Beck, Open book test.

[Neser Boha]

Well ... I actually watched the entire last show you posted.

It was extremely painful as he really is not a good talk-show host. He's so melodramatic, almost hysterical, everything is so long-winded and over-the-top that it hurts - at times filled with outrageous hyperbole.

That said, it was rather shocking to see footage of those certain individuals call Mao and Che their personal heroes. One really needs to be an idiot if they're holding a public position and say such things publicly ... even thinking that is bad enough. It is definitely disconcerting to see that. So, it is a very good point. However, I can't see a good enough connection between these individuals' weird 'heroes' and Obama administration's conspiracy to turn the nation into a Communist/totalitarian country.

It is vital to know what people are affiliated with the administration - any administration - whether it be Bush or Obama; however, to make such outrageous and clearly unsubstantiated claims as Beck is making ... that really does venture into the McCarthyist era.

After listening to his delivery of these facts especially, I can see how a bunch of working-class 'shmoos' as he calls them will get their panties in a wad not even exactly knowing what they're getting their panties in a wad over.

Such is my opinion and reaction to one of Beck's episodes. By the way, Mr. Fitnah, I will not play your game of .... what minute of what video ... I don't care enough nor do I have enough time to do so. But I'm sure my view is going to be discounted and ignored as yet another 'liberal' point of view, no matter what and how I say it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/93224-we-got-so-used-to-politcians-lying.html
You imput was much more reasonable than most.

You may need a little help connecting the dot.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNWATaR0-qg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - REVOLUTION[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tASRskx0AhY&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - revolution 2[/ame]

 

[California Girl]

Well ... I actually watched the entire last show you posted.

It was extremely painful as he really is not a good talk-show host. He's so melodramatic, almost hysterical, everything is so long-winded and over-the-top that it hurts - at times filled with outrageous hyperbole.

That said, it was rather shocking to see footage of those certain individuals call Mao and Che their personal heroes. One really needs to be an idiot if they're holding a public position and say such things publicly ... even thinking that is bad enough. It is definitely disconcerting to see that. So, it is a very good point. However, I can't see a good enough connection between these individuals' weird 'heroes' and Obama administration's conspiracy to turn the nation into a Communist/totalitarian country.

It is vital to know what people are affiliated with the administration - any administration - whether it be Bush or Obama; however, to make such outrageous and clearly unsubstantiated claims as Beck is making ... that really does venture into the McCarthyist era.

After listening to his delivery of these facts especially, I can see how a bunch of working-class 'shmoos' as he calls them will get their panties in a wad not even exactly knowing what they're getting their panties in a wad over.

Such is my opinion and reaction to one of Beck's episodes. By the way, Mr. Fitnah, I will not play your game of .... what minute of what video ... I don't care enough nor do I have enough time to do so. But I'm sure my view is going to be discounted and ignored as yet another 'liberal' point of view, no matter what and how I say it.

In other words, you can't find a legitmate and sourced argument against what Beck says. Every fact that Beck states is verifiable. That you cannot do likewise and choose instead the 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' route is to be expected.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: What if Beck is right?

 

[Neser Boha]

Well ... I actually watched the entire last show you posted.

It was extremely painful as he really is not a good talk-show host. He's so melodramatic, almost hysterical, everything is so long-winded and over-the-top that it hurts - at times filled with outrageous hyperbole.

That said, it was rather shocking to see footage of those certain individuals call Mao and Che their personal heroes. One really needs to be an idiot if they're holding a public position and say such things publicly ... even thinking that is bad enough. It is definitely disconcerting to see that. So, it is a very good point. However, I can't see a good enough connection between these individuals' weird 'heroes' and Obama administration's conspiracy to turn the nation into a Communist/totalitarian country.

It is vital to know what people are affiliated with the administration - any administration - whether it be Bush or Obama; however, to make such outrageous and clearly unsubstantiated claims as Beck is making ... that really does venture into the McCarthyist era.

After listening to his delivery of these facts especially, I can see how a bunch of working-class 'shmoos' as he calls them will get their panties in a wad not even exactly knowing what they're getting their panties in a wad over.

