decent people turn to shows like Beck and Hannity. This country is divided alright. But at least I can sleep at bight knowing which side I'm on.



I'm so sick of the far rightwingnuts acting as if they are the sole champions of morality.  Proclaiming themselves the arbritors of "family values" and ethics, they bash the liberals every chance they get while busily brushing their own sex scandals and underage pimping scandals and corruption under the rug.  I guess it's always ok with them because their heros - while they may not change their ways - apologize dramatically and publically.  

The left doesn't become "church ladies" - they are the ones pointing fingers and laughing hysterically at those proclaiming themselves to be the moral majority.

When will you realize there is no "right side" - they are all hypocrites when it suits then - even your own.


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists.



I'm making no moral equivalency arguments.  I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in your own statement.


Those you admire were slave owners.  Are you going to judge all they say and have done by that?  Yes or no.

The argument is not what Mao did but the value of some of his philosophy.  Ironically - some of which is embraced by our own politicians and millitary becuase it makes damn good sense.  

You may need to get a grip on reality  here - there are no communist revolutionaries in Obama's administration.  They exist primarily in the minds of the Glen Becks and Rush Limbaugh's of this world.  The same sort of minds that partnered Bush with Hitler.


----------



## Fatality

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making no moral equivalency arguments.
Click to expand...

yes you did


----------



## Coyote

Fatality said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making no moral equivalency arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes you did
Click to expand...


No.

There isn't a "moral" equivalency between the men involved.  The point, which you don't seem to comprehend is that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to philosophy.  You can still learn gain from it - regardless of the actions of the person.  If you listened to Anita Dunn (without Glen Beck's hype) you would see that.


----------



## PittOwl32

Personally, I detest the loudmouthed windbags on TV on a bi-partisan basis. Olbermann, Beck, Matthews, O'Reilly, Schultz, Hannity et al are partisan hacks for our rotten and corrupt duopoly parties. For independent anti-establishment voices of both the nonconformist left and right, try sites such as counterpunch.org and vdare.com.


----------



## Dr.House

If it weren't for the libroids who hate him, Glenn Beck would be another "also ran" in the political pundit world...

It's the lib notoriety that gives these pundits their voices...  And they're making millions off of it...lol


Cracks me up...


----------



## Fatality

Coyote said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making no moral equivalency arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There isn't a "moral" equivalency between the men involved.  The point, which you don't seem to comprehend is that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to philosophy.  You can still learn gain from it - regardless of the actions of the person.  If you listened to Anita Dunn (without Glen Beck's hype) you would see that.
Click to expand...


yes you did


there is no baby in the bath water


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing your friend posted the other video which shows the speech in full context and let's Anita finish the whole quote of what she looks to them FORRRRRR and it ain't fucking political philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly  her words make you a liar. Mao is one of her favs.
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
> 
> :20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck am I a liar? The woman said that Mao and Mother Teresa were her to favorite philosophers.
> 
> Full Transcript again from FOX NEWS:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the "why not" question. There is usually not a good reason. And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say "why not." You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.
> 
> But here's the deal  these are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse Tung said, "You know, you fight your war, and I'll fight mine."
> 
> And think about that for a second. You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
> 
> And Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply, "Go find your own Calcutta."
> 
> OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you. The challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge. One of the things that we see the Obamas, both of them, Michelle and Barack, came out of backgrounds as community organizers, working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Radical Truth About Anita Dunn - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
> 
> She said they are not often coupled with each other... gee wonder why? Could it be that she's playing off of the irony of those being her two favorite political philosophers? She's an educated woman, she may simply like studying Mao, again that's her business. Anyone who's studied Mao knows he's an interesting motherfucker, so is Stalin, and Hitler, and Mobutu, and Saddam. NO where does it say she idealizes Mao or believes in Maoism, but AGAIN even if she did that's her business, not yours considering that her being a PR man for the white house does not give her any power to dictate policy. And she does not "look to Mao" as some sort of hero. Her quote was:
> 
> "Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, *but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point*, which is, you're going to make choices."(look above)
> 
> It's a complete and total NON-ISSUE. She uses them as an example to make a point. Clearly the kids got it. There is no evidence that Obama, or anyone he has placed in any position of authority over domestic or foreign policy is a Maoist. NONE... ZERO... ZIP. Stop trying to make every issue about "us" and "them"... it's not, at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Godboy said:


> I, as a right winger myself, hate Glenn Beck because hes corny as fuck.  He needs to drop the act and simply speak from the heart like a normal fucking person. .



Thats why he cries, he isnt faking it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

It is not possible for me  to see this thread any longer.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, as a right winger myself, hate Glenn Beck because hes corny as fuck.  He needs to drop the act and simply speak from the heart like a normal fucking person. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why he cries, he isnt faking it.
Click to expand...


He was caught on tape fake crying for a photoshoot...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9j_SWbpOH0]YouTube - Glenn Beck's Fake Crying Photoshoot[/ame]


----------



## Father Time

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country









Let me know when you have something useful to say.


----------



## midcan5

Last page?   what is weird.   I didn't want to comment on Glenn Beck again as I find him a useless blowhard who has nothing positive to add to building the nation.


----------



## Bfgrn

Glenn Beck provides a public service...he's on at the peak of rush hour, so he keeps his flock safe...otherwise they would walk out into traffic and get hit by bus...


----------



## California Girl

Bfgrn said:


> Glenn Beck provides a public service...he's on at the peak of rush hour, so he keeps his flock safe...otherwise they would walk out into traffic and get hit by bus...



And yet, when he was slamming Bush, he was a cool guy who was "speaking the truth". What a crock.


----------



## rightwinger

As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck provides a public service...he's on at the peak of rush hour, so he keeps his flock safe...otherwise they would walk out into traffic and get hit by bus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, when he was slamming Bush, he was a cool guy who was "speaking the truth". What a crock.
Click to expand...

 
Great Call!


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously



Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST.  We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that? 

The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.


----------



## uptownlivin90

rightwinger said:


> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously



People take Steve Colbert seriously?


----------



## 007

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST.  We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
Click to expand...


Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.

One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.

Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.

stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.

Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.


----------



## Vast LWC

Glenn Beck lies by asking misleading questions and following them up with a large amount of very circumstantial evidence.  This way, he can't be accused of actually making a false statement.

For instance, let's say he was trying to imply that Barack Obama was a crack addict, he would run something like this:

_*Glenn Beck:*  Tonight: Many people say Barack Hussein Obama is a crack addict.  Tonight we're going to find out why.

Now, I'm not saying the President is a crack addict, I'm just asking some much needed questions about a subject that concerns many people.

First lets go to our black-board.  Now as you can see, black men in Chicago have a much higher percentage of being addicted to crack than the average population.  

Does this fact alone indicate Mr Obama is a crack addict?   No, but then we got to fact #2:  Mr Obama has admitted using cocaine.  Now we all know, from the Clinton administration, that politicians attempt to minimize their drug use, which might indicate Mr Obama used more drugs than he admits.

As we can see, it's looking more and more like the president is a crack addict.

For an expert opinion on the subject, lets go to our guest James "Smokey" Simmons, a crack addict from a corner a few blocks from Fox Studios...

Smokey, do you think the President is a crack addict?

*James "Smokey" Simmons:*  'course he's a crack addict!  Now I knows crack addicts when I see them, and he's DEFINTITELY smokin' da rock!

*Glenn Beck:  *Well, there you have it.  Again, I'm not SAYING the president is a crack addict, I'm just asking the questions that need to be answered..._


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST. We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
Click to expand...

 
It's all "Cult of Personality" better known as _symbolism over substance._

_And a good reason why we are where we are._


----------



## rightwinger

Pale Rider said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST.  We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.
> 
> One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.
> 
> Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.
> 
> stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.
> 
> Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.
Click to expand...


See what I mean about some people taking Beck seriously??


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> Glenn Beck lies by asking misleading questions and following them up with a large amount of very circumstantial evidence.  This way, he can't be accused of actually making a false statement.



OK.... "Glenn Beck LIES"... but then, "he can't be accused of actually making a false statement?"

You just contradicted yourself. Did you read that back to yourself before you posted it? Probably not. 

I love it when a liberals hypocrisy is exposed by themselves. It makes us conservatives job so much easier.


----------



## Vast LWC

rightwinger said:


> See what I mean about some people taking Beck seriously??



Indeed, many Fox Viewers seem to equate popularity with veracity.

They think that just because a bunch of other crazed right-wingers watch Beck, he must be telling the truth.


----------



## 007

rightwinger said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST.  We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.
> 
> One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.
> 
> Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.
> 
> stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.
> 
> Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean about some people taking Beck seriously??
Click to expand...


You bet yur ass I do sonny, and so do millions of others. We are the reasonable, thinking MAJORITY. Glad I'm not sucking hind tit with you commie loving obama worshipers. You're about to be shown just how small of a minority you are next year. You're insignificant.


----------



## Vast LWC

Pale Rider said:


> OK.... "Glenn Beck LIES"... but then, "he can't be accused of actually making a false statement?"
> 
> You just contradicted yourself. Did you read that back to yourself before you posted it? Probably not.
> 
> I love it when a liberals hypocrisy is exposed by themselves. It makes us conservatives job so much easier.



Interesting, you ignored the entire rest of the post, even editing it out of my quote in your reply, and then accuse _me _of being dishonest?

Are you saying people cannot say one thing by saying another?  

*Is "sarcasm" not a concept you understand?*


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about some people taking Beck seriously??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, many Fox Viewers seem to equate popularity with veracity.
> 
> They think that just because a bunch of other crazed right-wingers watch Beck, he must be telling the truth.
Click to expand...


You think comedians report the news, and news reporters are comedians.


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck provides a public service...he's on at the peak of rush hour, so he keeps his flock safe...otherwise they would walk out into traffic and get hit by bus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, when he was slamming Bush, he was a cool guy who was "speaking the truth". What a crock.
Click to expand...


No, he's an idiot, he always was and he always will be... but really, really stupid people need a hero too... 

BTW, besides buses, beware of cliffs...


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.... "Glenn Beck LIES"... but then, "he can't be accused of actually making a false statement?"
> 
> You just contradicted yourself. Did you read that back to yourself before you posted it? Probably not.
> 
> I love it when a liberals hypocrisy is exposed by themselves. It makes us conservatives job so much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, you ignored the entire rest of the post, even editing it out of my quote in your reply, and then accuse _me _of being dishonest?
> 
> Are you saying people cannot say one thing by saying another?
> 
> *Is "sarcasm" not a concept you understand?*
Click to expand...


I don't do sarcasm, and you contradicted yourself.

I made you back peddle, that's good enough for me. The rest of the board will read it. I made my point. Well.... YOU made my point FOR me.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Glenn Beck doesn't "lie" necessarily. But he can be dishonest, just like all clowns in the media punditry circus.

What I find interesting is everytime a new star pundit comes along, left or right, everyone always accuses them of being LIARS, YOU LIE, LYING!!

Haven't you guys caught on yet?


----------



## Vast LWC

Pale Rider said:


> You bet yur ass I do sonny, and so do millions of others. We are the reasonable, thinking MAJORITY.



Proving my point.  And no, you are not a "majority", not even in the ballpark.  You're a minority of freaks and conspiracy theorists.



> Glad I'm not sucking hind tit with you commie loving obama worshipers. You're about to be shown just how small of a minority you are next year. You're insignificant.



LOL.  Good luck with that bud.  Just because your type surrounds itself in a nice cozy bubble, and don't bother to speak to anyone who doesn't agree with you, certainly doesn't make you, by any means, a "majority".   Perhaps you make up a "majority" of the nation's insane people...  

ROFL.


----------



## 007

I don't accuse anyone of lying unless I catch them in a lie I can prove.

I can, however, tell the difference between a comedian and someone with a serious news show.


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bet yur ass I do sonny, and so do millions of others. We are the reasonable, thinking MAJORITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving my point.  And no, you are not a "majority", not even in the ballpark.  You're a minority of freaks and conspiracy theorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad I'm not sucking hind tit with you commie loving obama worshipers. You're about to be shown just how small of a minority you are next year. You're insignificant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  Good luck with that bud.  Just because your type surrounds itself in a nice cozy bubble, and don't bother to speak to anyone who doesn't agree with you, certainly doesn't make you, by any means, a "majority".   Perhaps you make up a "majority" of the nation's insane people...
> 
> ROFL.
Click to expand...

We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.


----------



## Vast LWC

Pale Rider said:


> I don't do sarcasm, and you contradicted yourself.
> 
> I made you back peddle, that's good enough for me. The rest of the board will read it. I made my point. Well.... YOU made my point FOR me.



You're as dishonest as your hero.

You posted only the first sentence of my post, accused me based on that sentence, and then accused me of "back peddling" which I did not do.

*I mentioned "sarcasm" because the definition of sarcasm is to mean one thing while stating the opposite.  Which would be an example of lying without specifically making a false statement.*

Of course, that's not a concept someone like you would understand, as some of the words involved have more than two syllables.

*Another example of lying without making a false statement would be a "lie of omission" which you should be quite familiar with.*


----------



## Vast LWC

Pale Rider said:


> We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.



Psst, FoxNews considers John McCain to be a "liberal", when it convenient for them to do so.

According to you and your FoxNews buddies, the entire world outside your little echo-chamber is a bunch of "liberals".

So it's you, and a small percentage of the population of the US against the rest of the world.


----------



## California Girl

Pale Rider said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
> He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST.  We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.
> 
> One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.
> 
> Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.
> 
> stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.
> 
> Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, Pale. Glen is a great commentator. He absolutely tells it as he sees it, I don't always agree but his information is verifiable and he clearly states when he is giving opinion and when he is providing factual information. 

He is just about the only person in the media now who actually does the job that journalists are supposed to do. But.... the left keep saying he's a journalist. He is not a journalist. He doesn't hold himself up as a journalist - he is a commentator and a fucking good one. We need more like him. 

And..... the fact remains that he slammed Bush and the left held him in regard for doing so.  Now because he slams their boy, they hate him.  Double standard on the left.


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't do sarcasm, and you contradicted yourself.
> 
> I made you back peddle, that's good enough for me. The rest of the board will read it. I made my point. Well.... YOU made my point FOR me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as dishonest as your hero.
> 
> You posted only the first sentence of my post, accused me based on that sentence, and then accused me of "back peddling" which I did not do.
> 
> *I mentioned "sarcasm" because the definition of sarcasm is to mean one thing while stating the opposite.  Which would be an example of lying without specifically making a false statement.*
> 
> Of course, that's not a concept someone like you would understand, as some of the words involved have more than two syllables.
> 
> *Another example of lying without making a false statement would be a "lie of omission" which you should be quite familiar with.*
Click to expand...


Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.

If you can't handle being exposed like that, then watch what you say. Lying and then calling someone a liar looks pretty bad. But, I know you loony left, commie defending, liberal kooks are capable of just about anything. Lying is OK until you get caught. Well... you got caught. Not my problem. Clean up your game, or it'll happen again.


----------



## The T

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst, FoxNews considers *John McCain to be a "liberal",* when it convenient for them to do so.
> 
> According to you and your FoxNews buddies, the entire world outside your little echo-chamber is a bunch of "liberals".
> 
> So it's you, and a small percentage of the population of the US against the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

 
We true Conservatives don't need FOX NEWS to tell us what we have already sumized for ourselves. McCain is politically where the Democrat party was 20-30 years ago.

So what?


----------



## Vast LWC

Pale Rider said:


> Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.



Because you took it out of context, which is a "lie of omission".  You're just going to keep on lying, aren't you?

You're just pissed because I was able to accurately explain how Beck lies through misdirection and leading questions.

I notice you didn't address any of the actual points I made, you just attacked an out-of-context sentence.

ROFL.  Anyone with half a brain can easily see through your BS, of course Glenn Beck viewers are not famous for having even that much of a brain.


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST. We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?
> 
> The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.
> 
> One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.
> 
> Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.
> 
> stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.
> 
> Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you, Pale. Glen is a great commentator. He absolutely tells it as he sees it, I don't always agree but his information is verifiable and he clearly states when he is giving opinion and when he is providing factual information.
> 
> He is just about the only person in the media now who actually does the job that journalists are supposed to do. But.... the left keep saying he's a journalist. He is not a journalist. He doesn't hold himself up as a journalist - he is a commentator and a fucking good one. We need more like him.
> 
> And..... the fact remains that he slammed Bush and the left held him in regard for doing so. Now because he slams their boy, they hate him. Double standard on the left.
Click to expand...

 

Exactly. Spot on! Of course Limbaugh too makes no bones about who he is and what he is doing, and it is about the same as Beck. But then we're told too, that _Limbaugh_ is really running the _Republican Party_ by the loons on the left.

How long do you suppose it will be before the Looney Left unseats Limbaugh, and replaces him with _Beck?_

Don't laugh, I see it coming...


----------



## Vast LWC

The T said:


> We true Conservatives don't need FOX NEWS to tell us what we have already sumized for ourselves. McCain is politically where the Democrat party was 20-30 years ago.
> 
> So what?



The point I was contradicting is that the poster considered himself and the rest of the Glenn Beck faithful to be some sort of silent majority in America, that will somehow sweep all of the "liberals" (AKA anyone who's not a Glenn Beck faithful) out of office next election.

And since FoxNews considers McCain, a centrist Republican, to be a "liberal" that would include all centrist Republicans.


----------



## Vast LWC

The T said:


> Exactly. Spot on! Of course Limbaugh too makes no bones about who he is and what he is doing, and it is about the same as Beck. But then we're told too, that _Limbaugh_ is really running the _Republican Party_ by the loons on the left.
> 
> How long do you suppose it will be before the Looney Left unseats Limbaugh, and replaces him with _Beck?_
> 
> Don't laugh, I see it coming...



So, just to be clear, the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist", is that "commentators" can lie without fear of reprisal.

Right?


----------



## Vast LWC

I ask that because, as far as I know, the definition of "slander" has not in fact changed in the recent past.

And neither Beck, nor FoxNews, has ever made a retraction for anything Beck has said.

Which means that both Beck and FoxNews are culpable for any claims of slander made against them, due to comments made by Glenn Beck.


----------



## California Girl

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you took it out of context, which is a "lie of omission".  You're just going to keep on lying, aren't you?
> 
> You're just pissed because I was able to accurately explain how Beck lies through misdirection and leading questions.
> 
> I notice you didn't address any of the actual points I made, you just attacked an out-of-context sentence.
> 
> ROFL.  Anyone with half a brain can easily see through your BS, of course Glenn Beck viewers are not famous for having even that much of a brain.
Click to expand...


With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?  

If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned? 

And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact? 

Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Beck doesn't lie.

He is dishonest though.

Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....


Why is this so hard to grasp?


----------



## Vast LWC

California Girl said:


> With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?



An excellent question.  Historically, politicians who get into battles with major media sources tend to face political consequence for their actions.

Sometimes the consequence isn't even political.

For instance, in 1901 William Randolf Hearst's media empire, which had supported William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1900 against President McKinley, implied that the president ought to be assassinated.  This was after McKinley and his allies had pretty much popularized the term "Yellow Journalism" in attacking Hearst.

McKinley was assassinated on September 6, 1901.



> If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned?



Because Van Jones was one of the seeds of truth Mr Beck used to try a prove a larger lie.

Van Jones was in fact a Communist, which is a extreme political school of thought that is distasteful to a majority of the country.  Not that anyone should be excluded from employment due to their political beliefs, but Van Jones decided to step down rather than cause controversy.



> And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact?



I only resorted to ridicule, because the poster I was ridiculing was calling me a liar, based on an out-of-context editing of my post.  Notice I am not using ridicule towards you, because you have not attacked me in this manner.



> Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?



No, I have disliked Beck for quite a while.  In fact I dislike all extremist, radical talking heads, be they Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

They all lie, usually without actually making any verifiably false statements.  They lie through implcation, misdirection, and omission.


----------



## Vast LWC

And, by the way, the only reasons Beck felt comfortable attacking Bush are:

1.  Bush was already a "Lame Duck" and was at that point a drag on the rest of the Republican party.

and

2.  The Republican party had already in general abadoned Bush, and was allowing Bush to do the dirty work that needed to be done at that point governmentally, so they could deflect the tarnish from things like the Bank Bailouts away from themselves.


----------



## The T

Vast LWC said:


> And, by the way, the only reasons Beck felt comfortable attacking Bush are:
> 
> 1. Bush was already a "Lame Duck" and was at that point a drag on the rest of the Republican party.
> 
> and
> 
> 2. The Republican party had already in general abadoned Bush, and was allowing Bush to do the dirty work that needed to be done at that point governmentally, so they could deflect the tarnish from things like the Bank Bailouts away from themselves.


 
Keep beliving this.


----------



## California Girl

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent question.  Historically, politicians who get into battles with major media sources tend to face political consequence for their actions.
> 
> Sometimes the consequence isn't even political.
> 
> For instance, in 1901 William Randolf Hearst's media empire, which had supported William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1900 against President McKinley, implied that the president ought to be assassinated.  This was after McKinley and his allies had pretty much popularized the term "Yellow Journalism" in attacking Hearst.
> 
> McKinley was assassinated on September 6, 1901.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Van Jones was one of the seeds of truth Mr Beck used to try a prove a larger lie.
> 
> Van Jones was in fact a Communist, which is a extreme political school of thought that is distasteful to a majority of the country.  Not that anyone should be excluded from employment due to their political beliefs, but Van Jones decided to step down rather than cause controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only resorted to ridicule, because the poster I was ridiculing was calling me a liar, based on an out-of-context editing of my post.  Notice I am not using ridicule towards you, because you have not attacked me in this manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have disliked Beck for quite a while.  In fact I dislike all extremist, radical talking heads, be they Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.
> 
> They all lie, usually without actually making any verifiably false statements.  They lie through implcation, misdirection, and omission.
Click to expand...


Van jumped because he had to. He didn't resign for the greater good, he quit and ran because he knew - and Obama knew - that his position was untenable. He is still a communist - at least I have found no statement from him ever distancing himself from those beliefs. Now, for the record, if he had honestly stated his position when he joined, then that is one thing. He, however, tried to hide his communist ties and that is not acceptable. 

It is important to recognize the difference between a journalist and a commentator. If a journalist lies, that is not acceptable. Commentators, on the other hand, voice opinion and debate, during which, there are going to be statements and opinions that can be misconstrued or twisted.  

Back when we had journalistic standards of integrity, it was easier to call these people out and we had far fewer issues. These days, with 24hr news, the internet etc it is impossible to maintain any standard of integrity, and with anyone able to say anything - whether it is true or not - I think that is to the detriment of society generally. It is now so hard to actually evidence anything to any degree of certainty that we may as well not bother looking for facts.


----------



## Vast LWC

California Girl said:


> Van jumped because he had to. He didn't resign for the greater good, he quit and ran because he knew - and Obama knew - that his position was untenable. He is still a communist - at least I have found no statement from him ever distancing himself from those beliefs. Now, for the record, if he had honestly stated his position when he joined, then that is one thing. He, however, tried to hide his communist ties and that is not acceptable.



As far as I know Van Jones never made a statement claiming to not be a Communist.  As he was not running for office, the question was not presented to the public.  

To whom would he have "honestly stating his position" when he joined?  Should he have made some sort of general statement in the media pronouncing his political beliefs simply because he was hired as an advisor?



> It is important to recognize the difference between a journalist and a commentator. If a journalist lies, that is not acceptable. Commentators, on the other hand, voice opinion and debate, during which, there are going to be statements and opinions that can be misconstrued or twisted.
> 
> Back when we had journalistic standards of integrity, it was easier to call these people out and we had far fewer issues. These days, with 24hr news, the internet etc it is impossible to maintain any standard of integrity, and with anyone able to say anything - whether it is true or not - I think that is to the detriment of society generally. It is now so hard to actually evidence anything to any degree of certainty that we may as well not bother looking for facts.



2 problems arise here:

1.  The lines between "Journalists" and "Commentators" blur when the networks hosting them do not specifically make statements like "The views expressed in this commentary do not express the views of the station", and the name of the station is Fox* News*.  The name of the station is not in fact "FoxOpinion Channel" and by not retracting statements made in their shows, they imply a tacit agreement with the information contained therein.

and

2.  Obviously there are many, many people, "Pale Rider" being a prime example, who take the word of commentators like Beck as *fact*, not opinion.  And FoxNews does nothing to discourage this.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making no moral equivalency arguments.  I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in your own statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those you admire were slave owners.  Are you going to judge all they say and have done by that?  Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is by their choices and policies  slavery came to be abolished .
Had they   tried to count black as having "full rights"  the souths demographics would have secured  slavery forever.
It is because of there imperfections as men, and what they did,  we can know how extraordinary their philosophy was .


> The argument is not what Mao did but the value of some of his philosophy.  Ironically - some of which is embraced by our own politicians and millitary becuase it makes damn good sense.


Military leaders may study the tactics, they are not  embracing  Mao's philosophy.
*Politicians can find ample inspiration from the writing of the founding fathers to guide them how to uphold the constitution if that is there goal.*

 If they are trying to over throw the constitution they would  want to  embrace  the philosophy of a communist revolutionary  



> there are no communist revolutionaries in Obama's administration.


 proof?


> They exist primarily in the minds of the Glen Becks and Rush Limbaugh's of this world.


They call themselves progressives.That you don't understand the problem is no surprise



> The same sort of minds that partnered Bush with Hitler.


Since you bring up Hitler, what  would be wrong with cherry picking some of Hitlers philosophy.
Is that  appropriate for any politician seeking to uphold the constitution?


----------



## The T

Vast LWC said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van jumped because he had to. He didn't resign for the greater good, he quit and ran because he knew - and Obama knew - that his position was untenable. He is still a communist - at least I have found no statement from him ever distancing himself from those beliefs. Now, for the record, if he had honestly stated his position when he joined, then that is one thing. He, however, tried to hide his communist ties and that is not acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know Van Jones never made a statement claiming to not be a Communist. As he was not running for office, the question was not presented to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it wasn't. Van Jones wasn't vetted by the Senate. He is an admitted _Communist, _and a _Black Nationalist_...And the SORT of people Obama has been surrounding himself with to "Remake" this Republic. And this doesn't ALARM you in any way? You'd rather fret over what a Cable Network does, and whom they HIRE...right?
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, &#8220;I met all these young radical people of color &#8212; I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, &#8216;This is what I need to be a part of.&#8217;&#8221; Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. &#8220;I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.&#8221; In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. &#8220;I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,&#8221; he said. &#8220;By August, I was _*a communist"*_
> To whom would he have "honestly stating his position" when he joined? Should he have made some sort of general statement in the media pronouncing his political beliefs simply because he was hired as an advisor?
> 
> [/SNIP]
> 
> *http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-green-jobs-czar-is-admitted-communist*
> 
> _Why does Obama surround himself with people like this?_ And WHY do you more importantly, DEFEND it? Do you think Van Jones had the Republic's interest at heart? Does Obama? And WHY does it bother you that Beck Exposes these people? Doing the Job that the Leftist Media refuses to do?
> 
> It's one of two things with you...you either are unaware, or you applaud it. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to recognize the difference between a journalist and a commentator. If a journalist lies, that is not acceptable. Commentators, on the other hand, voice opinion and debate, during which, there are going to be statements and opinions that can be misconstrued or twisted.
> 
> Back when we had journalistic standards of integrity, it was easier to call these people out and we had far fewer issues. These days, with 24hr news, the internet etc it is impossible to maintain any standard of integrity, and with anyone able to say anything - whether it is true or not - I think that is to the detriment of society generally. It is now so hard to actually evidence anything to any degree of certainty that we may as well not bother looking for facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen to this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 problems arise here:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The lines between "Journalists" and "Commentators" blur when the networks hosting them do not specifically make statements like "The views expressed in this commentary do not express the views of the station",
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technicality, but FOXNEWS is a NETWORK, not a station, and so the hell what? Beck shows his work./sources, and that you cannot stand...again he does the work (and showing it), that ohters fear to do because they are IN the Obama camp, and buy into "REMAKING" This Republic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the name of the station is Fox* News*. The name of the station is not in fact "FoxOpinion Channel" and by not retracting statements made in their shows, they imply a tacit agreement with the information contained therein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. SUE them. Where is your _outrage when CNN, and other Outlets (PMSNBC and OverBite/Matthews et.,al_ )do the same thing? Are YOU personally calling for the same you ask of FOX NEWS? If so? I haven't seen it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Obviously there are many, many people, "Pale Rider" being a prime example, who take the word of commentators like Beck as *fact*, not opinion. And FoxNews does nothing to discourage this.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
For the record? Member "Pale Rider" is _correct_. Hate to break it to you.


This is where you _fail_ again. Beck is showing his sources, and _commenting on it_. Therefore he is a "Political Commentator_" versus "Reporting NEWS"._
_Beck is UPFRONT about himself if YOU would care to listen._

You think FOX NEWS doesn't know this? They're ADULTS, and have I'm sure a HUGE staff of LAWYERS that keep it on the Up-and-UP.

So *IF* you have a problem with them? With BECK? Grab a LAWYER and SUE them if you think they aren't what you think they sould be, and more importantly? Add the rest of the NETWORKS that don't meet your scrutiny with some stupid-ass _disclaimer_ you seem to be wanting.

If it's good for BECK and FOX and what you're demanding of FOX, then it should be across the proverbial board, _NO?_


----------



## Fatality

RadiomanATL said:


> Glenn Beck doesn't "lie" necessarily. But he can be dishonest,



whats the difference between being dishonest and lying?


----------



## Father Time

Fatality said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck doesn't "lie" necessarily. But he can be dishonest,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whats the difference between being dishonest and lying?
Click to expand...


Ethically, nothing.


----------



## Zona

RadiomanATL said:


> Beck doesn't lie.
> 
> He is dishonest though.
> 
> Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....
> 
> 
> Why is this so hard to grasp?



An example of Maddow being dishonest please.    The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.  

We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.


----------



## 007

Vast LWC said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pissed because I was able to accurately explain how Beck lies through misdirection and leading questions.
> 
> ROFL.  Anyone with half a brain can easily see through your BS, of course Glenn Beck viewers are not famous for having even that much of a brain.
Click to expand...


Got yourself caught saying Glenn Beck lies, and then saying he didn't. Now you're wiggling and squirming your little whiny hind end off trying to save face, but in all actuality you're just making yourself out to look like an even bigger buffoon with all this psychobabble.

Well it ain't over skippy. You keep up with the dishonest rhetoric on here and as long as I read it, you're going to get called on it.

Clean up your act and you won't have to worry about it. Your liberal shit don't fly here jerk off.


----------



## ElmerMudd

Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.

He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.

His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.

He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.

Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.


----------



## rightwinger

ElmerMudd said:


> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.



Beck is doing what Fox paid him to do when he came over. Entertain and get viewers. He is not supposed to maintain serious journalism standards. If people take him seriously, its not his fault


----------



## nodoginnafight

Si modo said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, as I suspected - an excuse maker.
> 
> 
> 
> Mistakes happen.  She wasn't telling you that you said something about fear-mongering.  Sometimes we all read things a certain way that they are not meant to be.  It's completely normal, especially when we have only one communication tool available to us (just the written word).   You wouldn't want us to think that you are not normal, I hope.
Click to expand...


No she was trying to tell me that I had not addressed Old and Tired's question - which I had. About two hours BEFORE she made the claim that I hadn't. She explained HOW she made her mistake - but never admitting making the mistake.

I guess society is to blame .....


----------



## The T

ElmerMudd said:


> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.


 
Please *SHOW* the rest of the assembled class where ANY of these people, *PICK the _NETWORK_* aren't in it under similiar circumstance.

*WE* will be _waiting._


----------



## ElmerMudd

The T said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please *SHOW* the rest of the assembled class where ANY of these people, *PICK the _NETWORK_* aren't in it under similiar circumstance.
> 
> *WE* will be _waiting._
Click to expand...


ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN
If you feel Glen Beck is a mainstream journalist, I can't help you.

You probably think Jerry Springer show is just like "60 minutes"

You probably go to a mega church whith a charismatic pastor who is having affairs with paishoners and stealing money from the church and you stand up for the pastor.

You are what every snake oil salesman is looking for.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Zona said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck doesn't lie.
> 
> He is dishonest though.
> 
> Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....
> 
> 
> Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An example of Maddow being dishonest please.    The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.
> 
> We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.
Click to expand...


Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June

Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.

Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:

Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBC&#8217;s Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com

This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Fatality said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck doesn't "lie" necessarily. But he can be dishonest,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whats the difference between being dishonest and lying?
Click to expand...


Like F. Time said, ethically nothing. 

Semantically though...well it certainly provides each "side" a little bit of cover as they lob grenades across the lines.


----------



## Dr.House

"Maddow lies." _- AutoZona_


----------



## The T

ElmerMudd said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please *SHOW* the rest of the assembled class where ANY of these people, *PICK the _NETWORK_* aren't in it under similiar circumstance.
> 
> *WE* will be _waiting._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN*
> *If you feel Glen Beck is a mainstream journalist, I can't help you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Don't, and that's the POINT. He is a Commentator. Plain, Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably think Jerry Springer show is just like "60 minutes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is _horseshit._ Springer is an asshole .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably go to a mega church whith a charismatic pastor who is having affairs with paishoners and stealing money from the church and you stand up for the pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the top, and now you're getting NUTS. You are NOW talking out of your sphincter bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are what every snake oil salesman is looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nope. I look look at things with a wide view, and frankly can research things on my own. I look at the things Beck talks of, Limbaugh, Boortz or any of them for myself. So you are again talking out of your backside.

If BECK does anything? He gets people to LOOK at these things for themselves. I never said he was a Journalist. Look around at my posts _Elmer Pudd_. Unlike *YOU* I can think for myself, asswipe.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

ElmerMudd said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please *SHOW* the rest of the assembled class where ANY of these people, *PICK the _NETWORK_* aren't in it under similiar circumstance.
> 
> *WE* will be _waiting._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN
> If you feel Glen Beck is a mainstream journalist, I can't help you.
> 
> You probably think Jerry Springer show is just like "60 minutes"
> 
> You probably go to a mega church whith a charismatic pastor who is having affairs with paishoners and stealing money from the church and you stand up for the pastor.
> 
> You are what every snake oil salesman is looking for.
Click to expand...


You sure do make a lot of assumptions Fudd....therefore.....you must be a


----------



## PatekPhilippe

RadiomanATL said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck doesn't lie.
> 
> He is dishonest though.
> 
> Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....
> 
> 
> Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An example of Maddow being dishonest please.    The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.
> 
> We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June
> 
> Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.
> 
> Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:
> 
> Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBCs Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com
> 
> This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...


What did you expect from someone who has a Nazi picture as their avatar.


----------



## SmellyLemmings

euge! to that amici!!
"hurray"        "friend"


----------



## Zona

RadiomanATL said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck doesn't lie.
> 
> He is dishonest though.
> 
> Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....
> 
> 
> Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An example of Maddow being dishonest please.    The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.
> 
> We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June
> 
> Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.
> 
> Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:
> 
> Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBC&#8217;s Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com
> 
> This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for a lie from Maddow...Hello...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacy to my statement .You are trying to make moral equivalency arguments were non exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those you admire were slave owners.  Are you going to judge all they say and have done by that?  Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is by their choices and policies  slavery came to be abolished .
Had they   tried to count black as having "full rights"  the souths demographics would have secured  slavery forever.
It is because of there imperfections as men, and what they did,  we can know how extraordinary their philosophy was .
Military leaders may study the tactics, they are not  embracing  Mao's philosophy.
*Politicians can find ample inspiration from the writing of the founding fathers to guide them how to uphold the constitution if that is there goal.*

 If they are trying to over throw the constitution they would  want to  embrace  the philosophy of a communist revolutionary  

 proof?


> They exist primarily in the minds of the Glen Becks and Rush Limbaugh's of this world.


They call themselves progressives.That you don't understand the problem is no surprise



> The same sort of minds that partnered Bush with Hitler.


Since you bring up Hitler, what  would be wrong with cherry picking some of Hitlers philosophy.
Is that  appropriate for any politician seeking to uphold the constitution?


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wicked Jester said:


> Lets look at the real reasons why the lefty loons hate Beck.
> 
> 1) Nancy Killifer (Tax cheat) Beck exposed her, she's history!
> 2) Tom Daschle (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 3) Bill Richardson (Corrupt Clown) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 4) Reverend Wright (Racist, anti-american preacher) Beck exposed him, Obama thew him under the bus!
> 5) Van Jones (communist scumbag) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 6) ACORN (Corrupt liberal organization) Beck exposed them, they're history!
> 7) Charley Rangel (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, the DNC threw him under the bus.
> 
> And now, lets take a look at the lefty dirtbags Beck is going after, and RIGHTFULLY exposing:
> 1) Kevin Jennings (piece of garbage)
> 2) Cass Sunstein (insane piece of garbage)
> 3) Valerie Jarret (corrupt piece of garbage)
> 4) Anita Dunne (Mao loving piece of garbage)
> 5) Harold Koh (Sharia law loving, anti-american piece of garbage)
> 6) Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving, anti-american piece of garbage, and the most dangerous of the bunch)
> 
> The above named are going to get hammered. They will be history.
> 
> And lets not forget the most important piece of garbage that Beck absolutely MUST continue to expose:
> Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself!
> 
> Yeah, you lefty's are watching the pillars of your twisted minds crumble by the day.
> 
> Thank you Glenn Beck!
> You're a true american!


Just had to bump this to remind you loony liberal Obamabots why you hate Beck and FOX news so much.

The liberal MSM abjectly *refuses* to hold your beloved Messiah and his sham administration accountable, but Beck and FOX news damn sure will!


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is doing what Fox paid him to do when he came over. Entertain and get viewers. He is not supposed to maintain serious journalism standards. If people take him seriously, its not his fault
Click to expand...


How many more times....

Glenn Beck is NOT a JOURNALIST! Why should someone who is not a journalist maintain 'serious journalism standards'? 

What makes me really laugh about your post is that actual journalists don't maintain any journalistic standards whatsoever yet I see no complaining about them! Instead you complain about a non journalist not maintaining journalistic standards. Do you know how stupid that is?


----------



## California Girl

ElmerMudd said:


> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.



Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative. 

Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ElmerMudd said:


> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.




He practices personal responsibility and is successful to boot, and here you are bitching and moaning about it.  Go pickup your unemployment check.


----------



## nodoginnafight

isn't it pathetic when a poster keeps quoting himself to regurgitate opinions that nobody cared about the FIRST time he posted them .......


----------



## Wicked Jester

nodoginnafight said:


> isn't it pathetic when a poster keeps quoting himself to regurgitate opinions that nobody cared about the FIRST time he posted them .......


Isn't it pathetic that a lockstep Obamabot just can't admit that Beck and FOX news is holding your beloved "Manchurian Teleprompter", and his sham anti-american administration acccountable?

Fact is, Obama could blow away his wife and kids today, and by this evening lockstep loons like yourself would come up with a myriad of excuses as to why he was justified.

Face it, people like you are lunatics, NOTHING MORE!


----------



## paperview

California Girl said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...

Even though he calls himself  a conservative, he's not  a conservative.

I see.


----------



## California Girl

paperview said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though he calls himself  a conservative, he's not  a conservative.
> 
> I see.
Click to expand...


Technically, he is a Libertarian. True, they are 'conservative', but let's be factually accurate about shit.


----------



## Zona

Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think  I read something about that once.  Will check when I get home.


----------



## California Girl

Zona said:


> Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think  I read something about that once.  Will check when I get home.



I can't wait to read that. LOL.


----------



## Bfgrn

Wicked Jester said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the real reasons why the lefty loons hate Beck.
> 
> 1) Nancy Killifer (Tax cheat) Beck exposed her, she's history!
> 2) Tom Daschle (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 3) Bill Richardson (Corrupt Clown) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 4) Reverend Wright (Racist, anti-american preacher) Beck exposed him, Obama thew him under the bus!
> 5) Van Jones (communist scumbag) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 6) ACORN (Corrupt liberal organization) Beck exposed them, they're history!
> 7) Charley Rangel (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, the DNC threw him under the bus.
> 
> And now, lets take a look at the lefty dirtbags Beck is going after, and RIGHTFULLY exposing:
> 1) Kevin Jennings (*piece of garbage*)
> 2) Cass Sunstein (insane *piece of garbage*)
> 3) Valerie Jarret (corrupt *piece of garbage*)
> 4) Anita Dunne (Mao loving *piece of garbage*)
> 5) Harold Koh (Sharia law loving, anti-american *piece of garbage*)
> 6) Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving, anti-american *piece of garbage*, and the most dangerous of the bunch)
> 
> The above named are going to get hammered. They will be history.
> 
> And lets not forget the most important piece of garbage that Beck absolutely MUST continue to expose:
> Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself!
> 
> Yeah, you lefty's are watching the pillars of your twisted minds crumble by the day.
> 
> Thank you Glenn Beck!
> You're a true american!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how *YOUR* hatred for Americans is patriotism and al Qaeda's hatred for Americans is evil?
> 
> "Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
> *Barry Goldwater (R)  Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement*
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

Bfgrn said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the real reasons why the lefty loons hate Beck.
> 
> 1) Nancy Killifer (Tax cheat) Beck exposed her, she's history!
> 2) Tom Daschle (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 3) Bill Richardson (Corrupt Clown) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 4) Reverend Wright (Racist, anti-american preacher) Beck exposed him, Obama thew him under the bus!
> 5) Van Jones (communist scumbag) Beck exposed him, he's history!
> 6) ACORN (Corrupt liberal organization) Beck exposed them, they're history!
> 7) Charley Rangel (Tax cheat) Beck exposed him, the DNC threw him under the bus.
> 
> And now, lets take a look at the lefty dirtbags Beck is going after, and RIGHTFULLY exposing:
> 1) Kevin Jennings (*piece of garbage*)
> 2) Cass Sunstein (insane *piece of garbage*)
> 3) Valerie Jarret (corrupt *piece of garbage*)
> 4) Anita Dunne (Mao loving *piece of garbage*)
> 5) Harold Koh (Sharia law loving, anti-american *piece of garbage*)
> 6) Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving, anti-american *piece of garbage*, and the most dangerous of the bunch)
> 
> The above named are going to get hammered. They will be history.
> 
> And lets not forget the most important piece of garbage that Beck absolutely MUST continue to expose:
> Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself!
> 
> Yeah, you lefty's are watching the pillars of your twisted minds crumble by the day.
> 
> Thank you Glenn Beck!
> You're a true american!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how *YOUR* hatred for Americans is patriotism and al Qaeda's hatred for Americans is evil?
> 
> "Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
> *Barry Goldwater (R)  Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I do not respond on behalf of Wicked, I'd go out on a limb and suggest that disliking the 'values' of certain Americans, is not hatred for Americans. I'm not overly suprised that you don't get that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Charles Stucker

Bfgrn said:


> Please explain how *YOUR* hatred for Americans is patriotism and al Qaeda's hatred for Americans is evil?



He hates specific Americans, while al Qauda fanatics hate the American Government and allow that to act as an excuse for atrocities.
Hatred, while human, is a destructive emotion.
Atrocities are evil, whether committed by al Queda, interrogators at Gitmo under Bush's orders, or Navy pilots bombing civilian targets because of Clinton's orders. The stench of evil taints all those actions.


----------



## paperview

California Girl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though he calls himself  a conservative, he's not  a conservative.
> 
> I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, he is a Libertarian. True, they are 'conservative', but let's be factually accurate about shit.
Click to expand...

lol.

It's funny watching you contradict yourself in two seconds flat.

The party he may feel most aligned with is libertarian.  His ideology is most certainly conservative, and he bluntly and clearly states he is a conservative.

Either your barrel is very very large, or those fish are teeny wienies.  

Maybe you need a better gun?


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how *YOUR* hatred for Americans is patriotism and al Qaeda's hatred for Americans is evil?
> 
> "Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
> *Barry Goldwater (R)  Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I do not respond on behalf of Wicked, I'd go out on a limb and suggest that disliking the 'values' of certain Americans, is not hatred for Americans. I'm not overly suprised that you don't get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, what do YOU do with *garbage* in your house?
> 
> Calling an American *GARBAGE* is not "disliking the 'values' of certain Americans" ...it's *HATE*
> 
> I'm not overly surprised that YOU don't get that.
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I do not respond on behalf of Wicked, I'd go out on a limb and suggest that disliking the 'values' of certain Americans, is not hatred for Americans. I'm not overly suprised that you don't get that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what do YOU do with *garbage* in your house?
> 
> Calling an American *GARBAGE* is not "disliking the 'values' of certain Americans" ...it's *HATE*
> 
> I'm not overly surprised that YOU don't get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grow up, Bf. That is such a leap, you might as well change your username to John Glenn.
> 
> I would call them garbage too. Does that mean I hate them? No. I dislike them and what they stand for.
> 
> I don't agree with liberals on a lot (not all) of their political beliefs. Does that mean I hate liberals? No. I just disagree with them.
> 
> Stop trying to label everyone who has not been assimilated into the Obama Borg Nation as 'haters'. We aren't. And we are no less American than you.
> 
> 
> So there.
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

paperview said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though he calls himself  a conservative, he's not  a conservative.
> 
> I see.
Click to expand...


He refers to himself as a Libertarian.


----------



## paperview

California Girl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though he calls himself  a conservative, he's not  a conservative.
> 
> I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He refers to himself as a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between party identification and ideological identification?


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what do YOU do with *garbage* in your house?
> 
> Calling an American *GARBAGE* is not "disliking the 'values' of certain Americans" ...it's *HATE*
> 
> I'm not overly surprised that YOU don't get that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, Bf. That is such a leap, you might as well change your username to John Glenn.
> 
> I would call them garbage too. Does that mean I hate them? No. I dislike them and what they stand for.
> 
> I don't agree with liberals on a lot (not all) of their political beliefs. Does that mean I hate liberals? No. I just disagree with them.
> 
> Stop trying to label everyone who has not been assimilated into the Obama Borg Nation as 'haters'. We aren't. And we are no less American than you.
> 
> 
> So there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU now Wicked Jester???
> 
> 
> 
> What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.
> 
> In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.
> 
> Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here profess a belief in capitalism and extol the virtues of the good old days of the 1950's, a half century ago; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.
> 
> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
> _M. Hadeishi _
> 
> "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
> *Robert Altemeyer*
Click to expand...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Geaux saints!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances



You just described every liberal I have every known.


----------



## Bfgrn

Soggy in NOLA said:


> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described every liberal I have every known.
Click to expand...


When you're around people that are 10 times smarter than you it just FEELS that way...LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

Glenn is not garbage.  He is a fun guy.  I knew of him from the old days.  He, however, is a LDS goofball of the John Birch persuasion.  Google the John Birch Society, read it all so that you know that Eisenhower was a willing dupe of the Communites, that Cleon Skousen really knew what he was talking about -- then just back and enjoy him.  He is a hoot to listen to.


----------



## Coyote

JakeStarkey said:


> Glenn is not garbage.  He is a fun guy.  I knew of him from the old days.  He, however, is a LDS goofball of the John Birch persuasion.  Google the John Birch Society, read it all so that you know that Eisenhower was a willing dupe of the Communites, that Cleon Skousen really knew what he was talking about -- then just back and enjoy him.  He is a hoot to listen to.



The John Birch Society...been a long time since I've heard of them 


....Oh, we're meetin' at the courthouse at eight o'clock tonight
You just walk in the door and take the first turn to the right
Be careful when you get there, we hate to be bereft
But we're taking down the names of everybody turning left

Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Here to save our country from a communistic plot
Join the John Birch Society, help us fill the ranks
To get this movement started we need lots of tools and cranks....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6taS9R1KM]YouTube - John Birch Society Song[/ame]

(the updated version: The George Bush Society)


----------



## Foxfyre

Soggy in NOLA said:


> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described every liberal I have every known.
Click to expand...


Wow this thread is still going.

Beck is a libertarian (little "L", not BIG "L") conservative with a flair for the dramatic and a nose for conspiracy, whether all of that is justifiable or not.  But I do believe it is true that liberals, most especially those liberals with power, hate him with a passion because he speaks what they cannot allow.  According to Beck, the modern liberal agenda is so hateful, so oppressive, so dangerous, and so intrusive, and so destructive that the only way they can foist it on unsuspecting people is to be sure those people never hear the truth.

And in much--not all but in much--of that, Beck is 100% correct.

It is true that ideology is something different from political party, and Beck is no friend of either the GOP or the Democrats.  He believes they are cut from the same cloth and are furthering the same agenda.  There is only variance in degrees, not substance.  I do happen to agree with him on that.

In my opinion, modern American conservatives for the most part can articulate a principle and defend it.  Many modern American liberals cannot do that and the only way they know to debate is to trash those who disagree with them.

It would be far more interesting to me if we could take a Beck statement and dissect it and thoroughly explore it for validity or weakness.  Conservatives I believe could do that.  I think many if not most liberals could not and they rather focus on discrediting or trashing Beck.