Such is my opinion and reaction to one of Beck's episodes. By the way, Mr. Fitnah, I will not play your game of .... what minute of what video ... I don't care enough nor do I have enough time to do so. But I'm sure my view is going to be discounted and ignored as yet another 'liberal' point of view, no matter what and how I say it.

In other words, you can't find a legitmate and sourced argument against what Beck says. Every fact that Beck states is verifiable. That you cannot do likewise and choose instead the 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' route is to be expected.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: What if Beck is right?

You'd actually be flabbergasted how many university professors consider Mao's and (well, not that much him) Che's 'philosophy' as something worth paying attention to (you also have to distinguish 'actions' from 'philosophy' - two starkly different things in many cases). In academia, especially if one's studying politics or international affairs, it is really not so rare! So yeah, to me, even though I disagree with those individuals' personal heroes, I can't really see a PROOF in all that Beck said that Obama is indeed planning to turn the USA into a Communists' wet dream.

Let me sum it up for you ... he's got VALID points, but his 'hysterical-little-bitch' style of delivery and ridiculous jumping into conclusions is turning most of his would-be listeners/watchers off. Me being one of them. For others - that is exactly WHY they are watching him. I mean - you can't deny that he hasn't said some borderline fucked up shit! And that certainly hasn't helped him any, has it? What part of "I hate 9/11 families' families asking questions" is according to you ok - no matter how 'out of context' it was taken - you just don't say shit like that if you EVER want to be taken seriously.

By the way, you should read up on neoconservatives who take a lot out of Marxist philosophy themselves. Actually, in academia Marxism is not at all a dirty word.

So there...

 

[California Girl]

Well ... I actually watched the entire last show you posted.

It was extremely painful as he really is not a good talk-show host. He's so melodramatic, almost hysterical, everything is so long-winded and over-the-top that it hurts - at times filled with outrageous hyperbole.

That said, it was rather shocking to see footage of those certain individuals call Mao and Che their personal heroes. One really needs to be an idiot if they're holding a public position and say such things publicly ... even thinking that is bad enough. It is definitely disconcerting to see that. So, it is a very good point. However, I can't see a good enough connection between these individuals' weird 'heroes' and Obama administration's conspiracy to turn the nation into a Communist/totalitarian country.

It is vital to know what people are affiliated with the administration - any administration - whether it be Bush or Obama; however, to make such outrageous and clearly unsubstantiated claims as Beck is making ... that really does venture into the McCarthyist era.

After listening to his delivery of these facts especially, I can see how a bunch of working-class 'shmoos' as he calls them will get their panties in a wad not even exactly knowing what they're getting their panties in a wad over.

Such is my opinion and reaction to one of Beck's episodes. By the way, Mr. Fitnah, I will not play your game of .... what minute of what video ... I don't care enough nor do I have enough time to do so. But I'm sure my view is going to be discounted and ignored as yet another 'liberal' point of view, no matter what and how I say it.

In other words, you can't find a legitmate and sourced argument against what Beck says. Every fact that Beck states is verifiable. That you cannot do likewise and choose instead the 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' route is to be expected.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: What if Beck is right?

You'd actually be flabbergasted how many university professors consider Mao's and (well, not that much him) Che's 'philosophy' as something worth paying attention to (you also have to distinguish 'actions' from 'philosophy' - two starkly different things in many cases). In academia, especially if one's studying politics or international affairs, it is really not so rare! So yeah, to me, even though I disagree with those individuals' personal heroes, I can't really see a PROOF in all that Beck said that Obama is indeed planning to turn the USA into a Communists' wet dream.

Let me sum it up for you ... he's got VALID points, but his 'hysterical-little-bitch' style of delivery and ridiculous jumping into conclusions is turning most of his would-be listeners/watchers off. Me being one of them. For others - that is exactly WHY they are watching him. I mean - you can't deny that he hasn't said some borderline fucked up shit! And that certainly hasn't helped him any, has it? What part of "I hate 9/11 families' families asking questions" is according to you ok - no matter how 'out of context' it was taken - you just don't say shit like that if you EVER want to be taken seriously.

By the way, you should read up on neoconservatives who take a lot out of Marxist philosophy themselves. Actually, in academia Marxism is not at all a dirty word.

So there...

I would not be flabbergasted at all.

My question remains. Disprove any fact that Beck brings up. And, more importantly, what if Beck is right?

He has never said he hates the 9/11 families, he has never said he hated the victims of Katrina. Both are misrepresentations. But that is beside the point of this thread. The point is disprove anything he claims. I have yet to see a liberal - or anyone else - come back with any concrete evidence. Argue the message and don't attack the messenger. It's a simple enough challenge.

 

[Annie]

Well ... I actually watched the entire last show you posted.

It was extremely painful as he really is not a good talk-show host. He's so melodramatic, almost hysterical, everything is so long-winded and over-the-top that it hurts - at times filled with outrageous hyperbole.

That said, it was rather shocking to see footage of those certain individuals call Mao and Che their personal heroes. One really needs to be an idiot if they're holding a public position and say such things publicly ... even thinking that is bad enough. It is definitely disconcerting to see that. So, it is a very good point. However, I can't see a good enough connection between these individuals' weird 'heroes' and Obama administration's conspiracy to turn the nation into a Communist/totalitarian country.

It is vital to know what people are affiliated with the administration - any administration - whether it be Bush or Obama; however, to make such outrageous and clearly unsubstantiated claims as Beck is making ... that really does venture into the McCarthyist era.

After listening to his delivery of these facts especially, I can see how a bunch of working-class 'shmoos' as he calls them will get their panties in a wad not even exactly knowing what they're getting their panties in a wad over.

Such is my opinion and reaction to one of Beck's episodes. By the way, Mr. Fitnah, I will not play your game of .... what minute of what video ... I don't care enough nor do I have enough time to do so. But I'm sure my view is going to be discounted and ignored as yet another 'liberal' point of view, no matter what and how I say it.

I'm not liberal, I cannot stand Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Their styles bother me, a lot. However, a problem for both of us whether we agree or not, there's too much truth in what they say. Notice I didn't say all was 'true.' I don't know that. Obama may 'read' words well, in a manner we both find worthy of praise, but it doesn't mean that what he said has even a kernel of truth. In fact, much of what he's said and promised are demonstrably false.

 

[WillowTree]

Doesn't it say a lot about this administration and who they surround themselves with? They know it's wrong too or they wouldn't go to such lengths to distance themselves. Don't you think it's very telling that the lying WH decided to put "That isn't the same Ayers and Wright" in our kool aid? What the hell is wrong with you libtards? You focus on Beck and miss all the trees in the forest.

 

[mdn2000]

Obama the Marxist and his many supporters who support Marxism in so many ways. What a grr, r, ea, gggreat speaker, yet catch Obama in an unscripeted, question and answer session with reporters and Obama stutters and pauses more than any person I have ever heard.

Obama the Marxist, people need to get over their preconceived and media induced image of this lousy president, talk about the "emperor wears no clothes".

Glenn Beck is telling the truth so all the Liberal/Marxist must attack Beck. Sick, cant kill the message so kill the messenger.

How about that interntet censorship that Obama speaks of, that Anita Dunce speaks of. Sound exciting. Free speech shutdown. Of course Obama is talking "net neutrality" and the dumbasses think, "wow, thats great, what a great speaker that obama is, just listen to obama say, net neutrality, it sounds so sophisticated".

You fools need to wake up, especially you youngsters, you will have pretty much zero for a future if we continue down the Obama/marxist path.

 

[California Girl]

Days turn into weeks and still not one leftie has provided one piece of legitimate evidence that any of the facts claimed by Beck is not true.

Again, if Beck is a liar, where is the evidence?

This Administration - who is sooooo very keen to jump all over anyone who makes an incorrect statement, and who has a direct line to the Beck program - still remains silent.

Again people, what if Glenn Beck is right?

 

[Terry]

what bother's me is that these marxist that want to kill our Constitution have the inside track to all our National Secrets, knows our weak areas. It is like having an enemy spy having full rein on everything.