I don't know how we get around that phenomenon in our modern society.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described every liberal I have every known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow this thread is still going.
> 
> Beck is a libertarian (little "L", not BIG "L") conservative with a flair for the dramatic and a nose for conspiracy, whether all of that is justifiable or not.  But I do believe it is true that liberals, most especially those liberals with power, hate him with a passion because he speaks what they cannot allow.  According to Beck, the modern liberal agenda is so hateful, so oppressive, so dangerous, and so intrusive, and so destructive that the only way they can foist it on unsuspecting people is to be sure those people never hear the truth.
> 
> And in much--not all but in much--of that, Beck is 100% correct.
> 
> It is true that ideology is something different from political party, and Beck is no friend of either the GOP or the Democrats.  He believes they are cut from the same cloth and are furthering the same agenda.  There is only variance in degrees, not substance.  I do happen to agree with him on that.
> 
> *In my opinion, modern American conservatives for the most part can articulate a principle and defend it.  Many modern American liberals cannot do that and the only way they know to debate is to trash those who disagree with them.
> *
Click to expand...


Really?  You mean like the way Al Gore was trashed?  Van Jones was trashed?  Jennings is being trashed?  Anita Dunn is being trashed?

I'm not seeing much debate on principles there....not much at all.



> *It would be far more interesting to me if we could take a Beck statement and dissect it and thoroughly explore it for validity or weakness. * Conservatives I believe could do that.  I think many if not most liberals could not and they rather focus on discrediting or trashing Beck.
> 
> I don't know how we get around that phenomenon in our modern society.



I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JakeStarkey said:


> Glenn is not garbage.  He is a fun guy.  I knew of him from the old days.  He, however, is a LDS goofball of the John Birch persuasion.  Google the John Birch Society, read it all so that you know that Eisenhower was a willing dupe of the Communites, that Cleon Skousen really knew what he was talking about -- then just back and enjoy him.  He is a hoot to listen to.



You keep posting the same thing were is the Beck JBS nexis?
What is your issue with the 5000 year leap?
Have you read it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Coyote said:


> I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.


Yeah, that didnt really happen.


----------



## Coyote

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that didnt really happen.
Click to expand...


Really?  Perhaps you'd care to explain how it was that Van Jones was a "convicted felon"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn is not garbage.  He is a fun guy.  I knew of him from the old days.  He, however, is a LDS goofball of the John Birch persuasion.  Google the John Birch Society, read it all so that you know that Eisenhower was a willing dupe of the Communites, that Cleon Skousen really knew what he was talking about -- then just back and enjoy him.  He is a hoot to listen to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting the same thing were is the Beck JBS nexis?
> What is your issue with the 5000 year leap?
> Have you read it?
Click to expand...


I met Cleon, a neat guy I thought, but a nutjob bozo politically and socially.  So is Beck.  I have read _The Naked Communist_.  Have you?  

Enjoy them but never, ever seriously consider them for a second.  Pure entertainment, nothing else.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that didnt really happen.
Click to expand...


I have to agree.  The one comment attributed to Beck that I haven't been able to verify is the one where Jones was a convicted felon.  I haven't personally heard Beck say that Jones was a convicted felon but, if he did say that, I would like to find a source to back it up.

For all the rest of it, it seems obvious that the debate has been turned on Beck rather than on the substance of his assertions.

Beck may be wrong about the felon thing.  If that was conclusively demonstrated however, I believe Beck would acknowledge it.  He has admitted error on other occasions.

Otherwise, so far I haven't seen any competent rebuttal of Beck's charges re Van Jones.  Without Beck and a few less prominent voices like him, most of America would likely still be in the dark re this extreme radical like many extreme radicals Obama has surrounded himself with.  Without somebody like Beck who is willing to stick his neck WAY out there to inform us of this stuff, we wouldn't know about any of it.  No wonder Obama and company, along with Obama's disciples, hate him so much and are seriously plotting to destroy him.   The mainstream media sure isn't going to expose anything they are doing.



> After careful consideration, I have decided that some of Van Jones actions do not meet the exacting criteria I have established for the Czar position.Barack Obama





> The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
> By: BYRON YORK
> Chief Political Correspondent
> 09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
> From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
> Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
> Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
> Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
> Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
> Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
> If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.
> 
> 9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line
> After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, "White House Says Little on Embattled Jones," on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.
> Likewise, on Friday night the "CBS Evening News" reported the Jones matter, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story.
> The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner


----------



## Foxfyre

> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just described every liberal I have every known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow this thread is still going.
> 
> Beck is a libertarian (little "L", not BIG "L") conservative with a flair for the dramatic and a nose for conspiracy, whether all of that is justifiable or not.  But I do believe it is true that liberals, most especially those liberals with power, hate him with a passion because he speaks what they cannot allow.  According to Beck, the modern liberal agenda is so hateful, so oppressive, so dangerous, and so intrusive, and so destructive that the only way they can foist it on unsuspecting people is to be sure those people never hear the truth.
> 
> And in much--not all but in much--of that, Beck is 100% correct.
> 
> It is true that ideology is something different from political party, and Beck is no friend of either the GOP or the Democrats.  He believes they are cut from the same cloth and are furthering the same agenda.  There is only variance in degrees, not substance.  I do happen to agree with him on that.
> 
> *In my opinion, modern American conservatives for the most part can articulate a principle and defend it.  Many modern American liberals cannot do that and the only way they know to debate is to trash those who disagree with them.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You mean like the way Al Gore was trashed?  Van Jones was trashed?  Jennings is being trashed?  Anita Dunn is being trashed?
> 
> I'm not seeing much debate on principles there....not much at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think those on the conservative side the spectrum engage far less in character assassination and do provide comprehensive arguments to support their opinion much better than those trashing the conservatives do.   And if you have missed the debates re principles involved in all the areas for which conservatives and liberals have been trashed--Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming, Taxes, Spending, Gay Rights, Religious freedom, etc. etc. etc.--I think you simply did not want to see them.
> 
> I dislike the politics of personal destruction no matter which side it comes from, but compare commentary re Gore et al with the pages of truly hateful message board posts, media headlines, television commentary etc. etc. etc. re George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Robert Bork, Mother Teresa, or pick a Christian leader from anywhere et al.  When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It would be far more interesting to me if we could take a Beck statement and dissect it and thoroughly explore it for validity or weakness. * Conservatives I believe could do that.  I think many if not most liberals could not and they rather focus on discrediting or trashing Beck.
> 
> I don't know how we get around that phenomenon in our modern society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you have taken apart his 'lies'.  Calling him a liar or pointing out presumed negative facts about him is not taking apart his 'lies'.  You have to show how those 'lies' are lies in order to take them apart.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Foxfyre said:


> ... When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure? ...



OMG.

You 

have

got

to

be 

kidding.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> I think those on the conservative side the spectrum engage far less in character assassination and do provide comprehensive arguments to support their opinion much better than those trashing the conservatives do.   And if you have missed the debates re principles involved in all the areas for which conservatives and liberals have been trashed--Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming, Taxes, Spending, Gay Rights, Religious freedom, etc. etc. etc.-*-I think you simply did not want to see them.*



I think you are engaging in the same sort of blindness by claiming liberals do not engage in meaningful debate but instead relay on character trashing.  I have seen a lot of character trashing from certain conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are no George Will, thoughtfully and critically approaching each issue.

I have seen character trashing from certain liberals.  I have also seen good and comprehensive discussions of issues: global warming, religious freedom, access to education, energy, Middle East.

I think character trashing indicates via deliberate distortions and innuendo and even outright lying shows that the debater has no rational argument to ride and instead relies on the politics of fear,fomenting a mob mentality, and smearing his subject with anything he can get ahold of.

The very one sided nature of your criticism indicates that you can't see it coming from your own - perhaps because they tend to be points you agree with?



> I dislike the politics of personal destruction no matter which side it comes from, but compare commentary re Gore et al with the pages of truly hateful message board posts, media headlines, television commentary etc. etc. etc. re George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Robert Bork, Mother Teresa, or pick a Christian leader from anywhere et al.  When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure?



I have seen pages of extremely hateful messageboard posts directed at Obama, both Clintons, Sotomayor, Jennings, Van Jones, Al Gore, Athiests, etc.  It's there - you just don't want to see it.

As far as trashing a liberal media figure - check out Michael Moore.


----------



## Foxfyre

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
Click to expand...


No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> I don't think you have taken apart his 'lies'.  *Calling him a liar or pointing out presumed negative facts about him is not taking apart his 'lies'.*  You have to show how those 'lies' are lies in order to take them apart.



If that was what I had done, you would be right, but it isn't.  I called him a liar, and I looked at some of his claims - not "presumed negative facts about him" - but things he actually said that were not true.

I'm not sure what they call it where you come from but I call them "lies".  Lies such as c;ao,omg  Van Jones was a convicted felon and involved in the Rodney King riots and deliberate distortions by insinuating in a smear by association that Jennings supports NAMBLA or Anita Dunn "hero worships" (his words) Mao. And that is just the most recent.

How about the following lies?

Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Or, how about when he said that $1.4 million of stimulus money was used to repair a door at Dyess AFB?  Truth: the doors repaired were aircraft hangar doors and the cost was not $1.4 million but $246,000.

Or when he said that no other President had never been sworn into office without a Bible and that he had "checked"....well, that's been debunked by another poster here.

Or claim that White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard was once the political director for Bertha Lewis?

I could go on and one further and further back....but it doesn't get any better.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90550-america-says-no-moore.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89500-mikey-moore-capitalism-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/86063-looks-like-olbermann-got-his-ass-kicked-again.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/70913-ann-coulter-rips-olbermann-a-new-one.html


----------



## Foxfyre

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think those on the conservative side the spectrum engage far less in character assassination and do provide comprehensive arguments to support their opinion much better than those trashing the conservatives do.   And if you have missed the debates re principles involved in all the areas for which conservatives and liberals have been trashed--Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming, Taxes, Spending, Gay Rights, Religious freedom, etc. etc. etc.-*-I think you simply did not want to see them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are engaging in the same sort of blindness by claiming liberals do not engage in meaningful debate but instead relay on character trashing.  I have seen a lot of character trashing from certain conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are no George Will, thoughtfully and critically approaching each issue.
> 
> I have seen character trashing from certain liberals.  I have also seen good and comprehensive discussions of issues: global warming, religious freedom, access to education, energy, Middle East.
> 
> I think character trashing indicates via deliberate distortions and innuendo and even outright lying shows that the debater has no rational argument to ride and instead relies on the politics of fear,fomenting a mob mentality, and smearing his subject with anything he can get ahold of.
> 
> The very one sided nature of your criticism indicates that you can't see it coming from your own - perhaps because they tend to be points you agree with?
Click to expand...


I have seen thoughtful commentary from liberals too, and there are several favorites that I read regularly.  Unfortunately, my experience has been that many who inhabit message boards are generally incapable of articulating a rationale argument to defend their point of view.  They substitute hateful remarks about others in lieu of valid debate points.  And I think liberals are more likely to be guilty of that than conservatives as I believe conservatives more often do have a rationale for their point of view.   Perhaps this forum will change my mind about that.  I continue to look for one that does encourage real spirited debate because our individual biases can negatively affect our perceptions when we do not have access to all points of view on a subject.

When Glenn Beck says that Van Jones has socialist or communist leanings and illustrates that point of view with Jones' verifiable associations, I don't see that as character trashing.  Perhaps you do.  But when somebody calls Al Gore a 'facist' or George W. Bush a 'liar-in-chief' or Dick Cheney a 'criminal' with nothing more than his/her prejudices to back up the opinion, I do call that character trashing.

But on your other comment though, when you criticize something, please show how your criticism is less one-sided than mine.  I would find such an illustration fascinating.



> I dislike the politics of personal destruction no matter which side it comes from, but compare commentary re Gore et al with the pages of truly hateful message board posts, media headlines, television commentary etc. etc. etc. re George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Robert Bork, Mother Teresa, or pick a Christian leader from anywhere et al.  When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen pages of extremely hateful messageboard posts directed at Obama, both Clintons, Sotomayor, Jennings, Van Jones, Al Gore, Athiests, etc.  It's there - you just don't want to see it.
> 
> As far as trashing a liberal media figure - check out Michael Moore.
Click to expand...


Again, please point me to a thread devoted to trashing Michael Moore personally or any other liberal media figure.  I don't doubt there are those who have made unkind remarks about Obama and other liberal figures, but again the distinction I make is whether a person is being trashed or his/her policy or advocacy or intent is being trashed.   I think a good debater can draw and identify such distinctions.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Foxfrye: I appreciate your reasoned point of view. I agree with much of what I have read of your posts although admittedly I haven't seen that many. But if you will scroll back in this very thread you will find several links and documentation of Beck lies. I can't say whether there are more or less than typical of those in his profession - but a couple of those cited were obviously beyond hyperbole or gaps in fact-checking. 

And as far as what appears to be a claim that those on the right do not attack political commentators on the left - well that's just absurd.

But I have appreciated what I've read of the majority of your posts and appreciate many of the insights you've shared.


----------



## rightwinger

Does Glenn Beck lie?
Is it a lie when you spout incorrect figures and continue to spout them even when proven wrong?

Did Beck lie when he said 1.7 million people showed up for his 9/12 march?

Did Beck lie when he said ACORN was receiving billions of Stimulus money?

Did Beck lie when he said Van Jones went to prison?

No...he didn't lie per se....he was just incorrect


----------



## Foxfyre

Coyote said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90550-america-says-no-moore.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89500-mikey-moore-capitalism-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/86063-looks-like-olbermann-got-his-ass-kicked-again.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/70913-ann-coulter-rips-olbermann-a-new-one.html
Click to expand...


Okay I checked each link.  Other than calling Michael Moore a 'turd' on one of them, I did not see the conservative attempting to make the object of the thread a pile of crap but rather focused on what the person said.  Convincingly showing how somebody is wrong, or that he or she is slipping in the ratings, or how he or she is committing character assassination is not committing character assassination.  Focus on the words said, not the person, and meaningful discussion can take place.

In other words I can tell you that you are wrong or say wrong things or have done bad things without implying that you are a terrible person.


----------



## Foxfyre

nodoginnafight said:


> Foxfrye: I appreciate your reasoned point of view. I agree with much of what I have read of your posts although admittedly I haven't seen that many. But if you will scroll back in this very thread you will find several links and documentation of Beck lies. I can't say whether there are more or less than typical of those in his profession - but a couple of those cited were obviously beyond hyperbole or gaps in fact-checking.
> 
> And as far as what appears to be a claim that those on the right do not attack political commentators on the left - well that's just absurd.
> 
> But I have appreciated what I've read of the majority of your posts and appreciate many of the insights you've shared.



Well thank you very much.  I appreciate the kind words.

Just to keep the record straight, however, I have not and have never claimed that those on the right cannot be as inept or as hateful or inflammatory as those on the left.  The only point I am arguing here is that those on the right are more likely to be able to articulate a reasoned argument for their point of view than those on the left are likely to do that and are probably less likely to engage in personal attacks than are those on the left.  I would be ecstaitc, thrilled, impressed, overjoyed, and abundantly grateful if somebody would prove me wrong about that.   And evenmoreso if most of us could refrain from personal defamation of those we discuss and/or each other.  (I fully realize that some would have no fun at all if they didn't do that though.)

Glenn Beck is on the radio three hours a day five days a week and is on television one hour a day five days a week, he writes books, and, because he is controversial as well as extremely entertaining, he is probably one of the most popular invited guests to other programs during any given week.

Who among us has that much public exposure without getting at least something wrong?   Is getting something wrong the same as an intentional lie?   If so, are those on the left as critical of the many misstatements chronicled from Obama's public appearances?  Biden's?  Pelosi's?  Reids?  et al?   Are they called viscious liars and smear merchants because they sometimes say something that turns out to be flat wrong?  Would it be proper for those on the right to call them that?   Or is there some give and take in allowing people to be human?

So take a statement, any statement, and by all means discredit it if you can.  Show how it doesn't hold up.  It is the inference that he is a 'lying bag of shit' or some such because he got something wrong that I can't tolerate.  Nor can I tolerate an administration that would literally attempt or condone to run somebody off the air purely because he is critical of people in that administration.

When we arrive at the point that we presume to silence those with whom we disagree or don't like, we have handed all our freedoms over to powers that almost certainly will disappoint us and not have our best interests at heart.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> The only point I am arguing here is that those on the right are more likely to be able to articulate a reasoned argument for their point of view than those on the left are likely to do that and are probably less likely to engage in personal attacks than are those on the left.



That has certainly not been my experience - my experience has been the opposite.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Who among us has that much public exposure without getting at least something wrong? Is getting something wrong the same as an intentional lie?



I agree. But when you claim a fact that is not a fact with the insistence, "I checked." that goes beyond. Had he really checked, he would have known what he planned to say was incorrect. But he insisted that he did check. That's beyond oversight. He also got called out on The View (yeah I know, but he did get nailed dead to rights) for just making up a story about one of their hosts.

Honest mistakes are understandable - but several of his go well beyond that.

But just because he has been caught in lies, doesn't mean he should be pulled from the airwaves - imho.


----------



## chanel

True nodog.  But couldn't the same be said for the President?  If Fox News (not Beck) is presenting the wrong facts, why doesn't the administration ask for a retraction?  And if they don't oblige, you know damn well the other networks would jump on that.

Is it because the WH has their own "perspective" and their own version of the "truth"?  Just sayin..


----------



## nodoginnafight

chanel said:


> True nodog.  But couldn't the same be said for the President?  If Fox News (not Beck) is presenting the wrong facts, why doesn't the administration ask for a retraction?  And if they don't oblige, you know damn well the other networks would jump on that.
> 
> Is it because the WH has their own "perspective" and their own version of the "truth"?  Just sayin..



I'm not sure which line you are talking about when you say, "couldn't the same be said of the president?"


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90550-america-says-no-moore.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89500-mikey-moore-capitalism-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/86063-looks-like-olbermann-got-his-ass-kicked-again.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/70913-ann-coulter-rips-olbermann-a-new-one.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I checked each link.  Other than calling Michael Moore a 'turd' on one of them,* I did not see the conservative attempting to make the object of the thread a pile of crap but rather focused on what the person said. * Convincingly showing how somebody is wrong, or that he or she is slipping in the ratings, or how he or she is committing character assassination is not committing character assassination.  Focus on the words said, not the person, and meaningful discussion can take place.
> 
> In other words I can tell you that you are wrong or say wrong things or have done bad things without implying that you are a terrible person.
Click to expand...


WHAT?

I don't see how you can say that in lieu of some of these comments on those threads:


> so olberman majored in "bullshit" huh? that's good to know,, Thanks to Ms. Coulter for writing the truth,, no maybe olberman will stop looking down his snotty nose at people..
> 
> He majored in it and studied it very carefully. No wonder I have to hold my nose when I see him on TV
> 
> He majored in it and studied it very carefully. No wonder I have to hold my nose when I see him on TV
> 
> Poor Mickey, nobody loves a rich fat hypocrite anymore
> 
> I keep hoping this 5000 lbs of pig shit will grab his chest and hit the floor dead !!!!




How is what is being said about Glenn Beck so much worse?  Come on - it's the same sort of crap, it's just spewing from a different aisle.


and, by the way - much of the argument here HAS been about what he SAID.


----------



## Foxfyre

Coyote said:


> I didn't read all of any of those threads--mostly scanned the first page or two--but I agree the hateful remarks about Michael Moore, especially wishing bad things to happen to him, are unnecessary and indefensible.  And had I been participating in those threads I would be as criticial of that kind of thing as I am of personal attacks on Glenn Beck or anybody else.
> 
> Please understand that I'm trying to be objective here.
> 
> Saying Glenn Beck is a hateful liar when he says Jones is a socialist would lose a debater serious points in a formal debate.
> 
> Saying that your opponent is incorrect in referring to Jones as a socialist as is shown by. . . . could be a good argument that would merit points.
> 
> Also one would have to admit to being a hypocrite if s/he thinks Beck (or anybody else) should be banned from the airways for saying wrong things unless s/he also thinks all others who say wrong things should be banned, that Obama should be impeached, that Reid and Pelosi must step down, etc.
> 
> My argument here is that there have been far more accusations of Beck personally than there have been arguments showing how he is wrong.


----------



## saveliberty

Is there a reason that I should care if the left hates Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, the nuclear family or farm animals?  Can you tell a news story from an opinion show?  Can you tell when a news outlet has a political point of view?  Do you get your news from the Colbert Report?  Sixty Minutes had news people as hosts for years, are they news?  We used to have investigative reporters and called them watchdogs.  Now some just say they don't "play nice".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
Click to expand...


Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.
Click to expand...


Some will no doubt agree with you.


----------



## ElmerMudd

California Girl said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.
> 
> He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
> His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.
> 
> His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.
> 
> He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.
> 
> Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.
> 
> Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement?  He's not a conservative.
> 
> Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...


I never said that Beck was a conservative, I said he is not helping the conservative movement.
From point blank range you shot and missed the barrel and the fish. You shoot like a girl.

Glen beck is an opportunist. He senses the hatred for Barack Obama. He feeds the hate crazed individuals exagerations and inuendo that they want to hear.

The majority of Obama detractors stay closer to the truth and have a more balanced approach to their criticism. That is not good enough for the hate crazed zealots. Glen Beck has overtaken Rush as the entertainer who feeds the crazed what they want to hear.

Glen is an opportunist not a conservative. But the vast majority of the American public associate him with the conservative movement unfortunately. This is not good for conservatives.


----------



## Zona

California Girl said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think  I read something about that once.  Will check when I get home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to read that. LOL.
Click to expand...


FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public
FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public - GT Forums

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org

*The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.*

Why would their lawyers need to do this?  

Seriously, please address this fox fans.


----------



## Dr.House

"Maddow and MSNBC lies." _- AutoZona_


----------



## Foxfyre

Zona said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think  I read something about that once.  Will check when I get home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to read that. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public
> FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public - GT Forums
> 
> Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
> Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org
> 
> *The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.*
> 
> Why would their lawyers need to do this?
> 
> Seriously, please address this fox fans.
Click to expand...


Now if you could produce a report on this subject by a source that is not intentionally anti-Fox News, we might actually get a fair and balanced view of what transpired if there was in fact such a court proceeding.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Now if you could produce a report on this subject by a source that is not intentionally anti-Fox News, we might actually get a fair and balanced view of what transpired if there was in fact such a court proceeding.



You mean Fox new DIDN'T apply their "Fair and Balanced" coverage to THIS event?

How shocking


----------



## Zoom-boing

Still bashing Beck?   Keep up the good work!  




> Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.
> 
> Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.
> 
> "The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.




Read more at: Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings


----------



## California Girl

Foxfyre said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some will no doubt agree with you.
Click to expand...


Others will consider the souce and say 'it takes one to know one'.


----------



## nodoginnafight

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.
> 
> You
> 
> have
> 
> got
> 
> to
> 
> be
> 
> kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.
Click to expand...


I disagree with foxfrye early and often and I find the suggestion that the right doesn't trash or namecall the "liberal media" highly suspect - but I think the "fool or malignant" conclusion is not accurate and a little too mean-spirited.


----------



## Coyote

Foxfyre said:


> I didn't read all of any of those threads--mostly scanned the first page or two--but I agree the hateful remarks about Michael Moore, especially wishing bad things to happen to him, are unnecessary and indefensible.  And had I been participating in those threads I would be as criticial of that kind of thing as I am of personal attacks on Glenn Beck or anybody else.
> 
> Please understand that I'm trying to be objective here.



So am I Foxfyre - but, I appreciate and respect (though don't always agree with) your point of view.



> Saying Glenn Beck is a hateful liar when he says Jones is a socialist would lose a debater serious points in a formal debate.
> 
> Saying that your opponent is incorrect in referring to Jones as a socialist as is shown by. . . . could be a good argument that would merit points.



I actually agree with you here.  However, when I called Beck a "liar" (I don't think I used the word "hateful") - I pointed out specific lies and how they were lies.



> Also one would have to admit to being a hypocrite if s/he thinks Beck (or anybody else) should be banned from the airways for saying wrong things unless s/he also thinks all others who say wrong things should be banned, that Obama should be impeached, that Reid and Pelosi must step down, etc.



I actually agree - I don't think Beck should be banned - but I do think his lies should be challanged with truth and not simply excused.



> My argument here is that there have been far more accusations of Beck personally than there have been arguments showing how he is wrong.



You may be right - I didn't really look closely at content and only replied to what did catch my attention.  My argument though is that this is not by any means behavior limited to the left - the threads I gave as examples indicate that the right is just as bad.  I think this has less to do with ideological leanings than it does from an inability to form an argument.