 

[Neser Boha]

what bother's me is that these marxist that want to kill our Constitution have the inside track to all our National Secrets, knows our weak areas. It is like having an enemy spy having full rein on everything.

Dun dun dun dun DUUUUUUN!

Come on Terry ... yes, it is disconcerting that Obama made such poor choices in people he's surrounding himself with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the WH has been taken over by some insidious ninja Marxists ... I understand your concern, but while Beck is right to point all that out, he is more of an alarmist than a person concerned purely with facts. In other words, don't worry ... "Give ze prez the benefit of a doubt" ... that's what I'd been hearing under the rule of Bush - besides - "shut the fuck up and go back where you came from!" But I guess those were different times.

 

[Terry]

Every thing in my Opinion that Obama has done has been bad for this Country! EVERYTHING

 

[California Girl]

what bother's me is that these marxist that want to kill our Constitution have the inside track to all our National Secrets, knows our weak areas. It is like having an enemy spy having full rein on everything.

Dun dun dun dun DUUUUUUN!

Come on Terry ... yes, it is disconcerting that Obama made such poor choices in people he's surrounding himself with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the WH has been taken over by some insidious ninja Marxists ... I understand your concern, but while Beck is right to point all that out, he is more of an alarmist than a person concerned purely with facts. In other words, don't worry ... "Give ze prez the benefit of a doubt" ... that's what I'd been hearing under the rule of Bush - besides - "shut the fuck up and go back where you came from!" But I guess those were different times.

Sorry, we are not lookin at the previous administration. Those days are done and using the 'but Bush did....' so nothing more than an excuse.

I actually have no problem with people studying Mao, I have. I certainly would not hold his methods or philosophy up as a shining example for THIS country.

And I am also fine with a POTUS surrounding himself with 'challenging' thinkers - that is not a bad thing.... it is a bad thing when they are all so remarkably similar in their marxist views.

However, this thread is about Glen Beck and whether anyone who keeps ranting about his lies can actually evidence their claims from his programs. Clearly, they can't. That is because every fact that Beck uses is verifiable. He is hanging this Administration by its own words.

Same question: What if he is right?

 

[Neser Boha]

what bother's me is that these marxist that want to kill our Constitution have the inside track to all our National Secrets, knows our weak areas. It is like having an enemy spy having full rein on everything.

Dun dun dun dun DUUUUUUN!

Come on Terry ... yes, it is disconcerting that Obama made such poor choices in people he's surrounding himself with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the WH has been taken over by some insidious ninja Marxists ... I understand your concern, but while Beck is right to point all that out, he is more of an alarmist than a person concerned purely with facts. In other words, don't worry ... "Give ze prez the benefit of a doubt" ... that's what I'd been hearing under the rule of Bush - besides - "shut the fuck up and go back where you came from!" But I guess those were different times.

Sorry, we are not lookin at the previous administration. Those days are done and using the 'but Bush did....' so nothing more than an excuse.

I actually have no problem with people studying Mao, I have. I certainly would not hold his methods or philosophy up as a shining example for THIS country.

And I am also fine with a POTUS surrounding himself with 'challenging' thinkers - that is not a bad thing.... it is a bad thing when they are all so remarkably similar in their marxist views.

However, this thread is about Glen Beck and whether anyone who keeps ranting about his lies can actually evidence their claims from his programs. Clearly, they can't. That is because every fact that Beck uses is verifiable. He is hanging this Administration by its own words.

Same question: What if he is right?

I don't think he's right. I dont' think he's nowhere near being right. He's got some very good points and raises some interesting issues, but that is about it. That's how I feel. He'd have to provide way more proof if he wants to convince me - in a proper manner. If I'm wrong, then I really suck at reading people. And I think I'm darn good at reading people.

With me, Cali, it's not really so much what he says as it is how he says it and how ridiculous some of his conclusions and connections are - and also - his show is unwatchable for me for all the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts (too much melodramatic bullshit, etc.) He often puts causation where correlation should go and busts a nut over every single thing this administration does. If he picked battles and made more coherent and well-structured arguments, I am sure he'd have a much bigger following. It's almost like the story of the boy that cried wolf - and acted like a hormonal hysterical woman at the same time.