Or, maybe....it's just more fun to throw a pie


----------



## Coyote

Zoom-boing said:


> Still bashing Beck?   Keep up the good work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.
> 
> Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.
> 
> "The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more at: Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings
Click to expand...


I am not sure that means anything...other than what it says about the audiences in light of the below....


Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism had some interesting data in their 2009 State of the Media Report:


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR. 

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.


----------



## Coyote

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.
> 
> And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.



It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:



> In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.
> 
> Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.
> 
> The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily  both during peak moments and in general  on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing on demand news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.
> 
> *      Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJs analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOLsaw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.
> 
> *      *The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral.* For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away.  A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.


----------



## Wicked Jester

The left also hates Beck for exposing liars like ol' Al Gore:
Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: Al Gore on courts in England


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.
> 
> And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.
> 
> Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.
> 
> The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily &#8212; both during peak moments and in general &#8212; on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing &#8220;on demand&#8221; news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.
> 
> *      Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ&#8217;s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites &#8212;Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL&#8212;saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.
> 
> *      *The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral.* For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away.  A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.


----------



## Wicked Jester

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.
> 
> And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.
> 
> Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.
> 
> The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily  both during peak moments and in general  on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing on demand news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.
> 
> *      Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJs analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOLsaw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.
> 
> *      *The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral.* For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away.  A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
Click to expand...



No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!


----------



## California Girl

Wicked Jester said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.
> 
> Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!
Click to expand...


Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right. 

I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast. 

If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man. 

Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.


----------



## Coyote

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.
> 
> And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.
> 
> Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.
> 
> The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily &#8212; both during peak moments and in general &#8212; on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing &#8220;on demand&#8221; news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.
> 
> *      Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ&#8217;s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites &#8212;Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL&#8212;saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.
> 
> *      *The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral.* For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away.  A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."*
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" *that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.*
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
Click to expand...


I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches.  I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.  

Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability.  At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings.  Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News".  MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing.  People like them because they like hearing opinion.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Id call that the Bozona effect.
If I were a hack and I had the chance to make Fox look bad,
 I would answer the same way.


----------



## nodoginnafight

California Girl said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.
> 
> Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right.
> 
> I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast.
> 
> If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man.
> 
> Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.
Click to expand...


I'll also agree that if we accept there are broadcast outlets that are partisan, then there is a legimate reason for an outlet to take on the role as an advocate for a particular point of view as a counter to one that is presenting the opposite view.

I disagree as to which outlet presents the most balanced view - I think CNN is that source -but to each his or her own. But you can't accept the role of advocate for a particular point of view and ALSO present balance imho.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Coyote said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting site -  they do quite a lot of analysis of trends.  One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."*
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" *that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.*
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches.  I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.
> 
> Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability.  At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings.  Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News".  MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing.  People like them because they like hearing opinion.
Click to expand...


Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.

The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.


----------



## Coyote

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."*
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" *that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.*
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches.  I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.
> 
> Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability.  At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings.  Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News".  MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing.  People like them because they like hearing opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.
> 
> *The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.*
Click to expand...



Good point.  It did make sense at one time but definately not now.  In many ways the internet has really changed things.  On the plus side - you can get an infinite number of sources and views - on the negative side...you have to be willing to look and think critically.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> you have to be willing to look and think critically.



right on target - imho.


----------



## California Girl

nodoginnafight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.
> 
> Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right.
> 
> I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast.
> 
> If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man.
> 
> Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll also agree that if we accept there are broadcast outlets that are partisan, then there is a legimate reason for an outlet to take on the role as an advocate for a particular point of view as a counter to one that is presenting the opposite view.
> 
> I disagree as to which outlet presents the most balanced view - I think CNN is that source -but to each his or her own. But you can't accept the role of advocate for a particular point of view and ALSO present balance imho.
Click to expand...


I find it hard to comment on CNN as I know them better than the others - and I have personal issues with them. In that, during the election, one of their editors told me - to my face - that they "were gonna make Obama President". I can't source that - obviously. But that does color my view of their lack of bias!!


----------



## Intense

nodoginnafight said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."*
> 
> I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" *that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.*
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches.  I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.
> 
> Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability.  At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings.  Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News".  MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing.  People like them because they like hearing opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.
> 
> The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.
Click to expand...


We were lied to by the Networks throughout the Vietnam War. We just didn't know it.
Stolen Valor was a very informing read.  Very embarrassing for some.
Stolen Valor
How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History
B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley

http://www.stolenvalor.com/


----------



## RadiomanATL

Zona said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of Maddow being dishonest please.    The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.
> 
> We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June
> 
> Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.
> 
> Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:
> 
> Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBCs Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com
> 
> This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lie from Maddow...Hello...
Click to expand...


Does your computer not allow you to click on links, or are you too stupid to do so?


----------



## Wicked Jester

RadiomanATL said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June
> 
> Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.
> 
> Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:
> 
> Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBCs Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com
> 
> This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lie from Maddow...Hello...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your computer not allow you to click on links, or are you too stupid to do so?
Click to expand...

Uh, it's obviously the latter!


----------



## QUENTIN

I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.



QUENTIN said:


> I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.
> 
> I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.
> 
> This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.
> 
> Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.
> 
> I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.



It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.

The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.

CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.


----------



## California Girl

QUENTIN said:


> I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.
> 
> I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.
> 
> This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.
> 
> Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.
> 
> I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.
> 
> The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.
> 
> CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.
Click to expand...


Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate. 

So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information. 

*Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*

*Sniggers at idiots*


----------



## QUENTIN

California Girl said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.
> 
> I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.
> 
> This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.
> 
> Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.
> 
> I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.
> 
> The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.
> 
> CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.
> 
> So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.
> 
> *Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*
> 
> *Sniggers at idiots*
Click to expand...


Translation: Yeah, I got nothing. There is no evidence of Beck doing that or liberals praising him, because neither of those things actually happened. I was lying, good call.


----------



## QUENTIN

Series of Events:

1.) CaliforniaGirl lies, makes various claims that have nothing to back them up and a tremendous amount of evidence to demonstrate they're untrue over the course of several years of Beck praising Bush and being critiqued and laughed at by the left pre-Obama.

2.) Gets called out, asked for evidence.

3.) Ignores it.

4.) Is called out again, this time explicitly referred to as a liar and told to EITHER demonstrate the validity of her claims or stop making them.

5.) Tries to pull this hypocritical dodge off: "Someone who calls me a liar for lying and wants me to prove my claims or shut up is an ASSHOLE and an IDIOT. How unreasonable and uncivil of THEM. They should FUCK OFF, without qualification... No, I cannot provide evidence to back up my claim that my entire argument rests on because none exists."


----------



## ElmerMudd

California Girl said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.
> 
> I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.
> 
> This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.
> 
> Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.
> 
> I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.
> 
> The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.
> 
> CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.
> 
> So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.
> 
> *Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*
> 
> *Sniggers at idiots*
Click to expand...


"like shooting fish in a barrel"
You missed the barrel and the fish.

And then you ran away from any debate.


----------



## California Girl

QUENTIN said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.
> 
> The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.
> 
> CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.
> 
> So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.
> 
> *Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*
> 
> *Sniggers at idiots*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Yeah, I got nothing. There is no evidence of Beck doing that or liberals praising him, because neither of those things actually happened. I was lying, good call.
Click to expand...


Translation: I am an idiot and would accept a link to some partisan MSM site but California Girl does not deem these to be credible sources...... Gee I wonder if that's because the MSM are not a credible source for anyone - left or right - to link to to back up anything. 

Beck most certainly did hammer Bush during his Administration. And a variety of Dems quoted him. Just because you didn't hear it does not mean it didn't happen.


----------



## California Girl

QUENTIN said:


> Series of Events:
> 
> 1.) CaliforniaGirl lies, makes various claims that have nothing to back them up and a tremendous amount of evidence to demonstrate they're untrue over the course of several years of Beck praising Bush and being critiqued and laughed at by the left pre-Obama.
> 
> 2.) Gets called out, asked for evidence.
> 
> 3.) Ignores it.
> 
> 4.) Is called out again, this time explicitly referred to as a liar and told to EITHER demonstrate the validity of her claims or stop making them.
> 
> 5.) Tries to pull this hypocritical dodge off: "Someone who calls me a liar for lying and wants me to prove my claims or shut up is an ASSHOLE and an IDIOT. How unreasonable and uncivil of THEM. They should FUCK OFF, without qualification... No, I cannot provide evidence to back up my claim that my entire argument rests on because none exists."



FYI: California Girl is in a different time zone to the US - therefore, she may be asleep when idiots insist she respond to their asinine comments. 

California Girl also works for a living. Unlike some, I do not spend the whole day monitoring this forum just in case I need to respond to idiots. 

I see you are still unable to POST without using CAPITAL LETTERS to make a POINT. Are you afraid that your POSTS are so FUCKING BORING that no one will READ them unless you put CAPITAL LETTERS in them?

I have stated, time and again, that posting links to the MEDIA is not a VALID source to back up ANYTHING. Since I say this, it would be a tad hypocritical of me to post a link to such a site to back up my claims.


----------



## California Girl

ElmerMudd said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.
> 
> The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.
> 
> CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.
> 
> So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.
> 
> *Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*
> 
> *Sniggers at idiots*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "like shooting fish in a barrel"
> You missed the barrel and the fish.
> 
> And then you ran away from any debate.
Click to expand...



ElmerFudd is a good name for you - you are a cartoon character. I'm in a different fucking country to you, idiot. Therefore a different time zone. 

Jeeeeez, some people are stupid.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.



MSNBC spews MUCH more biased informaton than ANY NEWS channel.  What the MSM and apparently the White House is having trouble understanding is that there are news programs on Fox and there are opinion programs on Fox.  Their opinion shows completely dominate the ratings....yet they only represent the opinion of the host.  The liberals are pissed off because those types of shows dig up factual information and use it against the Obama administration.  Obama cannot control Fox news...thus the baseless attacks on Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly.  Notice they don't attack any Fox News Channel anchors or news programs...only the opinion shows.  The Obama Administration thinks Americans are stupid and have a 2 minute sound bite attention span...in some cases he is correct and it's up to others to point this out to the duped.


----------



## Zoom-boing

PatekPhilippe said:


> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSNBC spews MUCH more biased informaton than ANY NEWS channel.  What the MSM and apparently the White House is having trouble understanding is that there are news programs on Fox and there are opinion programs on Fox.  Their opinion shows completely dominate the ratings....yet they only represent the opinion of the host.  The liberals are pissed off because those types of shows dig up factual information and use it against the Obama administration.  Obama cannot control Fox news...thus the baseless attacks on Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly.  Notice they don't attack any Fox News Channel anchors or news programs...only the opinion shows.  The Obama Administration thinks Americans are stupid and have a 2 minute sound bite attention span...in some cases he is correct and it's up to others to point this out to the duped.
Click to expand...


  


The WH doesn't have any issues with Fox _News_, imo.  They have a problem with Fox opinion - specifically Beck.  But they can't cry about opinion shows . . . last I checked free speech was still allowed . . . .so they drum up this shit about Fox News.  What a fucking joke.



> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PatekPhilippe again.


----------



## Intense

Zoom-boing said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSNBC spews MUCH more biased informaton than ANY NEWS channel.  What the MSM and apparently the White House is having trouble understanding is that there are news programs on Fox and there are opinion programs on Fox.  Their opinion shows completely dominate the ratings....yet they only represent the opinion of the host.  The liberals are pissed off because those types of shows dig up factual information and use it against the Obama administration.  Obama cannot control Fox news...thus the baseless attacks on Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly.  Notice they don't attack any Fox News Channel anchors or news programs...only the opinion shows.  The Obama Administration thinks Americans are stupid and have a 2 minute sound bite attention span...in some cases he is correct and it's up to others to point this out to the duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WH doesn't have any issues with Fox _News_, imo.  They have a problem with Fox opinion - specifically Beck.  But they can't cry about opinion shows . . . last I checked free speech was still allowed . . . .so they drum up this shit about Fox News.  What a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PatekPhilippe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I think that The White House has a problem with Everyone, not under It's Spell.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> I think that The White House has a problem with Everyone, not under It's Spell.



It would certainly appear that way, and even as the administration is being less shy by directly attacking the opposition, it also seems more and more obvious that they are assigning and/or sanctioning surrogate groups like Van Jones' "Color of Change" group to do the sabotage.  Nobody from Joe the Plumber to Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. etc. etc. are to be respected for exercising free speech.  All must be destroyed lest they hinder whatever goals are on the day's menu.

Want to convince me that my growing apprehension is unfounded?   Give me examples of the administration respecting, tolerating, or even being polite to those who oppose them or the current agenda.


----------



## Rinata

I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.

Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.

On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?" 

Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Rinata said:


> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.



FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.

Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America

I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.


----------



## Foxfyre

RadiomanATL said:


> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.



Good catch.  The George Soros funded (at least in part) Media Matters has been a designated attack dog for the more radical Democrat left and now the Obama machine for quite some time now.  It would be interesting to see how much of their acid commentary could be supported if put in accurate context?


----------



## Foxfyre

nodoginnafight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not kidding.  Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with foxfrye early and often and I find the suggestion that the right doesn't trash or namecall the "liberal media" highly suspect - but I think the "fool or malignant" conclusion is not accurate and a little too mean-spirited.
Click to expand...


By the way, Nodog, I did want to respond to this and, while disagreeing with me, thanking you for at least not agreeing that I was a 'fool or malignant'.  

I would never say that the right doesn't trash or namecall the 'liberal media'.  My gosh I've done it myself often enough.

But to be precise here, I was asking for threads started by somebody on the right for the specific purpose of trashing a leftwing media source and/or for the specific purpose of trashing the character or person of some famous figure.  Another member did provide links to those he thought qualified, and I accept that in his opinion he thinks that they do.  There were certainly remarks in those threads that qualified, but was that the purpose of the thread?

I don't know.  I could be dead wrong.  But it just seems to me that those on the right focus more on concepts, ideas, policy, and procedure and less on the character of the people involved.   But perhaps that doesn't count if there are ANY snarky or ugly or hateful remarks made.

Personally, I long for a site that focused entirely on concepts and disallowed any ad hominem references of any kind.  Probably there are none on the internet.


----------



## Intense

I only wish I could someday live up to the Morals and Ethics of Barney Franks, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid.


----------



## potter 58

hEY INTENSE , WE KNOW, YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE UP TO MARK FOLEY, FAGGERT, SWAGERT AND WHERE DID FAT DENNIS HASTERT GO ANYWAY, NOT TO MENTION THAT MORAL BASTION OF THE CONDEVATIVE CAUSE , GOOD OLE NEWT, YOU REMEMBER THAT ASSWIPE, LED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EVEN WHILE HE WAS DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING, YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET


----------



## PatekPhilippe

potter 58 said:


> hEY INTENSE , WE KNOW, YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE UP TO MARK FOLEY, FAGGERT, SWAGERT AND WHERE DID FAT DENNIS HASTERT GO ANYWAY, NOT TO MENTION THAT MORAL BASTION OF THE CONDEVATIVE CAUSE , GOOD OLE NEWT, YOU REMEMBER THAT ASSWIPE, LED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EVEN WHILE HE WAS DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING, YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET



Newt didn't get caught and then lie about under oath did he?


----------



## Intense

potter 58 said:


> hEY INTENSE , WE KNOW, YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE UP TO MARK FOLEY, FAGGERT, SWAGERT AND WHERE DID FAT DENNIS HASTERT GO ANYWAY, NOT TO MENTION THAT MORAL BASTION OF THE CONDEVATIVE CAUSE , GOOD OLE NEWT, YOU REMEMBER THAT ASSWIPE, LED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EVEN WHILE HE WAS DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING, YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET



Actually Potter58, I was being sarcastic. I believe Felons should be behind bars and I don't encourage children to imitate them. Isn't it time for your medication Son?


----------



## paperview

PatekPhilippe said:


> potter 58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hEY INTENSE , WE KNOW, YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE UP TO MARK FOLEY, FAGGERT, SWAGERT AND WHERE DID FAT DENNIS HASTERT GO ANYWAY, NOT TO MENTION THAT MORAL BASTION OF THE CONDEVATIVE CAUSE , GOOD OLE NEWT, YOU REMEMBER THAT ASSWIPE, LED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EVEN WHILE HE WAS DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING, YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newt didn't get caught and then lie about under oath did he?
Click to expand...

But for the grace of 40 million dollars to investigate,






there goeth Newt.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

paperview said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> potter 58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hEY INTENSE , WE KNOW, YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE UP TO MARK FOLEY, FAGGERT, SWAGERT AND WHERE DID FAT DENNIS HASTERT GO ANYWAY, NOT TO MENTION THAT MORAL BASTION OF THE CONDEVATIVE CAUSE , GOOD OLE NEWT, YOU REMEMBER THAT ASSWIPE, LED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EVEN WHILE HE WAS DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING WHILE HIS WIFE WAS DYING, YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newt didn't get caught and then lie about under oath did he?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for the grace of 40 million dollars to investigate,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there goeth Newt.
Click to expand...



40 million?  Chicken feed when one considers that their sitting President committed a felony, then plead guilty to a lesser charge.


----------



## Intense

Newt changes horses too often. I'm not into those one world Government types. Take that and the carbon emission scams and leave town.


----------



## paperview

PatekPhilippe said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newt didn't get caught and then lie about under oath did he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But for the grace of 40 million dollars to investigate,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there goeth Newt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 40 million?  Chicken feed when one considers that their sitting President committed a felony, then plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Click to expand...

Er, no.

That didn't happen. 

No felony.   Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Yes he was...but as an agreement to cease and desist any more prosecutions he was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas and the Supreme Court.


----------



## ElmerMudd

California Girl said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.
> 
> So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.
> 
> *Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*
> 
> *Sniggers at idiots*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "like shooting fish in a barrel"
> You missed the barrel and the fish.
> 
> And then you ran away from any debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerFudd is a good name for you - you are a cartoon character. I'm in a different fucking country to you, idiot. Therefore a different time zone.
> 
> Jeeeeez, some people are stupid.
Click to expand...


name calling, a few cuss words, all a cover because you do not want to debate 

My point was Beck is bad for conservatives. Not that he is a conservative. He is a snake oil salesman looking for suckers like you.


----------



## Old Rocks

California Girl said:


> They hate him because he is dangerous.  When he goes after an individual, he makes damned sure he has verifiable facts to back up what he says. He has a pretty good research team behind him. Millions of people watching him simply because he comes across as a decent, and flawed, man. American like decent, flawed, people. Because mainly we are decent, flawed, people. So they relate to him. He is the epitome of what we admire - a self made man who has made mistakes, put them right, admitted them and used his experience to make him a better human being.


----------



## Rinata

RadiomanATL said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
Click to expand...


If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.


----------



## Rinata

Foxfyre said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good catch.  The George Soros funded (at least in part) Media Matters has been a designated attack dog for the more radical Democrat left and now the Obama machine for quite some time now.  It would be interesting to see how much of their acid commentary could be supported if put in accurate context?
Click to expand...


Why don't you two clowns stop dancing and comment on what I posted about Glenn Beck. Well????


----------



## paperview

Rinata said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
Click to expand...

Not sourcing a post you presented as your own work, and is not - is wrong.
 It violates copyright laws and shows you to be a plagiarist.


----------



## JW Frogen

I can't figure out why anyone would hate Glen Beck?

 Do you hate PT Barnum, Hulk Hogan or Walt Disney?

They sold what they sell, everyone needs some fantasy every now and then to help a spoon full of reality go down.


----------



## JW Frogen

Personally I prefer a bottle of booze, but if you need if from the "news", drink up!


----------



## rightwinger

Rinata said:


> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.



Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes
Click to expand...


Oh good grief. Here we go again with the race card. We really do need to stop this constant whine of racism to silence anyone who dares speak out against your Messiah. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!


----------



## Coyote

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief. Here we go again with the race card. We really do need to stop this constant whine of racism to silence anyone who dares speak out against your Messiah. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Click to expand...


mmmmhhhh....the only one calling him "Messiah" is....you guys


----------



## rightwinger

Glenn Beck ....Racist
Got watermelon??

Cliff Notes from the South: Glenn Beck Slices a Watermelon to Make a Point



> Just months after a cartoon linked the stimulus bill with a monkey, Glenn Beck is now linking the climate change (cap and trade) bill with a watermelon. Unlike the cartoon, which some people claimed was never connected directly to Obama, Beck's use of the watermelon coincides with his guest's statement that the bill was being pushed by Obama.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Glenn Beck ....Racist
> Got watermelon??
> 
> Cliff Notes from the South: Glenn Beck Slices a Watermelon to Make a Point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just months after a cartoon linked the stimulus bill with a monkey, Glenn Beck is now linking the climate change (cap and trade) bill with a watermelon. Unlike the cartoon, which some people claimed was never connected directly to Obama, Beck's use of the watermelon coincides with his guest's statement that the bill was being pushed by Obama.
Click to expand...


Ah another disciple of Media Matters.

It seems to be that the context of the Beck clip had absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the bill itself--the President didn't write the bill--and was to illustrate that the bill "looks green on the outside, but inside is 'communist red'."

So you and Media Matters translate that to a watermelon being connected to Obama which I presume is interpreted as a racist metaphor.

Beck didn't make that connection.

You and Media Matters did.

So let's evaluate who is the racist in this conversation.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes
Click to expand...


I don't see Racism in Beck. If it's there, He hides it well. I confess that I'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see Racism in Beck. If it's there, He hides it well. I confess that I'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.
Click to expand...


Got watermelon??


----------



## Intense

If one could interview Glenn about His views on Racism or Antisemitism, what would You ask Him?


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is an open racist calling President Obama a racist. His tactics and tone are reminicent of Joe McCarthy and Lonesome Rhodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Racism in Beck. If it's there, He hides it well. I confess that I'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got watermelon??
Click to expand...


The video specifically references Green Policies in relation to Red Communist Policies. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Don't see the connection with Race. It's a stretch.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> I don't see Racism in Beck. If it's there, He hides it well. I confess that I'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.



I presume you mean his _Arguing with Idiots. . ._ book and not _Common Sense?_  I don't like the cover either--it triggers a negative response in me--but out of curiosity, why do you think it is in poor taste?


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Racism in Beck. If it's there, He hides it well. I confess that I'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got watermelon??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video specifically references Green Policies in relation to Red Communist Policies. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Don't see the connection with Race. It's a stretch.
Click to expand...


Lets see....how can we best illustrate president Obama's environmental policies??

I got it!     Watermelon!

All he was missing was the black face and the Minstrel Dancers


----------



## Intense

foxfyre said:


> intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't see racism in beck. If it's there, he hides it well. I confess that i'm disturbed by the cover of his new book. It is in poor taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i presume you mean his _arguing with idiots. . ._ book and not _common sense?_  i don't like the cover either--it triggers a negative response in me--but out of curiosity, why do you think it is in poor taste?
Click to expand...


wwii.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got watermelon??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video specifically references Green Policies in relation to Red Communist Policies. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Don't see the connection with Race. It's a stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see....how can we best illustrate president Obama's environmental policies??
> 
> I got it!     Watermelon!
> 
> All he was missing was the black face and the Minstrel Dancers
Click to expand...


But why is it that you relate watermelon to black face and the rest of us don't?  I buy watermelon all the time and I don't recall a single time that I immediately thought of black face and minstrel dancers.

I think somebody who automatically thinks black when he sees watermelon might want to rethink his own prejudices.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got watermelon??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video specifically references Green Policies in relation to Red Communist Policies. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Don't see the connection with Race. It's a stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see....how can we best illustrate president Obama's environmental policies??
> 
> I got it!     Watermelon!
> 
> All he was missing was the black face and the Minstrel Dancers
Click to expand...


My position is that first, I support much of what Glenn is doing. Second, If one was looking on things to criticize about Him, there is much more, without having to stretch so far, to target. Why are you so sensitive to this, and so unmoving in relation to what has been uncovered with ACORN? Be honest.


----------



## Intense

Becks base was Seattle, not Atlanta. Do we need to probe into how many Hendrix albums he might have owned? Was he Anti-Motown? Do you have anything to go on or is this a witch hunt? Is Glenn hiding a White Supremest Past? Is he the white version of Reverend Wright?


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video specifically references Green Policies in relation to Red Communist Policies. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Don't see the connection with Race. It's a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see....how can we best illustrate president Obama's environmental policies??
> 
> I got it!     Watermelon!
> 
> All he was missing was the black face and the Minstrel Dancers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My position is that first, I support much of what Glenn is doing. Second, If one was looking on things to criticize about Him, there is much more, without having to stretch so far, to target. Why are you so sensitive to this, and so unmoving in relation to what has been uncovered with ACORN? Be honest.
Click to expand...