I know there are some that will utterly discount him and ignore him ... but ... do you really blame them? I get a damn rash when I'm watching that shitty talkshow. Standards, gotta have standards! And he's way under mine. I'm sorry. Gotta say it. If someone would write it all down for me - edit it for all the emotional bs, etc. I'd read it. But I won't give an hour of my time a day to watch the charade of what seems to be a mentally unstable individual - even if he has some darn good points.

Are you with me?

 

[California Girl]

Dun dun dun dun DUUUUUUN!

Come on Terry ... yes, it is disconcerting that Obama made such poor choices in people he's surrounding himself with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the WH has been taken over by some insidious ninja Marxists ... I understand your concern, but while Beck is right to point all that out, he is more of an alarmist than a person concerned purely with facts. In other words, don't worry ... "Give ze prez the benefit of a doubt" ... that's what I'd been hearing under the rule of Bush - besides - "shut the fuck up and go back where you came from!" But I guess those were different times.

Sorry, we are not lookin at the previous administration. Those days are done and using the 'but Bush did....' so nothing more than an excuse.

I actually have no problem with people studying Mao, I have. I certainly would not hold his methods or philosophy up as a shining example for THIS country.

And I am also fine with a POTUS surrounding himself with 'challenging' thinkers - that is not a bad thing.... it is a bad thing when they are all so remarkably similar in their marxist views.

However, this thread is about Glen Beck and whether anyone who keeps ranting about his lies can actually evidence their claims from his programs. Clearly, they can't. That is because every fact that Beck uses is verifiable. He is hanging this Administration by its own words.

Same question: What if he is right?

I don't think he's right. I dont' think he's nowhere near being right. He's got some very good points and raises some interesting issues, but that is about it. That's how I feel. He'd have to provide way more proof if he wants to convince me - in a proper manner. If I'm wrong, then I really suck at reading people. And I think I'm darn good at reading people.

With me, Cali, it's not really so much what he says as it is how he says it and how ridiculous some of his conclusions and connections are - and also - his show is unwatchable for me for all the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts (too much melodramatic bullshit, etc.) He often puts causation where correlation should go and busts a nut over every single thing this administration does. If he picked battles and made more coherent and well-structured arguments, I am sure he'd have a much bigger following. It's almost like the story of the boy that cried wolf - and acted like a hormonal hysterical woman at the same time.

I know there are some that will utterly discount him and ignore him ... but ... do you really blame them? I get a damn rash when I'm watching that shitty talkshow. Standards, gotta have standards! And he's way under mine. I'm sorry. Gotta say it. If someone would write it all down for me - edit it for all the emotional bs, etc. I'd read it. But I won't give an hour of my time a day to watch the charade of what seems to be a mentally unstable individual - even if he has some darn good points.

Are you with me?

I am with you - probably more than you realize. I don't know that his conclusions are all right - I think some are, I am yet to be convinced about others. And, if you watch Beck (which I admit is not easy cuz he can be as irritating as shit!) even he says he doesn't know that he's right.... He asks 'what if'. And he has some strong evidence to back up his scenarios.

While I may find Beck annoying in his style, I've read his books and he's a smarter guy than his 'tv persona'. In particular, if you haven't read 'Arguing with Idiots' you might want to take a look, and Common Sense. Both really good books.

My problem is that people keep stating that he lies. I have seen no evidece of lies... occasionally he's been mistaken - as has been Obama on more than one occasion!! (I always enjoyed his 'misspeak' about 'Selma got me born' - still makes me laugh to this day!!) However, there are a number on this board who decry Beck as a liar at ever possible opportunity. So, to them, I'd like them to provide evidence - we've provided the tapes to his programs - so, where are the lies?

And..... What if he is right?

 

[Neser Boha]

Sorry, we are not lookin at the previous administration. Those days are done and using the 'but Bush did....' so nothing more than an excuse.

I actually have no problem with people studying Mao, I have. I certainly would not hold his methods or philosophy up as a shining example for THIS country.