To be perfectly honest. It is grossly hypicrytical for Beck to openly call the President of the United States a racist while he does a watermelon bit to critique the presidents environmental policy

Someone in Becks position realizes the historical relevance of using symbols like watermelon and fried chicken to describe a black man. It was not an innocent mistake. It was using a watermelon to make a child like analogy.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see....how can we best illustrate president Obama's environmental policies??
> 
> I got it!     Watermelon!
> 
> All he was missing was the black face and the Minstrel Dancers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is that first, I support much of what Glenn is doing. Second, If one was looking on things to criticize about Him, there is much more, without having to stretch so far, to target. Why are you so sensitive to this, and so unmoving in relation to what has been uncovered with ACORN? Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest. It is grossly hypicrytical for Beck to openly call the President of the United States a racist while he does a watermelon bit to critique the presidents environmental policy
> 
> Someone in Becks position realizes the historical relevance of using symbols like watermelon and fried chicken to describe a black man. It was not an innocent mistake. It was using a watermelon to make a child like analogy.
Click to expand...


It's still reaching. Jumping at shadows. You may even be getting baited. You come out losing that type of an argument, best to find something more substantive. The Characters from the ACORN Video's must must have had you pulling your hair out. Straight out of the 70's & 80's Starsky and Hutch. LOL. Why did We even go through the polyester phase? Why does it even exist? LOL

Keep Glenn Humble and He stays on track. He works that Howard Beale thing well. The Prophet thing is dangerous for anyone to play. There are lines nobody crosses, without Justification.


----------



## Rinata

paperview said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sourcing a post you presented as your own work, and is not - is wrong.
> It violates copyright laws and shows you to be a plagiarist.
Click to expand...


Look, I don't owe anybody an explanation. Did anybody ask me if I had forgotten to post the link or at least politely ask if I could please post it? Hell no. 

I always intend to provide a link to what I post, okay?? If I forget, I forget. The missing link sure offended people. But the lies of Glenn Beck do not. Check your priorities, people. my priority is the board's rules. if you post copyrighted material,*you must post a link and you may not post the piece in its entirety.* thanks-del


----------



## Intense

Rinata said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sourcing a post you presented as your own work, and is not - is wrong.
> It violates copyright laws and shows you to be a plagiarist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't owe anybody an explanation. Did anybody ask me if I had forgotten to post the link or at least politely ask if I could please post it? Hell no.
> 
> I always intend to provide a link to what I post, okay?? If I forget, I forget. The missing link sure offended people. But the lies of Glenn Beck do not. Check your priorities, people.
Click to expand...


Calm Down.... Calm Down..... Are You Calm..... Good.... Now .... How Much Kool-Aid did you Drink.... ?????? Are we okay here yet.... ???? Good. Just stay away from sharp utensils  and don't drive until you get centered.... Whew, that was close.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Rinata said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly why I don't like Glenn Beck. He's a liar and a drama queen.
> 
> Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.
> 
> On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?"
> 
> Oh please!!! How you people can defend this lunatic is absolutely amazing. Because if you do, you are sicker than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
Click to expand...


So you intended to be dishonest and plagiarize? You seem to get a bit huffy when called on it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Rinata said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good catch.  The George Soros funded (at least in part) Media Matters has been a designated attack dog for the more radical Democrat left and now the Obama machine for quite some time now.  It would be interesting to see how much of their acid commentary could be supported if put in accurate context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you two clowns stop dancing and comment on what I posted about Glenn Beck. Well????
Click to expand...


Glenn Beck is a dishonest fucktard. And so are Media Matters. I believe I've already said as much at least 3 or 4 times in this thread. Not my fault you can't seem to keep up.

Now about YOUR dishonesty....


----------



## RadiomanATL

Rinata said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sourcing a post you presented as your own work, and is not - is wrong.
> It violates copyright laws and shows you to be a plagiarist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't owe anybody an explanation. Did anybody ask me if I had forgotten to post the link or at least politely ask if I could please post it? Hell no.
> 
> I always intend to provide a link to what I post, okay?? If I forget, I forget. The missing link sure offended people. But the lies of Glenn Beck do not. Check your priorities, people.
Click to expand...


*coughcoughBULLSHITcoughcough*


----------



## Rinata

RadiomanATL said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, if you are going to cut and paste something, the honest thing to do is provide a link to the original author/site.
> 
> Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents | Media Matters for America
> 
> I'm sure that they would appreciate proper credit for their ideological press releases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you intended to be dishonest and plagiarize? You seem to get a bit huffy when called on it.
Click to expand...


God, you're dumb. Must everything be spelled out for you?? That's not what I said. But you can think what you like. You are not anybody whose opinion I care about. Now go pray to your picture of Glenn Beck and change the flowers in the coffee can that are next to it.


----------



## skookerasbil

Geeez..........how much did the left get publically pwned last month when ACORN got humiliated by Glenn Beck.
It was classic.................


----------



## PatekPhilippe

skookerasbil said:


> Geeez..........how much did the left get publically pwned last month when ACORN got humiliated by Glenn Beck.
> It was classic.................



Lefties...for the fail.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Rinata said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to provide a link, I would have. Believe me, I don't need advice from the peanut gallery. Or maybe I mean the peanut brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you intended to be dishonest and plagiarize? You seem to get a bit huffy when called on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, you're dumb. Must everything be spelled out for you?? That's not what I said. But you can think what you like. You are not anybody whose opinion I care about. Now go pray to your picture of Glenn Beck and change the flowers in the coffee can that are next to it.
Click to expand...


So you deny getting huffy and defensive.....by getting huffy and defensive?

And ya, I must be pretty dumb if I called you on your bullshit. Anything else you have to add or deny?


----------



## Ame®icano

Why the left hates Glenn Beck?

Aperently, some agrees with him. 



> This may be one of the few times Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck endorses a policy of liberal Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).
> 
> Always a stickler for the constitutional privileges of Congress, Feingold is holding a hearing on &#8220;the history and legality of executive branch &#8216;czars&#8217;&#8221; before the Judiciary subcommittee he chairs. Feingold has been among a handful of liberals who aren&#8217;t fans of the proliferation of czars in the White House, contending that these unconfirmed advisers have too much executive power and infringe on the Senate&#8217;s advise-and-consent role on confirming executive nominations.



*Strange bedfellows: Beck, Feingold?* 

But what is this all about? It looks like the Congress wants some of those "czars" to testify before them, and white house rejected those calls. 



> The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it.
> Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.



*W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify*

Reason behind all of this is ethical cloud that still hangs over Browner&#8217;s head after she left the EPA. Here is what happened...



> *On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge&#8217;s order requiring the agency to preserve its records.* This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: &#8220;One of the things I&#8217;m the proudest of at EPA is the work we&#8217;ve done to expand the public&#8217;s right to know.&#8221;
> 
> *Asked to explain her track-covering actions, the savvy career lawyer played dumb. Figuratively batting her eyelashes, Browner claimed she had no clue about a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth on the same day she commanded an underling to wipe her hard drives clean.* Golly gee willikers, how could that have slipped by?
> 
> According to testimony in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against EPA by Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, *Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: &#8220;I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files.&#8221; *
> 
> Not coincidentally, Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. *Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents*.



*Down on Browner*

So question is, does Congress has authority to call president's senior advisors to testify before Congress? Whatever answer is, you gotta love those czars.


----------



## Intense

This Czar thing needs to go away. I have an Idea, let's structure the three branches of the Federal Government according to Constitutional Purpose and function. I apologize. I'm talking crazy, I realize that now.... I am overcome with the effects of Right Wing Extremism .... It's only temporary.... I am sorry I questioned Government.... I didn't mean to.... don't punish me... no more sensitivity training please... oh the horror... Please stop playing that song in my head... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81fwLNklSM]YouTube - Starland Vocal Band Afternoon Delight[/ame]


I promise to vote how you tell me, I will believe everything I hear on the news without question. ... Make the music stop..... It's worse than Olberman!!!!


----------



## Maple

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country




And he has exposed many of those RADICAL LEFT communist czars that the President has appointed.


----------



## saveliberty

Issue a supeonea.  Then throw them in jail until they testify.  (Dare we bring up waterboarding?)


----------



## Intense

saveliberty said:


> Issue a supeonea.  Then throw them in jail until they testify.  (Dare we bring up waterboarding?)



Obama will Pardon Them, Unlike Bush.


----------



## Foxfyre

I got tired of some local folks here complaining about Glenn Beck and his "irrational, extremist, crazy, hate-mongering" etc. etc.   I knew these folks to not be particularly ideological in their point of view and played them a couple of recordings of some of Glenn's commentary without identifying him.  Then, after they agreed that this guy was okay and spot on accurate, I invited them to watch one of his television shows.  He did himself proud that day.

They are now fans.

I think most thinking people who actually give him a chance become fans.  I certainly don't agree with him on every point any more than I agree with anybody on every point.  But I have yet to watch or listen to Beck that I haven't learned something, that I haven't received something to think about, or that I haven't had my curiosity tweaked enough to look something up.  He doesn't get everything right.  Unlike certain of our elected leaders, he doesn't consider himself infallible or God.  But he does his homework and he's putting a lot of information out there.

I challenge his worse critics to give him a fair chance and actually listen to a few programs before declaring him the worst thing to ever hit the airways.


----------



## Foxfyre

Here's a couple of Glenn Beck's extremist presentations.  I would be interested to know what the Beck critics think of them:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONbp0LSSgo4]YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [1/2] -- FOX News[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCiWJ2Sz7i8&feature=youtube_gdata]YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [2/2] -- FOX News[/ame]


----------



## saveliberty

Doesn't the blackboard just scream, I want you to really learn something today.  A series of facts, leading to a logical conclusion, based in reality.  

I like the nine principles:

1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.
2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.
3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.


----------



## Intense

saveliberty said:


> Doesn't the blackboard just scream, I want you to really learn something today.  A series of facts, leading to a logical conclusion, based in reality.
> 
> I like the nine principles:
> 
> 1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.
> 2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.
> 3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.
> 4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.
> 5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
> 6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.
> 7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
> 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.
> 9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.



I support Glenn, but am not bound or limited to His Perception. Others have said it better, and in better context. Again I support Him. Don't get so easily caught up in the Dogma.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the blackboard just scream, I want you to really learn something today.  A series of facts, leading to a logical conclusion, based in reality.
> 
> I like the nine principles:
> 
> 1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.
> 2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.
> 3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.
> 4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.
> 5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
> 6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.
> 7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
> 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.
> 9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support Glenn, but am not bound or limited to His Perception. Others have said it better, and in better context. Again I support Him. Don't get so easily caught up in the Dogma.
Click to expand...


I don't think these nine principles are necessarily 'dogma' from Beck or anybody else in particular and I could be wrong, but I don't think the member is quoting Beck here.  Beck does hit on many of these themes over a period of time, however.  Actually they are pretty good principles to live by even if one is not a religious person.


----------



## Rinata

Glenn Beck has been crowned big medias King of Hate.

In a new report that warns of the potential for anti-government violence since President Obamas election, the Anti-Defamation League singles out Fox News TV pundit and radio host Beck for making a habit of promoting anti-government conspiracy theories from his mainstream media perch.

Beck has acted as a fearmonger-in-chief, raising anxiety about and distrust towards the government, the studys authors write, reports the New York Daily News.

The ADL study cites instances where Beck has called President Obama dangerous and compared him to Hitler to argue the case that Beck may be putting his viewers on a path to becoming extremists.The ADL also faults the popular and polarizing host for providing a platform to guests who tout paranoid fears like: Obama and his administration are trying to create a civilian national security force of political loyalists; or, that FEMA is building concentration camps to contain dissidents.

Glenn Beck "Fearmonger-In-Chief": ADL | NBC New York


----------



## The T

Rinata said:


> ]*
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck has been crowned big medias King of Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> By whom? YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a new report that warns of the potential for anti-government violence since President Obamas election, the Anti-Defamation League singles out Fox News TV pundit and radio host Beck for making a habit of promoting anti-government conspiracy theories from his mainstream media perch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear Mongering BULLSHIT against someone that DARES to speak OUT against Government ABUSE of the PEOPLE...Try again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beck has acted as a fearmonger-in-chief, raising anxiety about and distrust towards the government, the studys authors write, reports the New York Daily News.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he IS raising the ALARM much as *PAUL REVERE* did a messanger of a different time...the PRINCIPLE is that same...and YOU cannot seem to fathom this. YOU would be NO worthy of the British Sympathesisers in this respect. UNTIL Beck does something WRONG? Shaddup...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *ADL* study cites instances where Beck has called President Obama dangerous and compared him to Hitler to argue the case that Beck may be putting his viewers on a path to becoming extremists.The ADL also faults the popular and polarizing host for providing a platform to guests who tout paranoid fears like: Obama and his administration are trying to create a civilian national security force of political loyalists; or, that FEMA is building concentration camps to contain dissidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Bullshit TRIPE. Polarizing under what auspices? What a fuckin TOOL you are...UNTIL the FIRST AMENDMENT is repealed, or AMENDED? Get BENT. Glenn has you fuckers NAILED to the proverbial CROSS...
> 
> Glenn Beck "Fearmonger-In-Chief": ADL | NBC New York
Click to expand...


----------



## Rinata

Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.

You can do it!!!!


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!



The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality. 

Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view. Not once as the WH been able to counter a single fact presented by Beck about this Administration. Beck, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. The constant attacking actually give him more credence - if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says? 

I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but when it comes to presenting facts, he's got it nailed. He's a libertarian - he is as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else. I find it funny that he annoys you so much.


----------



## Father Time

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view.
Click to expand...


No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.


----------



## California Girl

Father Time said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's the whining liberal media who hate him.... because they don't know how to counter him. The left would love to have someone like Beck on their side.... sadly, those who have his talents are too smart to agree with the left about anything - other, possibly, than the time of day.


----------



## Father Time

California Girl said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's the whining liberal media who hate him.... because they don't know how to counter him.
Click to expand...


"if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?"

I'm confused are they supposed to counter every blessed thing he says or are they supposed to ignore him when he acts err 'off'? Methinks it's whatever's convenient for you.

By the way why hasn't Glenn Beck responded to allegations that he raped a murdered a girl in 1990? Is it because he can't counter them?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Have the investigator done anything more about the supposed allegations of rape and mutilations of the remains of that poor girl?


----------



## California Girl

Father Time said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's the whining liberal media who hate him.... because they don't know how to counter him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?"
> 
> I'm confused are they supposed to counter every blessed thing he says or are they supposed to ignore him when he acts err 'off'? Methinks it's whatever's convenient for you.
> 
> By the way why hasn't Glenn Beck responded to allegations that he raped a murdered a girl in 1990? Is it because he can't counter them?
Click to expand...


I think it's pathetic that people still continue with the offensive allegations even now. It does not, however, surprise me that pathetic people use pathetic tactics to disparage someone like Beck.  There is no level to which some will not stoop in their vitriol and faux outrage about the guy. No matter that it is offensive to anyone who has had a family member raped and murdered - nope, don't worry about anyone but the need to destroy a perfectly decent, innocent individual. Carry on. The only people who look like assholes are those who continue to use this 'allegation'. To decent people, you are on a par with those who started this stupid nonsense. 

There is a thread on here where a weeks worth of Becks facts are provided with the challenge to disprove any of what he has said. So far, interestingly, not one person has bothered to actually disprove anything....  Instead, they choose to fall back on lies in some rather deranged attempt to derail the facts. Pathetic.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> Have the investigator done anything more about the supposed allegations of rape and mutilations of the remains of that poor girl?



You really are one of the most pathetic losers on this forum, Joke. I guess that explains the low rep count.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> Here's a couple of Glenn Beck's extremist presentations.  I would be interested to know what the Beck critics think of them:
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [1/2] -- FOX News
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [2/2] -- FOX News



Worth repeating


----------



## California Girl

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a couple of Glenn Beck's extremist presentations.  I would be interested to know what the Beck critics think of them:
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [1/2] -- FOX News
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [2/2] -- FOX News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worth repeating
Click to expand...


The only people who would like to silence Beck are those who are afraid of what he says. I find that entertaining as hell.  

And they always fall back on the same lie to justify their stupidity. I find it strange that people would prefer to regurgitate a lie - knowing that it is a lie - than seek the truth.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Are we still on Beck?  I thought Palin was the 'one to hate' de jour.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, until those allegations about Glenn are investigated fully, we will never know the truth.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, until those allegations about Glenn are investigated fully, we will never know the truth.



Just when we think you really cannot be any more stupid, you do - indeed - prove the whole forum wrong. 

I respect anyone, left or right, who uses legitimate argument and reason to make a point. Using a snipe website allegation - which has already been admitted to as fake - truly is just pathetic. It's insulting to real victims and real families and those who are falsely accused. It is, however, no surprise that people like you continue it. Because you have absolutely no morals.


----------



## saveliberty

The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, until those allegations about Glenn are investigated fully, we will never know the truth.



Is it Conscience or Jealousy???


----------



## Nosmo King

saveliberty said:


> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.


It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.

And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.  

Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.  

The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## saveliberty

Nosmo King said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...


Care to give your definition of socialism?  Most of us are working off of the AMerican Hertiage Dictionary version:  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 

Consult public insurance option and GM bailout under Obama as examples.


----------



## California Girl

Nosmo King said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...


Intelligent people watch Beck for factual information that the rest of the media refuse to divulge. Some people take everything he says as gospel, but even Beck himself says people should think for themselves. I don't always agree with his conclusions - but he's open for the WH to debunk anything he says.... and yet they do not - because they cannot. This Administration goes hell for leather after anyone who dares report anything even vaguely inaccurate.... Why the silence about what Beck says?


----------



## Intense

Nosmo King said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...


Unfettered Capitalism? You act like the Government plays no role in the corruption. I see the silent partner, co-conspirator, sorry Charlie. What is greed? When Government Workers displace the Middle Class? What do Government workers produce? Transport? Distribute? Governments Role is taking over every aspect of our lives. Wake the Fuck Up!!!


----------



## Nosmo King

California Girl said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people watch Beck for factual information that the rest of the media refuse to divulge. Some people take everything he says as gospel, but even Beck himself says people should think for themselves. *I don't always agree with his conclusions - but he's open for the WH to debunk anything he says.... and yet they do not - because they cannot.* This Administration goes hell for leather after anyone who dares report anything even vaguely inaccurate.... Why the silence about what Beck says?
Click to expand...

That's the core of the argument, isn't it?  But take a look at the assumption you make: WH to debunk anything he says.... and yet they do not - because they cannot.

_"Because they cannot"_?  That's the fulcrum supporting your contention Beck is accurate and not just hyperbole and fear mongering.

Political reality is it would be stupid for the White House to even notice Beck.  Why grant him time, and thereby profits, when Beck has no respect for Obama?

The White House should always punch up to get their message out.  Never down.


----------



## Nosmo King

Intense said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left hates Glenn Beck because he is slowing down the socialist revolution.  Good for him.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfettered Capitalism? You act like the Government plays no role in the corruption. I see the silent partner, co-conspirator, sorry Charlie. What is greed? When Government Workers displace the Middle Class? What do Government workers produce? Transport? Distribute? Governments Role is taking over every aspect of our lives. Wake the Fuck Up!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah!  The unfettered Capitalism that lead to the financial system meltdown!  I suppose there was a House committee that explicitly passed legislation permitting derivatives?  Oh wait!  There was such an action!  In the name of deregulation!  

No cop on the beat means an increase in crime.


----------



## saveliberty

Derivatives would not even be a factor if mortages had been based on ability to pay.  That falls on the underwriters at Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae.  Market to market was also created by government.  That made the problem much worse.


----------



## Father Time

California Girl said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's the whining liberal media who hate him.... because they don't know how to counter him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?"
> 
> I'm confused are they supposed to counter every blessed thing he says or are they supposed to ignore him when he acts err 'off'? Methinks it's whatever's convenient for you.
> 
> By the way why hasn't Glenn Beck responded to allegations that he raped a murdered a girl in 1990? Is it because he can't counter them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's pathetic that people still continue with the offensive allegations even now. It does not, however, surprise me that pathetic people use pathetic tactics to disparage someone like Beck.  There is no level to which some will not stoop in their vitriol and faux outrage about the guy. No matter that it is offensive to anyone who has had a family member raped and murdered - nope, don't worry about anyone but the need to destroy a perfectly decent, innocent individual. Carry on. The only people who look like assholes are those who continue to use this 'allegation'. To decent people, you are on a par with those who started this stupid nonsense.
> 
> There is a thread on here where a weeks worth of Becks facts are provided with the challenge to disprove any of what he has said. So far, interestingly, not one person has bothered to actually disprove anything....  Instead, they choose to fall back on lies in some rather deranged attempt to derail the facts. Pathetic.
Click to expand...


And the award for the biggest failure to recognize satire goes to...


----------



## Father Time

Nosmo King said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people watch Beck for factual information that the rest of the media refuse to divulge. Some people take everything he says as gospel, but even Beck himself says people should think for themselves. *I don't always agree with his conclusions - but he's open for the WH to debunk anything he says.... and yet they do not - because they cannot.* This Administration goes hell for leather after anyone who dares report anything even vaguely inaccurate.... Why the silence about what Beck says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the core of the argument, isn't it?  But take a look at the assumption you make: WH to debunk anything he says.... and yet they do not - because they cannot.
> 
> _"Because they cannot"_?  That's the fulcrum supporting your contention Beck is accurate and not just hyperbole and fear mongering.
> 
> Political reality is it would be stupid for the White House to even notice Beck.  Why grant him time, and thereby profits, when Beck has no respect for Obama?
> 
> The White House should always punch up to get their message out.  Never down.
Click to expand...


When exactly has the white house ever taken time to respond to a pundit, whether it be under a republican or democrat?

This whole 'they won't respond to it because they can't' is just purely stupid. They don't take time off to respond to loudmouth non journalists, or else they'd have to respond to every two bit hack with a microphone. If Beck wants his stuff answered so bad he could join the press and ask the white house at a press conference, yet he doesn't.

It's akin to why won't glenn beck mention the accusations that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

Oh and why are you so hellbent on trying to silence those who are just asking questions? Why are you so afraid of the possibility that glenn beck raped and murdered someone in 1990?


----------



## Father Time

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a couple of Glenn Beck's extremist presentations.  I would be interested to know what the Beck critics think of them:
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [1/2] -- FOX News
> 
> YouTube - Glenn Beck -- Your Choice: America's Founders vs Obama's Radicals [2/2] -- FOX News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worth repeating
Click to expand...


Uh both videos have been removed from youtube.


----------



## Nosmo King

saveliberty said:


> Derivatives would not even be a factor if mortages had been based on ability to pay.  That falls on the underwriters at Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae.  Market to market was also created by government.  That made the problem much worse.


There was no oversight!  There was deregulation which permitted all those pop up mortgage companies.  The market was as culpable as the state.  But the state's culpability is its lack of oversight.


----------



## saveliberty

Nosmo King said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Derivatives would not even be a factor if mortages had been based on ability to pay.  That falls on the underwriters at Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae.  Market to market was also created by government.  That made the problem much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no oversight!  There was deregulation which permitted all those pop up mortgage companies.  The market was as culpable as the state.  But the state's culpability is its lack of oversight.
Click to expand...


Deregulation caused the mortgage crisis?  Right.  Barney Franks and company bear the weight of that one.  If there was a lack of regualtion, it was because Franks wanted it that way.  Mortgage companies are suppose to follow government rules (regulation).


----------



## Truthmatters

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country




I dont hate him for any other reason than he is going to get someone killed with his false outrage and hate.


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont hate him for any other reason than he is going to get someone killed with his false outrage and hate.
Click to expand...


So, your username is a fallacy then.


----------



## Foxfyre

Father Time said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Okay, I think CG comes across as neither desperate nor thick.  And I think none of us are privy to what she thinks other than what she posts here.  So you lost a lot of credibility in your conclusion right off the bat.

You might be able to redeem yourself if you pick a particular point that Beck emphasizes and give us a nice, clear, coherent reason for why it pisses you off.  It will be helpful if you focus on one of the points or themes that he regularly touches on to make it easier to collect supporting data for our opinions here.


----------



## Intense

Nosmo King said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.  It's a departure from the disaster that unfettered Capitalism has wrought.  If you think tinkering with the marginal tax rates for the wealthy is all that is needed to bring the economy back from the brink, then you really need to get to a good school of economics!  That policy lead us into the era of greed and plunder and the crisis we now face.
> 
> And the Left does not HATE Glenn Beck.  We pity him for his method of fear mongering which appeals to the intellectually incurious and the ignorant.  We see Glenn Beck as a comic yet tragic figure who is inevitably going to shoot himself in his foot.
> 
> Believing in Glenn Beck is easy for those with no real life perspective.  Just as believing in Fascism was easy for the economically depressed Germans and Italians just before World War II.
> 
> The simple are lead by simplicity.  Simplicity will not unravel the mess left by years of coddling the rich at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered Capitalism? You act like the Government plays no role in the corruption. I see the silent partner, co-conspirator, sorry Charlie. What is greed? When Government Workers displace the Middle Class? What do Government workers produce? Transport? Distribute? Governments Role is taking over every aspect of our lives. Wake the Fuck Up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!  The unfettered Capitalism that lead to the financial system meltdown!  I suppose there was a House committee that explicitly passed legislation permitting derivatives?  Oh wait!  There was such an action!  In the name of deregulation!
> 
> No cop on the beat means an increase in crime.
Click to expand...


Either or, as if there are no other perspectives. The problem with incompetent Bureaucrat's is that they attract Rats and Sharks. Unfettered Capitalism as in? Building Standards? UL Requirements? Product Integrity Standards? If The Government received It's compensation from Border Security, Import Regulation, Inspection, and Control, where would We be today? Where would the Government be? Earning an honest buck. Why are Our Factories closing down? Our Mills? Our Economy? Stop trying to suck the rest of Us into Your Lie. You are entitled to a cage, if that's what You feel You need, but  You should start respecting Individual Decision, I for one want to Live Free, as in Life Liberty, and Property. If You cannot respect Private Property, however big or small, that makes You a Predator. A government that is Predatory is a Tyranny and It's days are numbered. Don't turn Us into a Tyranny.


----------



## Intense

Nosmo King said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Derivatives would not even be a factor if mortages had been based on ability to pay.  That falls on the underwriters at Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae.  Market to market was also created by government.  That made the problem much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no oversight!  There was deregulation which permitted all those pop up mortgage companies.  The market was as culpable as the state.  But the state's culpability is its lack of oversight.
Click to expand...


You are too kind. Barney Frank must be coming in his pants right about now. Hint... Follow the money.


----------



## uscitizen

Should we hate the fool that misleads his followers, or pity the followers themselves for enableing him?


----------



## Intense

uscitizen said:


> Should we hate the fool that misleads his followers, or pity the followers themselves for enableing him?



Hate the Sin not the Sinner.


----------



## uscitizen

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we hate the fool that misleads his followers, or pity the followers themselves for enableing him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate the Sin not the Sinner.
Click to expand...


But without the sinner we would have no sin?


----------



## Father Time

Foxfyre said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you're just being desperate, or incredibly thick. That's what you wish the left would hate him for, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I think CG comes across as neither desperate nor thick.  And I think none of us are privy to what she thinks other than what she posts here.  So you lost a lot of credibility in your conclusion right off the bat.
> 
> You might be able to redeem yourself if you pick a particular point that Beck emphasizes and give us a nice, clear, coherent reason for why it pisses you off.  It will be helpful if you focus on one of the points or themes that he regularly touches on to make it easier to collect supporting data for our opinions here.
Click to expand...


I don't pay attention to Beck, but I do know why people hate him and it's not just because he leans right.


----------



## Foxfyre

Father Time said:


> I don't pay attention to Beck, but I do know why people hate him and it's not just because he leans right.



I don't presume to know all the reasons people hate Glenn Beck or why people hate anybody.  But I do believe most hate him because they have been told to hate him.  My reason for believing that is that so few who seem to hate him have any clue about what he actually says about anything.


----------



## Intense

Objective Reason can be Really Scawy in Times like this where 2 + 2 = 5.


Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!!! Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!!!

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!! Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!!!


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view. Not once as the WH been able to counter a single fact presented by Beck about this Administration. Beck, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. The constant attacking actually give him more credence - if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?
> 
> I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but when it comes to presenting facts, he's got it nailed. He's a libertarian - he is as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else. I find it funny that he annoys you so much.
Click to expand...


There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??

You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.

Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.


----------



## Intense

Rinata said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view. Not once as the WH been able to counter a single fact presented by Beck about this Administration. Beck, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. The constant attacking actually give him more credence - if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?
> 
> I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but when it comes to presenting facts, he's got it nailed. He's a libertarian - he is as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else. I find it funny that he annoys you so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??
> 
> You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.
> 
> Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.
Click to expand...


Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.


----------



## saveliberty

Rinata said:


> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!



If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?

A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.


----------



## Intense

saveliberty said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?
> 
> A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.
Click to expand...


I tolerate His Nine Principles, but they are off the mark.


----------



## Intense

But I am here to tell you something important: You are not alone, and if you believe in a majority of these nine principles then keep watching because I am going to prove it to you to.

1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.

2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.

3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.
Nine Principles to Believe In - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com


----------



## Intense

Intense said:


> But I am here to tell you something important: You are not alone, and if you believe in a majority of these nine principles then keep watching because I am going to prove it to you to.
> 
> 1. America is good place, not perfect, but good.
> 
> Doesn't really jump out at Me.
> Put God First in All Things Through Conscience. The Rest will follow.
> 
> 
> 2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.
> 
> He should have started with this one.
> America, Land of Inalienable Right, Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness, Equal Justice.
> 
> 
> 3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.
> 
> Bear Witness, Tell the Truth about What You See. Multiply, Replenish The Earth. Avoid Corruption in Compromise.
> 
> 
> 4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.
> God, Truth, Justice, are Sacred, God is The Ultimate Authority. Perspectives grow and Change, Applications change, Purpose and Principle may grow in Function, but Their Nature Remains.
> 
> 
> 5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
> Justice was meant to be Impartial, not blind to the Truth. Time to remove The Blindfold and start earning that Reward. Impartiality in Judgement.
> 
> 
> 6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.
> 
> We All Matter, Individually and Collectively, Let not the Majority stand on the Neck or Back of the Minority in Matters of Conscience. Each to Their Will, Each to what They will Allow, with No expectation from Another, against Their Will.
> 
> 
> 7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
> 
> Federalism, as described by Madison and Jefferson, Enumerated Powers, Government by The Consent of The Governed. New Authorities by Constitutional Amendment Only. 75% Approval, before Any New Power can be Acted upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.
> 
> Subjective Reason Gifts Us with Ideas and Opinions, These and the Forms of How We Communicate should be protected under The Constitution.
> 
> 9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.
> 
> The Government works for Us as a People, a Diverse People, by Our Consent. It is Empowered by Our Consent, and Limited by Our Consent, Best None forget that. We do Answer to Government in that Which We have Lent It, To Maintain, and Referee, for the Good of The Society. We should Always Honor that and Improve Upon, rather than tear down and destroy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nine Principles to Believe In - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com





It's late, I'm tired. Just a poor example of what bothers Me about the nine Principles. Glenn, Screw with Principles, one day meet the Principal. Stay well.


----------



## Father Time

I don't see why believing in God is so damn important, it doesn't make you a better person.


----------



## Rinata

Intense said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view. Not once as the WH been able to counter a single fact presented by Beck about this Administration. Beck, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. The constant attacking actually give him more credence - if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?
> 
> I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but when it comes to presenting facts, he's got it nailed. He's a libertarian - he is as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else. I find it funny that he annoys you so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??
> 
> You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.
> 
> Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.

And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it. 

There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.


----------



## Rinata

saveliberty said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?
> 
> A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Change someone's mind??? You are kidding, I hope. You cannot think that you are going to change anybody's mind on this site. If that is your goal, good luck. It's not mine.

I did not like the response I got from that cow that calls herself CA Girl. She wishes. I'm tired of being called names and insulted. If you want to take it, that's your business. But I'm tired of it. I responded to her in kind, and that's what she deserved.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?
> 
> A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change someone's mind??? You are kidding, I hope. You cannot think that you are going to change anybody's mind on this site. If that is your goal, good luck. It's not mine. ....
Click to expand...

That's a shame, really; but I understand why - it's somewhat challenging to attempt to do so.

There are a couple of posters here who have very opposite political views from mine yet because they presented a thoughtful and logical argument, they were successful in changing my mind.  But, they had to actually apply thought to their posts.  Your way involves little thought but lots of emoting.  I know there are sites where such strong feelings are actually valued - Oprah, Dr. Phil, Harlequin paperback fans, etc.- where such emoting as yours is highly valued.



> ....  I did not like the response I got from that cow that calls herself CA Girl. .... I'm tired of being called names and insulted. ....


LMFAO!


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??
> 
> You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.
> 
> Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
Click to expand...


And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. That makes you a racist honey. You can't see past the color of his skin. Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot. 

Because you didn't see the TEA party protests during the Bush years does not mean that there were no protests but, again, you're too fucking stupid to know that. You didn't see them so they didn't happen. Again, makes you an idiot. 

I think you're a racist. You voted for Obama because he is black.


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about your post is that you actually appear to believe the bullshit you post. I think it's sad that you are either too stupid or too caught up in the spell of Obama to see reality.
> 
> Beck pisses off the left because he offers a different view. Not once as the WH been able to counter a single fact presented by Beck about this Administration. Beck, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. The constant attacking actually give him more credence - if he's so far off the mark - if he's such a fucking nutjob - why worry about what he says?
> 
> I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but when it comes to presenting facts, he's got it nailed. He's a libertarian - he is as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else. I find it funny that he annoys you so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??
> 
> You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.
> 
> Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.
Click to expand...


If there's a 'hater' around here, little girl, it is you. Beck has the courage to admit what he was and to use it to make himself a better person. You, on the other hand, are just a nasty little racist.


----------



## saveliberty

Rinata said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, did I upset you?? I'm so sorry. It's just that I am trying to help you, can't you see that?? You and the other tea bagging wingnuts are in such denial. You have to face the truth about people that you idolize and learn to think for yourselves.
> 
> You can do it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?
> 
> A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change someone's mind??? You are kidding, I hope. You cannot think that you are going to change anybody's mind on this site. If that is your goal, good luck. It's not mine.
> 
> I did not like the response I got from that cow that calls herself CA Girl. She wishes. I'm tired of being called names and insulted. If you want to take it, that's your business. But I'm tired of it. I responded to her in kind, and that's what she deserved.
Click to expand...


So it is an eye for an eye in politics and internet boards.  But we expect D.C. to be better.


----------



## Intense

Father Time said:


> I don't see why believing in God is so damn important, it doesn't make you a better person.



Well Personally I feel it does, yet it is not necessary. I believe that We are All created and purposed by God, and We Each have our to do list. His reason for Our Being, out weighs, Our tangents. He believes in You, even if You don't acknowledge Him. If You live through Conscience, accepting Moral Value and Ideals, Your Compass is still working, there is Hope. 
Ayn Rand was a devout Atheist, Yet she spoke of Inalienable Right, Soul, Virtue, Ideals, Moral Right. Maybe what makes Us feel better is accomplishment, Growth, Realization, Discovery, doing Good.


----------



## Intense

Rinata said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is somebody stupid around here, dear, but it sure isn't me. You actually expect me to believe that Beck is just "speaking his mind"??? That he pisses off the left because he has a "different view"? And that when it comes to presenting facts, he's "got it nailed"??
> 
> You are as sick as he is. Nothing he says is mired in facts of any kind, and you know it. Beck is a crazy alcoholic that is a dry drunk if I ever saw one. Angry and hateful. Anybody that defends him is as sick as he is.
> 
> Mark my words that he will have a total breakdown one of these days and be sent to a funny farm. Which is where you belong, right along with him. You sure don't belong in CA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
Click to expand...


Just busting Your chops. Sometimes You make it easy. 
Potential for Black Presidents, All preferable to Obama?

Clarence Thomas.
Colin Powell.
Condoleza Rice.
Bill Cosby.
Morgan Freeman.
Danny Glover.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpZO7jSMoBg[/ame]


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. That makes you a racist honey. You can't see past the color of his skin. Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> Because you didn't see the TEA party protests during the Bush years does not mean that there were no protests but, again, you're too fucking stupid to know that. You didn't see them so they didn't happen. Again, makes you an idiot.
> 
> I think you're a racist. You voted for Obama because he is black.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about. And from now on you are on total ignore. I don't like talking to people like you. There is never anything of substance in your post. So get lost and go post to the people that like being cussed at. I'm not one of them.


----------



## Father Time

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. *Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


You assume that we hate Glenn Beck because he's patriotic or whatever dumb reason you like to pull from a hat. Ah irony.


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. That makes you a racist honey. You can't see past the color of his skin. Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> Because you didn't see the TEA party protests during the Bush years does not mean that there were no protests but, again, you're too fucking stupid to know that. You didn't see them so they didn't happen. Again, makes you an idiot.
> 
> I think you're a racist. You voted for Obama because he is black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about. And from now on you are on total ignore. I don't like talking to people like you. There is never anything of substance in your post. So get lost and go post to the people that like being cussed at. I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...


  Oh no! I'm on ignore! 

It's easier to ignore the truth than face it.


----------



## Rinata

saveliberty said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were truly trying to change someone's mind, do you really think calling them tea baggers (versus tea party memebers), wingnuts (versus conservatives) and unable to think for themselves is going to help them see your point?
> 
> A lack of intelligence is not the problem with any of the people in this debate.  I find Beck's nine principles to be very helpful.  I don't agree with him all the time, but that is not necessary for him to be useful for me.  Just to give you a little insight, I usually read the news online or NBC/CNN and make up my mind about issues.  Sometimes I read things here and do follow up research.  What is weird is when I say or think something and the next thing I know, it is being said on TV.  Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change someone's mind??? You are kidding, I hope. You cannot think that you are going to change anybody's mind on this site. If that is your goal, good luck. It's not mine.
> 
> I did not like the response I got from that cow that calls herself CA Girl. She wishes. I'm tired of being called names and insulted. If you want to take it, that's your business. But I'm tired of it. I responded to her in kind, and that's what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is an eye for an eye in politics and internet boards.  But we expect D.C. to be better.
Click to expand...


As a rule, I don't believe in an eye for an eye. But you are entitled to interpret my behavior in any way you choose. 

And I am better. You don't see me dropping F-bombs on anybody on this site or cussing at them. But I am not going to be nice to people that are abusive. It's that simple.


----------



## Rinata

Intense said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like You are over reacting a bit. Even Howard Beale has a role to play and Glenn plays it well. You are probably still blind to ACORN as well. One of these days the Light is going to hit you like a shit storm. Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just busting Your chops. Sometimes You make it easy.
> Potential for Black Presidents, All preferable to Obama?
> 
> Clarence Thomas.
> Colin Powell.
> Condoleza Rice.
> Bill Cosby.
> Morgan Freeman.
> Danny Glover.
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpZO7jSMoBg[/ame]
Click to expand...



I don't have the slightest idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## saveliberty

In the last election, I would have preferred Hillary to Obama.  I think she had more experience and a drive to get things done.  Seems to me women are considered a minority group too.  Future pick:  Deval Patrick?


----------



## California Girl

Father Time said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. *Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume that we hate Glenn Beck because he's patriotic or whatever dumb reason you like to pull from a hat. Ah irony.
Click to expand...


It would be irony if I had ever said that. But the irony is that you are too fucking stupid to know what I have said, even when you can read it. 

Take your head out of your ass and work on fact not fiction. Idiot.


----------



## Intense

Father Time said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am over reacting??? It was she that responded to the post I did in her usual confrontational attack mode. If you think that I am going to be meek in my response, then you're nuts too.
> 
> And I am not blind to anything. That would be you and the rest of the haters. No light is going to hit me, so stop with the drama. What's really going on is that you people cannot accept a black president. Deny it all you want, but you're full of it.
> 
> There is no reason on this earth to be as hateful as you people are. Especially when the last president made such a mess. I didn't see you fools out there protesting with tea bags in your eyes then, did I? So there really is nothing you can tell me. I can see through you all like an xray machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And that is why I insult you. Because you assume that it's because he's black. *Personally I just disagree with his policies - as I am perfectly entitled to do. You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume that we hate Glenn Beck because he's patriotic or whatever dumb reason you like to pull from a hat. Ah irony.
Click to expand...


What Glenn is to You, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman would be to Me.  I do not hate Them.  Glenn has hit some pretty impressive Bullseye's.  They have yet to.


----------



## mattskramer

In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking. 

The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show. 

Beck is a jerk.


----------



## Intense

mattskramer said:


> In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking.
> 
> The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
> 
> Beck is a jerk.



Pay Him no mind then. I thank Him for His Part in the outing of ACORN. A part Few had the courage to play. 
Outing Czar's that had no place in Government at all. 
Say what You will, He has effected History.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

mattskramer said:


> In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking.
> 
> The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
> 
> Beck is a jerk.



What's wrong with asking what he did about Ellison.....besides being a religion....Islam is a political system...


----------



## California Girl

Intense said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking.
> 
> The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
> 
> Beck is a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay Him no mind then. I thank Him for His Part in the outing of ACORN. A part Few had the courage to play.
> Outing Czar's that had no place in Government at all.
> Say what You will, He has effected History.
Click to expand...


The thing that really makes me laugh is the way the left rant about Beck. If he's just a fool, why bother ranting?  I watch him - though I often disagree with his conclusions - because he provides a lot of very useful, factually accurate information. The problem with the terminally stupid (left and right) is that they take every word he says as either absolute truth or absolute lies.  In fact, for the most part, he evidences every opinoin he forms and provides his audience with the facts on which he bases these opinions. Far more that that, he appears to be one of the few people asking questions... what is so very wrong with asking questions. I was raised to believe that asking questions was a good thing, and intelligent thing.


----------



## saveliberty

Thirty-five pages for someone with no impact or importance to the American political landscape?  I think we will keep him around a bit longer.


----------



## Claudette

Glen Beck asks the questions all Americans are asking. He has the facts to back it up what he says. He dislikes the Dems and the Reps and he sure doesn't play favorites. He bashs Bush right alongside Ol'BO. 

The fitst time I watched him I thought the guy was a little nuts. Then I really listened to what he was saying and he is 100% right. We need to take our country back and start  following the Constitution. He thinks the Clown sin DC are a pack of self-serving idiots and I agree, they are. 

Beck is fun to watch and he makes perfect sense to anyone with Common Sense.


----------



## Intense

Claudette said:


> Glen Beck asks the questions all Americans are asking. He has the facts to back it up what he says. He dislikes the Dems and the Reps and he sure doesn't play favorites. He bashs Bush right alongside Ol'BO.
> 
> The fitst time I watched him I thought the guy was a little nuts. Then I really listened to what he was saying and he is 100% right. We need to take our country back and start  following the Constitution. He thinks the Clown sin DC are a pack of self-serving idiots and I agree, they are.
> 
> Beck is fun to watch and he makes perfect sense to anyone with Common Sense.



Following disturbs Me. Open Eyes and a Purpose Driven Life. No substitute for Understanding, no greater enemy to the Totalitarian.


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking.
> 
> The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
> 
> Beck is a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with asking what he did about Ellison.....besides being a religion....Islam is a political system...
Click to expand...


Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies


----------



## Intense

mattskramer said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, appeared on Glenn Beck. Beck told him, I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. This prompted Jon Stewart to comment, Finally, a guy who says what people who arent thinking are thinking.
> 
> The incident earned Beck a spot on the alternative weekly Buffalo Beast s list of 2006s most loathesome people. The paper wrote, Its like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
> 
> Beck is a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with asking what he did about Ellison.....besides being a religion....Islam is a political system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies
Click to expand...


If You were to imply that You don't trust Anyone, there would at the least be a thread of Honesty, on Your part. I suspect that what You don't trust is Anything Politically Right of You.


----------



## Dystopia

From time to time have watched Glen Beck on Fox News, and he is boring to me as a spokesman. He is not a scholar with political thought for the left or with the right. All he is and always will be is to notice the current political standings and make comments. The weird his comments and the weirder they are, people will spend time to refute his comments. With Glen Beck, it is best not to feed the troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

California Girl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, until those allegations about Glenn are investigated fully, we will never know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when we think you really cannot be any more stupid, you do - indeed - prove the whole forum wrong.
> 
> I respect anyone, left or right, who uses legitimate argument and reason to make a point. Using a snipe website allegation - which has already been admitted to as fake - truly is just pathetic. It's insulting to real victims and real families and those who are falsely accused. It is, however, no surprise that people like you continue it. Because you have absolutely no morals.
Click to expand...


That's it, CG.  You cannot use either "legitmate argument" or "reason".  Your deceit continues to trip you up, and mainstream America is well aware where the far fringe loonies are coming from, finally.  You get shrill and hysterical when confronted, you betcha.  That's what loser do.  Hey, though, it is America: you rant right along with Glenn and the rest of the far right whackos.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Claudette said:


> Glen Beck asks the questions all Americans are asking. He has the facts to back it up what he says. He dislikes the Dems and the Reps and he sure doesn't play favorites. He bashs Bush right alongside Ol'BO.
> 
> The fitst time I watched him I thought the guy was a little nuts. Then I really listened to what he was saying and he is 100% right. We need to take our country back and start  following the Constitution. He thinks the Clown sin DC are a pack of self-serving idiots and I agree, they are.
> 
> Beck is fun to watch and he makes perfect sense to anyone with Common Sense.



Yes, Glenn is fun to watch!  He is also goofy, and so are you if you buy into his screed.  If you really listened to him and agreed with him, then either your hearing or your analytical ability or both are impaired.  Severely.


----------



## geauxtohell

Playboy had the most astute article on Beck I've seen.  Of course, I can't link it here. 

Anyways, it basically said not to dismiss him, because he speaks to people and there is a reason he does so.


----------



## MrDiverse

All that needs saying about the whore Glenn Beck.

Alas I am not allowed to post a URL, everyone will have to do their own search for "Glenn Beck EXPOSED - Crying On Cue Using Vicks under His Eyes", it's on Youtube but many other links will come up as well using Google.

Apparently he's been doing this for sometime as he talks about it's effects no longer working, that would take repeated usage.


----------



## California Girl

MrDiverse said:


> All that needs saying about the whore Glenn Beck.
> 
> Alas I am not allowed to post a URL, everyone will have to do their own search for "Glenn Beck EXPOSED - Crying On Cue Using Vicks under His Eyes", it's on Youtube but many other links will come up as well using Google.
> 
> Apparently he's been doing this for sometime as he talks about it's effects no longer working, that would take repeated usage.



Ohhhhh nooooooo! Glen's a phoney! 



Alternatively, you might want to not post shit that's already been discussed.


----------



## MrDiverse

Alternatively, you might want to not post shit that's already been discussed.

True, but I just got here and there's a lot to get up to speed with, not to mention learning how to navigate this board.


----------



## California Girl

MrDiverse said:


> Alternatively, you might want to not post shit that's already been discussed.
> 
> True, but I just got here and there's a lot to get up to speed with, not to mention learning how to navigate this board.



True but it might be good to check out the topic before you post. You run the risk of posting stuff that's already been discussed and it tends to piss people off when you do that - trust me!! Lots of us fall into that trap as a newbie.


----------



## Claudette

Well Jake. Thats your opinion and your certainly entitled to it. I think my analytical abilities are just fine thanks and my hearing as well.  What about yours?? You obviously listen to Beck and totally disagree with eveyrthing he says. I guess you have trouble seeing any side of an issue that isn't left. Doesn't say much for your analytical skills or your hearing doncha know???


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> MrDiverse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively, you might want to not post shit that's already been discussed.
> 
> True, but I just got here and there's a lot to get up to speed with, not to mention learning how to navigate this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True but it might be good to check out the topic before you post. You run the risk of posting stuff that's already been discussed and it tends to piss people off when you do that - trust me!! Lots of us fall into that trap as a newbie.
Click to expand...


Oh please.  

I know for a fact that I don't make a habit of reading long threads before posting.  If you read all 500 posts on every thread before you pipe off, kudos to you.

Most don't.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dystopia said:


> From time to time have watched Glen Beck on Fox News, and he is boring to me as a spokesman. He is not a scholar with political thought for the left or with the right. All he is and always will be is to notice the current political standings and make comments. The weird his comments and the weirder they are, people will spend time to refute his comments. With Glen Beck, it is best not to feed the troll.



Again, it would be helpful to the discussion for you to pull an example or two of something 'wierd' or 'unscholarly' that you think Beck said and post it to discuss. Otherwise, calling him a troll sounds little different from those who just dutifully spout the talking points given them in an effort to shut Beck up.  In my analysis, he is so scholarly in his presentations and so thorough in his research that he appeals mostly to those who already pretty well know their stuff and are looking for solid facts and evidence.  He enjoys eviable ratings from that demographic.