And I am also fine with a POTUS surrounding himself with 'challenging' thinkers - that is not a bad thing.... it is a bad thing when they are all so remarkably similar in their marxist views.

However, this thread is about Glen Beck and whether anyone who keeps ranting about his lies can actually evidence their claims from his programs. Clearly, they can't. That is because every fact that Beck uses is verifiable. He is hanging this Administration by its own words.

Same question: What if he is right?

I don't think he's right. I dont' think he's nowhere near being right. He's got some very good points and raises some interesting issues, but that is about it. That's how I feel. He'd have to provide way more proof if he wants to convince me - in a proper manner. If I'm wrong, then I really suck at reading people. And I think I'm darn good at reading people.

With me, Cali, it's not really so much what he says as it is how he says it and how ridiculous some of his conclusions and connections are - and also - his show is unwatchable for me for all the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts (too much melodramatic bullshit, etc.) He often puts causation where correlation should go and busts a nut over every single thing this administration does. If he picked battles and made more coherent and well-structured arguments, I am sure he'd have a much bigger following. It's almost like the story of the boy that cried wolf - and acted like a hormonal hysterical woman at the same time.

I know there are some that will utterly discount him and ignore him ... but ... do you really blame them? I get a damn rash when I'm watching that shitty talkshow. Standards, gotta have standards! And he's way under mine. I'm sorry. Gotta say it. If someone would write it all down for me - edit it for all the emotional bs, etc. I'd read it. But I won't give an hour of my time a day to watch the charade of what seems to be a mentally unstable individual - even if he has some darn good points.

Are you with me?

I am with you - probably more than you realize. I don't know that his conclusions are all right - I think some are, I am yet to be convinced about others. And, if you watch Beck (which I admit is not easy cuz he can be as irritating as shit!) even he says he doesn't know that he's right.... He asks 'what if'. And he has some strong evidence to back up his scenarios.

While I may find Beck annoying in his style, I've read his books and he's a smarter guy than his 'tv persona'. In particular, if you haven't read 'Arguing with Idiots' you might want to take a look, and Common Sense. Both really good books.

My problem is that people keep stating that he lies. I have seen no evidece of lies... occasionally he's been mistaken - as has been Obama on more than one occasion!! (I always enjoyed his 'misspeak' about 'Selma got me born' - still makes me laugh to this day!!) However, there are a number on this board who decry Beck as a liar at ever possible opportunity. So, to them, I'd like them to provide evidence - we've provided the tapes to his programs - so, where are the lies?

And..... What if he is right?

I actually was ... some time ago ... one of the people that automatically called him a liar without doing much watching of his show (mainly because of the widely circulated vids of him saying some out of the world outrageous shit)... I changed my tune especially after seeing how some people literally hate his guts (I'm not going to say 'liberals', I think that's retarded - to throw them all into one big bag). I guess it's that 'stick with the underdog' reflex I've been cursed with. While I mostly dislike him, I don't think he should be 'silenced' as some seem to be calling for. He and his opinions and findings do have a place in the public discourse. The more some people oppose him, the more people will defend him, while everyone should just chill the fuck out.

I agree people shouldn't just hate on him and want him off the air because he seems slightly unhinged or just because they disagree with his approach.

Whether he might be right or wrong ... I'll go with my gut and with what i learned about the US governmental structure and the system of checks and balances at the Uni ... I'll rely on that. I really don't believe the US is in any danger thanks to Obama or the people he's surrounding himself with. At least not yet - and I don't see it coming either.

Of course I might be wrong, I don't have the patent on truth ... but I really don't think I'm wrong.

Plus honestly ... Obama has a rockstar status abroad ... seriously. People LOVE him here in Sweden. I mean... which last US president had that?

 

[California Girl]

I don't think he's right. I dont' think he's nowhere near being right. He's got some very good points and raises some interesting issues, but that is about it. That's how I feel. He'd have to provide way more proof if he wants to convince me - in a proper manner. If I'm wrong, then I really suck at reading people. And I think I'm darn good at reading people.

With me, Cali, it's not really so much what he says as it is how he says it and how ridiculous some of his conclusions and connections are - and also - his show is unwatchable for me for all the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts (too much melodramatic bullshit, etc.) He often puts causation where correlation should go and busts a nut over every single thing this administration does. If he picked battles and made more coherent and well-structured arguments, I am sure he'd have a much bigger following. It's almost like the story of the boy that cried wolf - and acted like a hormonal hysterical woman at the same time.

I know there are some that will utterly discount him and ignore him ... but ... do you really blame them? I get a damn rash when I'm watching that shitty talkshow. Standards, gotta have standards! And he's way under mine. I'm sorry. Gotta say it. If someone would write it all down for me - edit it for all the emotional bs, etc. I'd read it. But I won't give an hour of my time a day to watch the charade of what seems to be a mentally unstable individual - even if he has some darn good points.

Are you with me?

I am with you - probably more than you realize. I don't know that his conclusions are all right - I think some are, I am yet to be convinced about others. And, if you watch Beck (which I admit is not easy cuz he can be as irritating as shit!) even he says he doesn't know that he's right.... He asks 'what if'. And he has some strong evidence to back up his scenarios.

While I may find Beck annoying in his style, I've read his books and he's a smarter guy than his 'tv persona'. In particular, if you haven't read 'Arguing with Idiots' you might want to take a look, and Common Sense. Both really good books.

My problem is that people keep stating that he lies. I have seen no evidece of lies... occasionally he's been mistaken - as has been Obama on more than one occasion!! (I always enjoyed his 'misspeak' about 'Selma got me born' - still makes me laugh to this day!!) However, there are a number on this board who decry Beck as a liar at ever possible opportunity. So, to them, I'd like them to provide evidence - we've provided the tapes to his programs - so, where are the lies?

And..... What if he is right?

I actually was ... some time ago ... one of the people that automatically called him a liar without doing much watching of his show (mainly because of the widely circulated vids of him saying some out of the world outrageous shit)... I changed my tune especially after seeing how some people literally hate his guts (I'm not going to say 'liberals', I think that's retarded - to throw them all into one big bag). I guess it's that 'stick with the underdog' reflex I've been cursed with. While I mostly dislike him, I don't think he should be 'silenced' as some seem to be calling for. He and his opinions and findings do have a place in the public discourse. The more some people oppose him, the more people will defend him, while everyone should just chill the fuck out.

I agree people shouldn't just hate on him and want him off the air because he seems slightly unhinged or just because they disagree with his approach.

Whether he might be right or wrong ... I'll go with my gut and with what i learned about the US governmental structure and the system of checks and balances at the Uni ... I'll rely on that. I really don't believe the US is in any danger thanks to Obama or the people he's surrounding himself with. At least not yet - and I don't see it coming either.

Of course I might be wrong, I don't have the patent on truth ... but I really don't think I'm wrong.

Plus honestly ... Obama has a rockstar status abroad ... seriously. People LOVE him here in Sweden. I mean... which last US president had that?

The Brits love him, mainly because they think he's naive and a bit of a joke. Also, of course, they have no problem with socialism, etc.

I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks - I care only about my country. I see Obama as a puppet - I don't think he cares very much about anything but Obama - but the people around him.... they make me very nervous.

I see from Beck's investigations that there is the strong potential for America to become something that I don't want my country to be. Without Beck, Van Jones would still be in the WH, ACORN would still be funded and few of us would be aware of exactly who our POTUS is surrounding himself with. No wonder the WH want to shut him up.

Still I see not one of the lefties have much to disprove any evidence that Beck provides.

 

[Neser Boha]

I am with you - probably more than you realize. I don't know that his conclusions are all right - I think some are, I am yet to be convinced about others. And, if you watch Beck (which I admit is not easy cuz he can be as irritating as shit!) even he says he doesn't know that he's right.... He asks 'what if'. And he has some strong evidence to back up his scenarios.

While I may find Beck annoying in his style, I've read his books and he's a smarter guy than his 'tv persona'. In particular, if you haven't read 'Arguing with Idiots' you might want to take a look, and Common Sense. Both really good books.