Is he everybody's cup of tea?   No.  Does he get it right every time?  No.  Does he draw wrong conclusions?   Of course.  He is human and fallible as we all are.  But unscholarly?   I don't think you can find much evidence to back that up.  Nor can you make a case that he is partisan as he has been a bane to both parties when they are dishonest, irresponsible, or foolishly screw things up.  So, many Democrats hate him and many Republicans do not look to him for comfort or education.  But many of us on the right who put our money on principles and values rather than party loyalty do appreciate the research and information that he brings to the debates.

He might not be your cup of tea and he might be boring to you.  But if you are going to hang him, try to hang him for something he actually committed.


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrDiverse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively, you might want to not post shit that's already been discussed.
> 
> True, but I just got here and there's a lot to get up to speed with, not to mention learning how to navigate this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True but it might be good to check out the topic before you post. You run the risk of posting stuff that's already been discussed and it tends to piss people off when you do that - trust me!! Lots of us fall into that trap as a newbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I know for a fact that I don't make a habit of reading long threads before posting.  If you read all 500 posts on every thread before you pipe off, kudos to you.
> 
> Most don't.
Click to expand...


Depends on the subject, but generally, yea, if I'm gonna post for the first time in a thread, I generally read through it to find out what's already been said.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> True but it might be good to check out the topic before you post. You run the risk of posting stuff that's already been discussed and it tends to piss people off when you do that - trust me!! Lots of us fall into that trap as a newbie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I know for a fact that I don't make a habit of reading long threads before posting.  If you read all 500 posts on every thread before you pipe off, kudos to you.
> 
> Most don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on the subject, but generally, yea, if I'm gonna post for the first time in a thread, I generally read through it to find out what's already been said.
Click to expand...


Well, you are certainly a superior poster.  I'd be willing to bet that past 100 posts or so, 99% of this board doesn't read every post.  

That's why when someone reposts something that's already been addressed, it's just ignored.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Claudette said:


> Well Jake. Thats your opinion and your certainly entitled to it. I think my analytical abilities are just fine thanks and my hearing as well.  What about yours?? You obviously listen to Beck and totally disagree with eveyrthing he says. I guess you have trouble seeing any side of an issue that isn't left. Doesn't say much for your analytical skills or your hearing doncha know???



Claudette, keep drinking the Beckian koolaide and all will look fine to you.  I do remember I was quite impressed when Beck immediately condemned the American crimes at the Abu Ghraib prison when they became public.  He was the only far right commentator to do so right out of the gate.  Because he has gone off the tracks since then does not mean that I am a leftist.  You are quite the mistress of the _non sequitur_.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Jake. Thats your opinion and your certainly entitled to it. I think my analytical abilities are just fine thanks and my hearing as well.  What about yours?? You obviously listen to Beck and totally disagree with eveyrthing he says. I guess you have trouble seeing any side of an issue that isn't left. Doesn't say much for your analytical skills or your hearing doncha know???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette, keep drinking the Beckian koolaide and all will look fine to you.  I do remember I was quite impressed when Beck immediately condemned the American crimes at the Abu Ghraib prison when they became public.  He was the only far right commentator to do so right out of the gate.  Because he has gone off the tracks since then does not mean that I am a leftist.  You are quite the mistress of the _non sequitur_.
Click to expand...


Hmm interesting.  Perhaps you could name a far right commentator who commended or came out in favor of the issue at Abu Ghraib.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Can't find any other far right wing commentators who immediately condemned Abu Ghraib like Glenn did, huh?

Those "informed" folks who agree with Beck on most things believe generally in the principles associated with the John Birch Society and mouthpiece, Cleon Skousen.  Glenn is a demagogue who is selling advertising space by appealing to the base fears of a small, fearful base of ignorant Americans.


----------



## JW Frogen

Like all reformed alcoholics Beck is a ring master.

Whipping the sober into the hoops of ideological ferver.

Conservatives, I tell you now, best to go with unreformed alcoholics, like Churchill.


----------



## Foxfyre

JW Frogen said:


> Like all reformed alcoholics Beck is a ring master.
> 
> Whipping the sober into the hoops of ideological ferver.
> 
> Conservatives, I tell you now, best to go with unreformed alcoholics, like Churchill.



I probably know more about reformed alcoholics than you do; for instance that there are recovering alcoholics, but those who are recovering do not confuse that with 'reformed'.  I would be interested to know how you arrived at your conclusion about what alcoholics are ring master of.

And I would be interested what you would define as 'ideological ferver' and what that might consist of as Beck expresses it.  Could you accommodate us with your thoughts about that please?

So far nobody else I've asked about that has come up with an answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre, you have not answered the previous questions to you adequately at all.  No one has any need to let you shift the conversation until you do answer sufficiently.  JW Frogen has given you wonderful advice.  Take it.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre, you have not answered the previous questions to you adequately at all.  No one has any need to let you shift the conversation until you do answer sufficiently.  JW Frogen has given you wonderful advice.  Take it.



I have not shifted the conversation in the least.  I am participating in a discussion and actually have allowed the likes of you and Mr. Frogen determine what direction it takes.

Mr. Frogen made a statement that I do not believe he can support, and therefore I choose not to take his advice in that matter.

As I cannot think of a single commentator anywhere of any ideology who approved of the controversial activity at Abu Ghraib, I cannot answer your question with anything other than that observation.  You will have to give me a standard and some criteria by which we can measure degree to decide whether the others were as 'forceful' as Glenn Beck to your satisfaction, and you will have to give me comments from all on that subject in order to make that evaluation as I don't listen to all the others or Beck himself all that often.  Actually I didn't know there was a Glenn Beck at the time of Abu Ghraib.

Otherwise, I think my answer was about as good as anybody could competently give.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre, as long as you keep deceiving, your comments here are irrelevant here.  I realize that you can't think, but that seems not to stop you from posting.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre, as long as you keep deceiving, your comments here are irrelevant here.  I realize that you can't think, but that seems not to stop you from posting.



Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.

But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, as long as you keep deceiving, your comments here are irrelevant here.  I realize that you can't think, but that seems not to stop you from posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.
> 
> But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.
Click to expand...


You have trolled, you have baited, you have made insupportable statements, posted ad hom as well as personal insults, then you want to say that I did it.  You have passed indeed the EIB Institute Certificate of Propagandic Subversion.

The point is that Glenn Beck jumped on Abu Ghraib.  None of the other rightwing commentators did so.  How can I find evidence that does not exist, the lack of existance  itself proving my point.

You are guily intellectual bulemia.


----------



## frazzledgear

Mr. Capitalism said:


> We don't hate Glenn Beck.  We are amused by him for one reason alone, he appears to be nuts.



If you really believe that then it is incumbent upon you to show where he goes wrong in his analysis.  But if you can't show where Beck goes wrong and you are simply resorting to name calling, do you really think that juvenile tactic of name calling somehow makes you CORRECT then?  That actually works for you?  He who calls the other guy the most names gets to win?  For real?  LOL  Be sure to teach your kids that one too.

When you have nothing but name calling it only means your opinion has no foundation, it is useless to everyone and no one with any intelligence should pay any attention to it.  It reflects the mentality of a child incapable of mature reasoning.  If you can't show where he goes wrong in his analysis, either you know he isn't wrong and like most liberals can only hope resorting to name calling will make people less likely to watch his show or read his books;  you have never even seen his show so you haven't a clue what I even mean by saying show where he has gone wrong in his analysis;  you are just parroting what you have heard other liberals say who also haven't watched his show and sure don't want you to either;  you really think satire skits about Beck on SNL and other shows are accurate portrayals of the guy so you don't even need to watch his show to form your OWN opinion. (In which case you probably also think Palin said she could see Russia from her house, right?)  

In spite of Beck repeatedly asking someone of authority to step forward and point out where he has gone wrong in his analysis because he WANTS to be wrong, no one has.   And the reason they don't is because they can't.  Even though Beck has said no one in their right mind would want him to be right including himself, no one can tell him where he as gone wrong.  But just because he doesn't WANT to be correct in his analysis does not mean he should just go ahead and doctor his analysis to suit his own personal preferences.    

You know -like the global warming HACKS have been doing for years now?

I wish Beck was wrong in his analysis and I end up turning his show off at times for no other reason except I wish he were wrong.  But for the life of me I cannot find the flaws in his analysis.  He uses irrefutable proven facts and I cannot find any that contradict his analysis.  He has his own unique way of presenting his analysis -but the liberals' contention that unique manner somehow proves he is just a crazy not worth listening to -is nothing but the CHEAPEST cop out to avoid a debate they know they can't win.  Because he HAS the facts on his side -and they don't.  If they had the facts on their side, they would rely on THOSE to counter Beck instead of childish name calling.


----------



## Political Junky

rightwinger said:


> Hate him?
> 
> Beck is very good at what he does. Appealing to a simplistic love America but hate Americans viewership


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, as long as you keep deceiving, your comments here are irrelevant here.  I realize that you can't think, but that seems not to stop you from posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.
> 
> But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have trolled, you have baited, you have made insupportable statements, posted ad hom as well as personal insults, then you want to say that I did it.  You have passed indeed the EIB Institute Certificate of Propagandic Subversion.
> 
> The point is that Glenn Beck jumped on Abu Ghraib.  None of the other rightwing commentators did so.  How can I find evidence that does not exist, the lack of existance  itself proving my point.
> 
> You are guily intellectual bulemia.
Click to expand...


If I have done any of what you have accused me, I'm sure you can point out the specific posts for which, if your analysis is justified, I will be happy to apologize.

I trust that you can support your opinion that 'none of the other rightwing commentators did so'?  I must be getting really old because I absolutely remember quite thorough and lengthy discussions of that by every political/news commentator that I listened to or watched during that time.  And none objected to the few perpetrators of the crime being prosecuted and convicted.  So which of the rightwing commentators did not do so, and where is your evidence that they did not?

And again, what criteria are you using to justify your opinion that Beck was more forceful or adament about it than anybody else?  I don't doubt that he did disapprove as I don't know of anybody who approved.

And I thought I wasn't worth your time to talk to?


----------



## CrimsonWhite

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same reason the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.
> 
> But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have trolled, you have baited, you have made insupportable statements, posted ad hom as well as personal insults, then you want to say that I did it.  You have passed indeed the EIB Institute Certificate of Propagandic Subversion.
> 
> The point is that Glenn Beck jumped on Abu Ghraib.  None of the other rightwing commentators did so.  How can I find evidence that does not exist, the lack of existance  itself proving my point.
> 
> You are guily of intellectual bulemia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have done any of what you have accused me, I'm sure you can point out the specific posts for which, if your analysis is justified, I will be happy to apologize.
> 
> I trust that you can support your opinion that 'none of the other rightwing commentators did so'?  I must be getting really old because I absolutely remember quite thorough and lengthy discussions of that by every political/news commentator that I listened to or watched during that time.  And none objected to the few perpetrators of the crime being prosecuted and convicted.  So which of the rightwing commentators did not do so, and where is your evidence that they did not?
> 
> And again, what criteria are you using to justify your opinion that Beck was more forceful or adament about it than anybody else?  I don't doubt that he did disapprove as I don't know of anybody who approved.
> 
> And I thought I wasn't worth your time to talk to?
Click to expand...


Why?  Simple because no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck out of the gate on the Abu Ghraib affair.  No evidence exists that contradicts my point.

You dithering merely reveals that you have conceded the point.


----------



## Intense

CrimsonWhite said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.
Click to expand...


You are such a ray of Sunshine!!!  Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???


----------



## Intense

What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.



Many in this forum continue to pile on Beck, call him all sorts of names or use uncomplimentary assessments to describe him, and accuse him of all sorts of offenses, but as yet nobody has produced any direct quotes in context nor have pointed to specific instances that support their criticism.

But you are quite right that though he, like any human, will occasionally miss the mark,  his research and scholarship has produced some significant exposure of issues and activities that we as Americans should not tolerate and that we should condemn or demand that they be addressed.   ACORN is just one of those issues.   If we lose the ability to be educated about these kinds of things, the government will be able to do anything it wants to us with impunity.  And we have essentially lost all our freedom.

But it is exposure of their apparent darlings like ACORN that has almost certainly made Beck and those like him 'enemies' and therefore targets of the current administration.  And I suppose it is the largest reason that many on the left hate Glen Beck.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  Simple because no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck out of the gate on the Abu Ghraib affair.  No evidence exists that contradicts my point.
> 
> You dithering merely reveals that you have conceded the point.



You have yet to support your statement that 'no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck. . . .'   While you may be right--as I said I wasn't even aware there was a Glen Beck during that time--I have no way of knowing whether you are right about that.   And so far you have declined to provide any kind of evidence for your opinion.

I do know that you are very wrong that others did not address that issue and did so in a quite focused manner.  I have no way of knowing whether they did so as 'hard' as Beck did as I have no way of knowing how 'hard' Beck did it, but I don't know of ANY who thought what happened at Abu Ghraib should be tolerated by anybody.

So whether or not I 'dither', I have conceded no point to you whatsoever.

Have you located those posts of mine that support your statement that I troll, use ad hominem arguments, and engage in personal insults yet?


----------



## Intense

Foxfyre said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many in this forum continue to pile on Beck, call him all sorts of names or use uncomplimentary assessments to describe him, and accuse him of all sorts of offenses, but as yet nobody has produced any direct quotes in context nor have pointed to specific instances that support their criticism.
> 
> But you are quite right that though he, like any human, will occasionally miss the mark,  his research and scholarship has produced some significant exposure of issues and activities that we as Americans should not tolerate and that we should condemn or demand that they be addressed.   ACORN is just one of those issues.   If we lose the ability to be educated about these kinds of things, the government will be able to do anything it wants to us with impunity.  And we have essentially lost all our freedom.
> 
> But it is exposure of their apparent darlings like ACORN that has almost certainly made Beck and those like him 'enemies' and therefore targets of the current administration.  And I suppose it is the largest reason that many on the left hate Glen Beck.
Click to expand...


Remember that He also provides a Forum for Guests that would otherwise be censored out, The kind of People that the Ministry of Information Klan boycott.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Intense said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a ray of Sunshine!!!  Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???
Click to expand...


I'll save you a seat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.

foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.
> 
> foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.



Jake can't seem to admit that he has provided no evidence at all to support his statement re Glen Beck being the only right wing commentator to come out in condemnation of Abu Ghraib and has ignored repeated requests to define "forceful" or to support his contention that no other right wing commentators condemned Abu Ghraib.

Foxfyre, has only reported what she remembers of her own experience of that period and has not speculated or offered any kind of opinion one way or the other on who was the most forceful in condemning Abu Ghraib.

Further, Jake has not backed up his claim that Foxfyre engages in trolling, baiting, ad hominem, and/or personal insults.

There is no wiggling necessary to know who lost this argument, and so far, it isn't Foxfyre.


----------



## Intense

CrimsonWhite said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a ray of Sunshine!!!  Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll save you a seat.
Click to expand...


They won't like me there. Probably hang Me on a Cross and Fire Me Up. Say High to Mathews for me and Olberman.


----------



## Intense

Foxfyre said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.
> 
> foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake can't seem to admit that he has provided no evidence at all to support his statement re Glen Beck being the only right wing commentator to come out in condemnation of Abu Ghraib and has ignored repeated requests to define "forceful" or to support his contention that no other right wing commentators condemned Abu Ghraib.
> 
> Foxfyre, has only reported what she remembers of her own experience of that period and has not speculated or offered any kind of opinion one way or the other on who was the most forceful in condemning Abu Ghraib.
> 
> Further, Jake has not backed up his claim that Foxfyre engages in trolling, baiting, ad hominem, and/or personal insults.
> 
> There is no wiggling necessary to know who lost this argument, and so far, it isn't Foxfyre.
Click to expand...


Jakes just over compensating. He's sensitive, so We won't talk about it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Intense said:


> Jakes just over compensating. He's sensitive, so We won't talk about it.



  

Jake's probably pretty okay when he hasn't cornered himself in an indefensible argument.  But I guess sooner or later we all manage to do that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact is that foxfyre's lack of evidence is the evidence for the argument that only GB on the right attacked Abu Ghraib atrocities from the beginning.  You can't post anything from the right other than GB right from the beginning.  Keep wiggling, ff, but you are caught on the hook and can't get off.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact is that foxfyre's lack of evidence is the evidence for the argument that only GB on the right attacked Abu Ghraib atrocities from the beginning.  You can't post anything from the right other than GB right from the beginning.  Keep wiggling, ff, but you are caught on the hook and can't get off.



Why?  You're the one who said Beck attacked Abu Ghraib from the beginning and nobody else did.  I'm not the one who said that.  So you are the one who should come up with evidence and so far you have none.  I took no position on that whatsoever because I wasn't there and I don't know.

And you are the one who said he was the only one.  And you haven't backed that up with anything either.  You haven't even proved your claim that Beck said anything about it much less that anybody else didn't.  You certainly haven't proved that he was any more forceful about it than anybody else nor will you explain what you mean by 'forceful'.

I don't have any reason to think Beck didn't denounce the scandal at Abu Ghraib and you have no reason to believe that nobody else did.  I don't know whether he was more 'forceful' than anybody else and neither do you.

So why don't you admit that you were talking about your impression at the time and admit that you don't know whether he was the first, only one, or the most forceful, admit you can't support your personal insults directed at me, and we can drop this whole stupid argument altogether.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because there is no evidence that anyone else of the right immediately attacked it and attacked it hard.

I was very proud then (and still am) of Glenn Beck's integrity on this issue.

You are wiggling, ff, but you are on the hook, and you can't get off it.  Accept it, and let's move on.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Because there is no evidence that anyone else of the right immediately attacked it and attacked it hard.
> 
> I was very proud then (and still am) of Glenn Beck's integrity on this issue.
> 
> You are wiggling, ff, but you are on the hook, and you can't get off it.  Accept it, and let's move on.



I'm moving on, but not because I'm on any hook.  I accept that you have no evidence for your claims re Beck, your claims re anybody else, or the insults you directed at me personally.  Check, game, match.  Do have a nice evening.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ff has lost the argument because GB is the only one on the right who attacked the Abu Ghraib atrocities and attacked from the beginning.  Hooked by the fact no evidence exists to support ff's position, ff has gone swimming off in a pout.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Beck is fun to listen to, even if he is cracked.  At a recent conference at Brigham Young University, some LDS professors point that Beck does not really speak either for Mormons, or for knowledgable conservatives.  Deseret News | BYU professors: Glenn Beck doesn't speak for all Mormons


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Beck is fun to listen to, even if he is cracked.  At a recent conference at Brigham Young University, some LDS professors point that Beck does not really speak either for Mormons, or for knowledgable conservatives.  Deseret News | BYU professors: Glenn Beck doesn't speak for all Mormons



We All Speak For Ourselves. Glad You enjoy His show.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I love listening to Beck!  It should be subtitled "Wierdness Now!)


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, until those allegations about Glenn are investigated fully, we will never know the truth.



Yes, the far right wingtoids get furious, like CG, when the game is played against them.

Tuff luck.  They are on the wrong side of history, and they will be forced to move along.  Get over it, wingnuts.


----------



## antagon

im not 'the left' and i dont hate the glen becks out there.  they are just the sign of the times of a severely dumbed down republican party.  there used to be bill buckley, bob novak et al when there was reagan.  now rush limbaugh, beck et al... and sarah palin.


----------



## Avatar4321

antagon said:


> im not 'the left' and i dont hate the glen becks out there.  they are just the sign of the times of a severely dumbed down republican party.  there used to be bill buckley, bob novak et al when there was reagan.  now rush limbaugh, beck et al... and sarah palin.



dumbed down eh? Sure you dont hate him, you just have no problem insulting him because you cant deal with the points he makes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GB makes no "points", Avi; that's the point.  Yes, his program is a "dumbed down" version of the old Cleon Skousen shell game.  And those Pubs and others who buy it are guilty of intellectual bulemia.


----------



## antagon

Avatar4321 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not 'the left' and i dont hate the glen becks out there.  they are just the sign of the times of a severely dumbed down republican party.  there used to be bill buckley, bob novak et al when there was reagan.  now rush limbaugh, beck et al... and sarah palin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dumbed down eh? Sure you dont hate him, you just have no problem insulting him because you cant deal with the points he makes.
Click to expand...


i deflected the insult to his viewers, actually, and to the GOP.  really, i mean no insult at all.  i just remember a time when the democrats would be the ones pandering to simpler-minded proletarians in their media.  the tide has changed the intellectual high-ground, and you can tell from beck and his conteporaries' rhetoric.


----------



## Truthmatters

California Girl said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs hate Beck because he exposes them with their own quotes, often with video.  In this day and age where almost everything is on tape and stored online its getting easier and easier to dig up dirt on people.  And nobody has more skeletons in their closets than these liberal politicians, they practically shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open up their mouths and speak honestly from their communist sympathizing hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the hypocracy that I find laughable.
> 
> During the Bush Admin, the left quoted Beck time after time, praised him and thought he was great for calling Bush on every issue.
> 
> Now he's doing it to them, it's an outrage.
> 
> That's pathetic and indefensible.
Click to expand...


WTF????

where the hell did you come up with this idea?

The left NEVER liked Beck and Beck drooled over Bush


----------



## Truthmatters

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3ltG0gwjY[/ame]


----------



## liebuster

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF????
> 
> where the hell did you come up with this idea?
> 
> The left NEVER liked Beck and Beck drooled over Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video of Beck not really drooling over Bush
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsYz6xwFVTQ[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

liebuster said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video of Beck not really drooling over Bush
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsYz6xwFVTQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, like everybody else, I sometimes think Beck is seeing elephants under the bed that aren't there and monsters in the closet that don't exist, but he is bringing to the surface stuff that nobody else with a major voice is dealing with.  I think we all need to watch a lot of this stuff with a healthy dose of skepticism, but Beck has been proved right so many times I think only the most partisan blind tunnel visioned bubble dwellers would think we should be paying no attention at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Mr. Capitalism said:


> We don't hate Glenn Beck.  We are amused by him for one reason alone, he appears to be nuts.



This is true.


----------



## bodecea

PatekPhilippe said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republicans took talk radio away from liberals....now they are taking television away from liberals and soon the internet will be taken away also.*
> 
> Oh..by the way...check Beck's ratings...they are going up up up.....once again progressivism will be relegated to the trash heap of politics where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that is one of the funniest comments I've read.
> How is it that republicans are taking television away from liberals?  By 'conservatives' having a voice on FOX News?   Why are you so threatened?  The remainder of news stations and programming are mainly liberal?
> 
> As far as taking away the internet goes ... my fear lies with Obama.  I believe HE wants control over the internet.  Last I looked, he was a far-left liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's used in a sense that the television news shows that have the highest viewership are now conservative in nature....namely Fox News. * The Democrats mastered the internet quite early.....I believe Dean was a pioneer in internet fund raising and laid the ground work for Obama in Dean's '04 campaign.  The Rep's are fast learners.  They are making significant strides in the use of the internet to influence the masses.....perhaps this is why Obama wants to control it as you put it.
Click to expand...


Interesting how you are the 2nd poster this week make that false assertion....must be a recent talking point.


----------



## newpolitics

California Girl said:


> They hate him because he is dangerous.  When he goes after an individual, he makes damned sure he has verifiable facts to back up what he says. He has a pretty good research team behind him. Millions of people watching him simply because he comes across as a decent, and flawed, man. American like decent, flawed, people. Because mainly we are decent, flawed, people. So they relate to him. He is the epitome of what we admire - a self made man who has made mistakes, put them right, admitted them and used his experience to make him a better human being.



Dangerous to who? To liberals? No. He is dangerous to this country. There is a difference. Second, facts aren't the issue here, it is how he spins them as part of the fox narrative to vilify liberals and exult conservatives. Don't you find that a little immature, especially someone with an IQ of... what was it, 168, such as yourself? I would expect someone of your IQ to be able to see beyond Beck, which only goes to show, IQ doesn't mean shit. Second I've heard you claim you were an independant, but it is clear that you are a conservative, because you bash liberals every chance you give, so stop lying to yourself. 

Beck IS dangerous to American politics in general, because he is only a divisive figure who seeks to split us apart. Fox loves this because they make tons of money. Beck is sincere in what he says, I believe, and that's fine, everyone has a right to their beliefs, but that he believes that he, and all of the conservatives are TOTALLY RIGHT and ALL OF THE LIBERALS ARE WRONG, is non-sensical. It is VASTLY oversimplistic, even if the majority of blame could be assigned to the left.  Neither side has all of the answers to all of our problems, and that is how he comes across, as the right having all the answers, and the left being the cause of all of our problems. It's a giant smear campaign, much like Hitler did with the jews in Germany before the war, to get everyone to hate the jews so that he would have more a platform to run on. Beck is essentially using the same tactic. Create an enemy, point the finger, at ANY costs, in defense of an idea of what this country supposedly is, and create that idea and sell it to the public, by appealing to the pain and sorrow in the people, and taking advantage of that vulnerability to instill anger and resentment. Once you establish that fear and blame of the 'other side' by presenting a case, and people by it, you have made yourself a voice for all of those people, and they will listen to every word you say, and that is what Beck has done. I'm  not saying he isn't smart. There is something endearing about his fervor for his country, however, the sad part, is it is very distorted and dilusional, and he spreads that delusion with every point he makes, and is helping create a country further divided down the middle, the ultimate irony being that he is done it in the name of God, yet God stood for love and forgiveness, and he exhibits neither, in fact, just the opposite. As such, he is a hypocrit.


----------



## G.T.

I don't like Glenn Beck because I can see right through him, and I don't like what I see. That is all.


----------



## liebuster

Foxfyre said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, like everybody else, I sometimes think Beck is seeing elephants under the bed that aren't there and monsters in the closet that don't exist, but he is bringing to the surface stuff that nobody else with a major voice is dealing with.  I think we all need to watch a lot of this stuff with a healthy dose of skepticism, but Beck has been proved right so many times I think only the most partisan blind tunnel visioned bubble dwellers would think we should be paying no attention at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right. He usually is years ahead on the trends so everyone calls him crazy. But then a few years down the road he is proven right on so many things. The problem is people have forgoten what he has said.
> 
> The point is Beck spouts off on how screwed up Bush was all the time and still does it.
> 
> He may not be right on everything but he is right often enough and he's right on the major things.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Glenn Beck is right that things are really messed up right now in our country and the world. As for why they are messed up and how to fix it... he is a little off.


----------



## Foxfyre

liebuster said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right. He usually is years ahead on the trends so everyone calls him crazy. But then a few years down the road he is proven right on so many things. The problem is people have forgoten what he has said.
> 
> The point is Beck spouts off on how screwed up Bush was all the time and still does it.
> 
> He may not be right on everything but he is right often enough and he's right on the major things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um friend, you attributed my post to Truthmatters who I am pretty darn sure would NEVER say what I said there.  I doubt she would appreciate you quoting my words as hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## liebuster

Foxfyre said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um friend, you attributed my post to Truthmatters who I am pretty darn sure would NEVER say what I said there.  I doubt she would appreciate you quoting my words as hers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake. I tried to edit out the unwanted stuff out of the quote and it somehow came up as truthmatters quote
> 
> I was agreeing with you just didn't come out that way
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

liebuster said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake. I tried to edit out the unwanted stuff out of the quote and it somehow came up as truthmatters quote
> 
> I was agreeing with you just didn't come out that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.  Just keeping the record straight.  And I think you and I who accept Beck as totally fallible and sometimes wrong but also somebody who is often right are in a better place than are those who say he's wrong about everything, he's crazy, he's evil, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

liebuster said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right. He usually is years ahead on the trends so everyone calls him crazy. But then a few years down the road he is proven right on so many things. The problem is people have forgoten what he has said.
> 
> The point is Beck spouts off on how screwed up Bush was all the time and still does it.
> 
> He may not be right on everything but he is right often enough and he's right on the major things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so by this logic, Keith Olberman might be a visionary, hated by the right, but will be proven correct in years time. Or Maddow for that matter. In other words, anybody who is hated is actually a visionary waiting to be vindicated. Right...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

newpolitics said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so by this logic, Keith Olberman might be a visionary, hated by the right, but will be proven correct in years time. Or Maddow for that matter. In other words, anybody who is hated is actually a visionary waiting to be vindicated. Right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, some people deserve to be hated because they are just plain hateful.  I don't hate anybody nor do I need to automatically attack them just because they are who are they are.  I feel it is my responsibility to actually hear what they say and not judge them on small sound bites or quotations plucked off the internet somewhere.
> 
> The fact is Olbermann and Maddow are both partisans to the core and I grow weary of their one-sided analysis of everything.  That doesn't mean they are always wrong.  But they are so incomplete and one dimensional--plus Olbermann IS hateful--that they bore me very quickly.
> 
> Beck does superb research, he doesn't have a partisan bone in his body, and Democrats, Republicans, and everything in between are going to be criticized or moved into the bullseye when he thinks criticism is warranted.  Whether or not I agree with him--and I often don't or at least withhold judgment--he always gives you something new and different to think about.  And for that reason he is interesting and he has a firm hold on #1 in his time slot and his books sell very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## AquaAthena

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



Because his belief in adhering to the Constitution in governing is counterproductive to the the Left's ideologies just as Barack Obama who taught the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, chooses to live that perspective.


----------



## Foxfyre

AquaAthena said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his belief in adhering to the Constitution in governing is counterproductive to the the Left's ideologies just as Barack Obama who taught the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, chooses to live that perspective.
Click to expand...


Correct.  Beck is not partisan in any way.  But he is an ideologue as much as any of us are in that he does hold individual liberties and the proper restraint of government as very important and very dear to him.  Whomever he perceives is an enemy of that he will put in the crosshairs of his targeted criticism.


----------



## newpolitics

Foxfyre said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, some people deserve to be hated because they are just plain hateful.  I don't hate anybody nor do I need to automatically attack them just because they are who are they are.  I feel it is my responsibility to actually hear what they say and not judge them on small sound bites or quotations plucked off the internet somewhere.
> 
> The fact is Olbermann and Maddow are both partisans to the core and I grow weary of their one-sided analysis of everything.  That doesn't mean they are always wrong.  But they are so incomplete and one dimensional--plus Olbermann IS hateful--that they bore me very quickly.
> 
> Beck does superb research, he doesn't have a partisan bone in his body, and Democrats, Republicans, and everything in between are going to be criticized or moved into the bullseye when he thinks criticism is warranted.  Whether or not I agree with him--and I often don't or at least withhold judgment--he always gives you something new and different to think about.  And for that reason he is interesting and he has a firm hold on #1 in his time slot and his books sell very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're response was almost endearing in how you innocently hold Beck to be some non-partisan purist, who is somehow free from all the usual holdings of money and partisanship and allegiance to any particular dogma. In other words, you feel like he has integrity. Well, I would have to go ahead and say the opposite. I actually don't feel like Maddow WAS that partisan. She presents many facts about current things going on, and simply comments on them. So does Keith. Those two seem to have become more left, as Fox has been pressing more rightist views themselves, so, the two shows balance themselves out. The more to the right Fox goes, the more left MSNBC goes to counter that. I don't think it's intentional, I just think maddow and Olbermann are truly ticked about it what these people on Fox are saying, and I agree with them, because I think Fox is inflammatory, but that is just my opinion. I want to comment on what you said about Beck not being Partisan, because I don't see how that is possible. He spouts out all conservative talking points, paints the left as purely evil "leftist-progressive-liberall-socialist." I mean, how you can possibly say he is not partisan? Simply because he sometimes bashes his own party? So does Olbermann and Maddow, that doesn't make them non-partisan. I agree that maddow and Maddow are leftist. I'm not claiming they are non-partisan. certainly, they are, and that's okay. We are all entitled to our opinions. It's more the manner in which they conduct their show. maddow and Olbermann merely comment on things and yes, insert their educated opinions (and they are educated. don't play partisan willful ignorance and slam them because it's cool. You know they are intelligent.) Glenn is trying to 'teach' about what is going on, which implies that he really understands and also that he has the answer, both of which I think are false. He has a lot of evidence and facts about things, but they don't necessarily support his conclusions, because what he draws from facts is done so from a conservative mode of thinking, so although the facts themselves may be objective, he spins them to turn everything against the left, and that's not reality. Everything is not the lefts fault. The right do not have all the answers. Again, this is oversimplistic of reality, even if it were somewhat true. That kind of distortion of reality usually comes from the way someone has come to deal with the world, and in Becks case, being a recovering alcoholic, how one must re-accustom him/herself with reailty after such a radical shift in thinking, is to adhere to something very strongly, in an alcholics case, it is usually God, because that is the only piece of faith that gets an alcoholic through, and is step 1 in AA ("My problems have become unmanageable and have come to believe that a power higher than myself can restore me to sanity"). This faith is what makes AA possible. It doesn't have to be the christian God, but that's where Beck went, and his faith, his Christian faith drives everything he does, and I believe, is where the problem lies, because Christians are notorious for claiming reality for their own, and trying to impress it onto everyone else. At the center of all of Beck's whinings, is his concept of God, and again, it is only his god concept, not necessariliy true. That is why so many on the right like him as well, because he is a Christian. He is a conservative's wet dream, for so many reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

I did not say that Beck was not conservative.  I said that he was not partisan.  There is a HUGE difference between those two things.

Your comments would be read by more people, however, if you would learn to use paragraphs.  I didn't want to read that big huge blob of gray small type, but I accept that you adopt the 'partisan' line that Beck and Fox et al are evil.  But to brand them all as "Republican" or some other party is not only ignorant but indicative of somebody who has little understanding of the principles involved.

As far as Olbermann and Maddow being ticked about what the folks on Fox are saying, though, that is why they are so boring and ineffective and why their ratings are so low.  I think they appeal only to the most angry and simple minded and not to anybody who really wants the real deal on any of the issues of the day.  Olbermann and Maddow spend most of their time focused on and criticizing Fox et al rather than making a case for a different point of view.

Fox spends almost no time even referencing Olbermann and Maddow and does spend most of its time making a case for a specific point of view.

Those who can't rebut Fox and Beck with actual facts, rationale, and logic and without making ad hominem aspersions and attacking them are, in my opinion, basically clueless and mostly in that brainwashed bubble in which some people seem determined to live.


----------



## newpolitics

It's funny to me because everything you say about MSNBC and their viewers is exactly how I feel about Fox and their viewers, and everything you say about Fox and their viewers is exactly how I feel about MSBNC and their viewers. To each his own I guess.

As for paragraphs, who cares... this isn't english class, thank god.


----------



## rikules

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country




SOME deranged beck quotes;

1. "This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." -on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show

2. "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?" -musing about what he would do for $50 million 

7. "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization...And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]." "The Glenn Beck Program," May 1, 2007


10. "O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y." misspelling "oligarchy" on his chalk board while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof President Obama was trying to create an "Oligarhy," Aug. 27, 2009, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel (Source)

beck does what all of the right wing conservative do;  he uses fear, misinformation, lies and hate to encourage his viewers to continue to do what they already do; hate liberals, blame liberals for all the problems of America

it is obvious to sane and rational people that beck is a nut job...

and we fear his millions of deranged and hatefilled followers more than we fear him.

alone, beck can't do much to anybody...
but with the power of fox news behind him he can rile millions of deranged conservatives into a hate filled frenzy....

it's a short step from.."i hate liberals....i blame liberals..." to "lets get those liberals and kill them for destroying our country"



since you think beck is right....
what would you do to stop the "evil liberals"

round them up?

execute them?

deport them?

silence them?


would you like to kill michael moore, too?

do you think beck is right to want to kill michael moore?

is killing liberals something christ would advocate?


----------



## Foxfyre

newpolitics said:


> It's funny to me because everything you say about MSNBC and their viewers is exactly how I feel about Fox and their viewers, and everything you say about Fox and their viewers is exactly how I feel about MSBNC and their viewers. To each his own I guess.
> 
> As for paragraphs, who cares... this isn't english class, thank god.



Well I've spent some time watching MSNBC looking for the analysis and rationale for the policies they promote and the analysis and rationale for why they oppose other policies.  But that is very difficult to come by there.  Mostly it is sniping and accusing the other side for the policies they promote.

Certainly Fox does some of that but too, but you also get the deeper analysis too, most especially on a program like Becks.  He gives the history.  He gives accurate descriptions about what has happened in history and the long term results of that.  I rarely find cause to fault his research though I frequently disagree or question his conclusions.  I get bored sometimes with O'Reilly and Hannity as they don't get too deep into the issues as much, but they both at least point to things to look up the information.  Huckabee, Stossel, and sometimes even Geraldo, the one who is mostly left of center, do a pretty good job with their programs. 

And it is up to you whether you use paragraphs.  But if you want folks to read your stuff, I suggest it would be a good idea to use them even if this isn't English class.


----------



## Father Time

AquaAthena said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his belief in adhering to the Constitution in governing is counterproductive to the the Left's ideologies just as Barack Obama who taught the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, chooses to live that perspective.
Click to expand...


If you're going to make up reasons why people hate him then it should be OK to assume you hate Obama due to racism.


----------



## Foxfyre

Father Time said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his belief in adhering to the Constitution in governing is counterproductive to the the Left's ideologies just as Barack Obama who taught the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, chooses to live that perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to make up reasons why people hate him then it should be OK to assume you hate Obama due to racism.
Click to expand...


I didnt' see anything in AquaAthena's post that suggested the Left hates.  What precisely did she say in that short post that you think cannot be defended?


----------



## rikules

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



and
in addition

beck presents a selfish and greedy ideal of America;

an America that is the sole property of conservative christians

one that is in direct contrast to the view that America belongs to ALL of us, regardless of religion or opinion


----------



## Foxfyre

rikules said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> in addition
> 
> beck presents a selfish and greedy ideal of America;
> 
> an America that is the sole property of conservative christians
> 
> one that is in direct contrast to the view that America belongs to ALL of us, regardless of religion or opinion
Click to expand...


Okay, I'm putting this quote inside that brainwashed bubble that some on the Left insist on living in, because I am 100% certain that you cannot support ANYTHING you say here with any evidence.  And yes, I will require his direct statements IN CONTEXT if you decide to prove me wrong about that.  Quotes pulled off hate sites and posted out of context will be put into the bubble with your other remarks.


----------



## rikules

Foxfyre said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> in addition
> 
> beck presents a selfish and greedy ideal of America;
> 
> an America that is the sole property of conservative christians
> 
> one that is in direct contrast to the view that America belongs to ALL of us, regardless of religion or opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm putting this quote inside that brainwashed bubble that some on the Left insist on living in, because I am 100% certain that you cannot support ANYTHING you say here with any evidence.  And yes, I will require his direct statements IN CONTEXT if you decide to prove me wrong about that.  Quotes pulled off hate sites and posted out of context will be put into the bubble with your other remarks.
Click to expand...


so I can't use any evidence at all?

that makes it kind of hard....

i've seen beck on tv

he regularly promotes the christian god as the ONLY true god
he regularly promotes America as a CHRISTIAN nation
he regularly states/insinuates that liberals/democrats are "the enemy" of REAL Americans

and in his opinion REAL Americans are CHRISTIANS and CONSERVATIVES


----------



## Foxfyre

rikules said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> and
> in addition
> 
> beck presents a selfish and greedy ideal of America;
> 
> an America that is the sole property of conservative christians
> 
> one that is in direct contrast to the view that America belongs to ALL of us, regardless of religion or opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm putting this quote inside that brainwashed bubble that some on the Left insist on living in, because I am 100% certain that you cannot support ANYTHING you say here with any evidence.  And yes, I will require his direct statements IN CONTEXT if you decide to prove me wrong about that.  Quotes pulled off hate sites and posted out of context will be put into the bubble with your other remarks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so I can't use any evidence at all?
> 
> that makes it kind of hard....
> 
> i've seen beck on tv
> 
> he regularly promotes the christian god as the ONLY true god
> he regularly promotes America as a CHRISTIAN nation
> he regularly states/insinuates that liberals/democrats are "the enemy" of REAL Americans
> 
> and in his opinion REAL Americans are CHRISTIANS and CONSERVATIVES
Click to expand...


Again prove your assertions with verifiable quotations IN CONTEXT or hush.  I don't get his program regularly but I have read some of his stuff, I have had his radio program running in the background here in the office quite a bit, and I have seen his television program now and then.  And I have seen NONE of the stuff you are accusing him of.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Definitions of partisan on the Web:
    * a fervent and even militant proponent of something
    * enthusiast: an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity
    * a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries
    * devoted to a cause or party
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yes, Beck is, of course, partisan.  So is Maddow.

And what is the point of all of this if you all won't recognize normal definitions?


----------



## rikules

Foxfyre said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm putting this quote inside that brainwashed bubble that some on the Left insist on living in, because I am 100% certain that you cannot support ANYTHING you say here with any evidence.  And yes, I will require his direct statements IN CONTEXT if you decide to prove me wrong about that.  Quotes pulled off hate sites and posted out of context will be put into the bubble with your other remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I can't use any evidence at all?
> 
> that makes it kind of hard....
> 
> i've seen beck on tv
> 
> he regularly promotes the christian god as the ONLY true god
> he regularly promotes America as a CHRISTIAN nation
> he regularly states/insinuates that liberals/democrats are "the enemy" of REAL Americans
> 
> and in his opinion REAL Americans are CHRISTIANS and CONSERVATIVES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again prove your assertions with verifiable quotations IN CONTEXT or hush.  I don't get his program regularly but I have read some of his stuff, I have had his radio program running in the background here in the office quite a bit, and I have seen his television program now and then.  And I have seen NONE of the stuff you are accusing him of.
Click to expand...


"Again prove your assertions with verifiable quotations IN CONTEXT or hush."

I have a feeling that the ONLY "verifiable" quotations you would accept would have to come from fox news

I have provided quotations from other reliable sources but you (i'm not surprised) refuse to accept them.

I say he promotes fundamentalist christian theocracy of America
I hear it when I listen to him

I can't "prove" it to YOU because you are beyond proof...
You apparently continue to deny reality.....


You , on the other hand, have provided NO PROOF that what I say is NOT true...

show me VERIFIABLE SOURCES that do NOT COME from conservative hate sites PROVING that beck is NOT a right wing conservative christian theocrat.....

or....hush.






" I don't get his program regularly but I have read some of his stuff, I have had his radio program running in the background here in the office quite a bit, and I have seen his television program now and then. And I have seen NONE of the stuff you are accusing him of."


your reality denial mechanism  is working fine!


good for you


----------



## Foxfyre

If you include a general cause or idea in your definition of partisanship, then yes, Beck is a strong proponent of the Tea Party ideals of individual liberties that include small efficient, effective, and responsible limited government as the Founders intended, and I will concede that Beck is partisan in that way.

If your definition of partisan is somebody who promotes or defends a particular political party or religion or political group, which is what I was thinking of, then I have seen no evidence of that and suggest none of you who criticize him can provide evidence of that.

The fact that he witnesses to his religious faith or socioeconomic or political beliefs makes him a patriot, an American, a Christian not a partisan.  He doesn't demand anybody share those beliefs.  In fact he frequently says don't believe anything he says simply because he says it.  Check it out for yourself.  And then decide what is true.

Here is the definition, agreed by almost all dictionary sources, in the free Online Dictionary:

par·ti·san 1 (pärt-zn)
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, Beck is "devoted or biased" to his positions.  I like the guy.  The fact that he lines up with John Birch Society/ Cleon Skousen mantras truly bothers me.  Some of those morons though Dwight Eisenhower to be a willing dupe of the commies, when he was president.  Some of Beck's comments on Obama's character is egregious, to say the least.  And if you have ever seen his"professor shows" on TV, he is hysterical.  My wife, who likes him on the radio, will not watch on TV: two different guys, she says.


----------



## Foxfyre

You'll have to provide evidence that he promotes the Birchers.

But despite some of its questionable tactics in the past, the Birch Society bills itself a group that supports principles of anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom.

Glenn Beck also supports those principles.

Foxfyre also supports those principles.

We can support a concept or principles without supporting everybody and everything that also supports that concept or those principles.  We would be hard put to find anybody, no matter how evil, that we didn't agree with about something.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't have to prove a thing.  It is there for any who want to look, and I have posted all of that in the past.  I always get neg reps from Mr. Fitnah for outing the group.   That's easy to live with.  Glenn is fun to listen to for patriotism, but his dialogues and diatribes are seriously very funny because they are so strange.  However, compared to Hannitty and Limbaugh, he is a well mannered and good spirited fellow as I would expect from any Latter-day Saint.  I like him but realize he is wrong on most of what he preaches.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well of course you don't HAVE to do anything here.  But making an unqualified statement like that and being unwilling to back it up with anything of substance does make it look very much like you're parroting the hate speech of Beck haters and are pretty much talking through your hat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The statement has been backed up repeatedly.  If you have time to do some reading, go find a copy of "The Naked Communists" by Clousen, read it, and you will clearly see what Beck is doing.  Your attack is very close to being silly, Foxfyre, when this subject has been discussed several times in the last three months on the board.  You don't like it, then two words for you: ignore it.


----------



## airportengineer

They hate Beck because he's the only that is exposing the people Obama selected to run the white house. When they can't disprove any of Becks findings, it looks pretty darn bad for the left.  The left can not stand being exposed, and they can't fight the facts without tearing him up by calling him a racist, liar, and other things to try to disqualify his findings.  I applaud a man that will not follow the rest of the sheep in the heard.  He is doing what the media use to do....telling Americans the entire truth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Beck "proves" nothing, airportengineer, and those who hang on his words hang on air.


----------



## Foxfyre

airportengineer said:


> They hate Beck because he's the only that is exposing the people Obama selected to run the white house. When they can't disprove any of Becks findings, it looks pretty darn bad for the left.  The left can not stand being exposed, and they can't fight the facts without tearing him up by calling him a racist, liar, and other things to try to disqualify his findings.  I applaud a man that will not follow the rest of the sheep in the heard.  He is doing what the media use to do....telling Americans the entire truth.



At least he's giving us information that almost nobody else is doing and he's also telling us where he's getting it and encouraging us to do our own research.  When is the last time you saw a dedicated leftwinger do that?

Again Beck frequently cautions his listeners/fans to not believe something just because he says it.  He urges us all to check out the stuff.  The primary service he is providing is advising us of what needs to be checked out.  We are not getting much if any of that kind of information from the mainstream media these days and of course the dedicated leftwing extremists, statists, and diehards don't want to hear it at all.  And without doing any research of their own or being able to provide any credible source to back up their opinions, they disrespect, attack, ridicule, and criticize Beck or any of us who are paying attention to some of this stuff and beginning to demand answers.


----------



## SwordofDamocles

actsnoblemartin said:


> my theory: because he isnt a liberal
> 
> Because he is right
> 
> Because he cares and loves his country



The left hates GB because he leaves them standing with their jocks around their ankles.  Not rocket science.


----------



## Father Time

Foxfyre said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because his belief in adhering to the Constitution in governing is counterproductive to the the Left's ideologies just as Barack Obama who taught the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, chooses to live that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to make up reasons why people hate him then it should be OK to assume you hate Obama due to racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt' see anything in AquaAthena's post that suggested the Left hates.  What precisely did she say in that short post that you think cannot be defended?
Click to expand...


I thought I cut out Aqua, but whatever.

It's not his beliefs that make him loathed, it's his conspiracy theories and his attempts to compare progressives to Nazis. I thought that was obvious.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> airportengineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hate Beck because he's the only that is exposing the people Obama selected to run the white house. When they can't disprove any of Becks findings, it looks pretty darn bad for the left.  The left can not stand being exposed, and they can't fight the facts without tearing him up by calling him a racist, liar, and other things to try to disqualify his findings.  I applaud a man that will not follow the rest of the sheep in the heard.  He is doing what the media use to do....telling Americans the entire truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's giving us information that almost nobody else is doing and he's also telling us where he's getting it and encouraging us to do our own research.  When is the last time you saw a dedicated leftwinger do that?
> 
> Again Beck frequently cautions his listeners/fans to not believe something just because he says it.  He urges us all to check out the stuff.  The primary service he is providing is advising us of what needs to be checked out.  We are not getting much if any of that kind of information from the mainstream media these days and of course the dedicated leftwing extremists, statists, and diehards don't want to hear it at all.  And without doing any research of their own or being able to provide any credible source to back up their opinions, they disrespect, attack, ridicule, and criticize Beck or any of us who are paying attention to some of this stuff and beginning to demand answers.
Click to expand...


I would guess Ed Schultz and Jon Stewart offer a lot of the "go look at this stuff" that Beck does, but I grant 100% that Beck is good at that.  Yes, without a doubt, he is talking a lot of John Birch Society stuff.  You may look it up at its own website The John Birch Society.  Due diligence would suggest you also look at the charge that "_Robert Welch believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, were part of a communist conspiracy. Welch sent out a letter claiming that President Eisenhower was a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy". In 1956 Welch wrote that other top government officials such as John Foster Dulles and Allan W. Dulles were "communist tools"._ John Birch Society.

Note the sources: (1) a reactionary far right group and (2) a leftist British educational website.  The truth is out there!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Blech-tard can't even get a tax on slaves right.

He said the tax was actually people paying 10 bucks per to get into America.


----------