My problem is that people keep stating that he lies. I have seen no evidece of lies... occasionally he's been mistaken - as has been Obama on more than one occasion!! (I always enjoyed his 'misspeak' about 'Selma got me born' - still makes me laugh to this day!!) However, there are a number on this board who decry Beck as a liar at ever possible opportunity. So, to them, I'd like them to provide evidence - we've provided the tapes to his programs - so, where are the lies?

And..... What if he is right?

I actually was ... some time ago ... one of the people that automatically called him a liar without doing much watching of his show (mainly because of the widely circulated vids of him saying some out of the world outrageous shit)... I changed my tune especially after seeing how some people literally hate his guts (I'm not going to say 'liberals', I think that's retarded - to throw them all into one big bag). I guess it's that 'stick with the underdog' reflex I've been cursed with. While I mostly dislike him, I don't think he should be 'silenced' as some seem to be calling for. He and his opinions and findings do have a place in the public discourse. The more some people oppose him, the more people will defend him, while everyone should just chill the fuck out.

I agree people shouldn't just hate on him and want him off the air because he seems slightly unhinged or just because they disagree with his approach.

Whether he might be right or wrong ... I'll go with my gut and with what i learned about the US governmental structure and the system of checks and balances at the Uni ... I'll rely on that. I really don't believe the US is in any danger thanks to Obama or the people he's surrounding himself with. At least not yet - and I don't see it coming either.

Of course I might be wrong, I don't have the patent on truth ... but I really don't think I'm wrong.

Plus honestly ... Obama has a rockstar status abroad ... seriously. People LOVE him here in Sweden. I mean... which last US president had that?

The Brits love him, mainly because they think he's naive and a bit of a joke. Also, of course, they have no problem with socialism, etc.

I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks - I care only about my country. I see Obama as a puppet - I don't think he cares very much about anything but Obama - but the people around him.... they make me very nervous.

I see from Beck's investigations that there is the strong potential for America to become something that I don't want my country to be. Without Beck, Van Jones would still be in the WH, ACORN would still be funded and few of us would be aware of exactly who our POTUS is surrounding himself with. No wonder the WH want to shut him up.

Still I see not one of the lefties have much to disprove any evidence that Beck provides.

Doll, I would really appreciate if you stopped throwing all the 'lefties' into the same bag. Not everything is so black and white. I'm what you'd probably consider a leftist and I am engaging in an honest discussion here with you, am I not? I even watched his show in order to engage in this discussion. I've been trying to convey the inanity of separating people into these camps for a while now ... I wonder why people insist on doing so. Why do you do it? Is it helping somehow? Or do you just want to agitate?

From what I know of Van Jones ... I understand how would Americans be upset about him being associated with the WH, but I personally don't see that much 'evil oozing out of him' as you might. So, whether it is good or not that he is outta there remains to be more of a subjective issue. At least to me. I might be missing something as I've not been paying that much attention to the whole Van Jones issue, I must confess. I did look him up online though If you have a good source detailing the dangers of Van Jones, do post it and I'll gladly read it.

 

[California Girl]

I actually was ... some time ago ... one of the people that automatically called him a liar without doing much watching of his show (mainly because of the widely circulated vids of him saying some out of the world outrageous shit)... I changed my tune especially after seeing how some people literally hate his guts (I'm not going to say 'liberals', I think that's retarded - to throw them all into one big bag). I guess it's that 'stick with the underdog' reflex I've been cursed with. While I mostly dislike him, I don't think he should be 'silenced' as some seem to be calling for. He and his opinions and findings do have a place in the public discourse. The more some people oppose him, the more people will defend him, while everyone should just chill the fuck out.

I agree people shouldn't just hate on him and want him off the air because he seems slightly unhinged or just because they disagree with his approach.

Whether he might be right or wrong ... I'll go with my gut and with what i learned about the US governmental structure and the system of checks and balances at the Uni ... I'll rely on that. I really don't believe the US is in any danger thanks to Obama or the people he's surrounding himself with. At least not yet - and I don't see it coming either.

Of course I might be wrong, I don't have the patent on truth ... but I really don't think I'm wrong.

Plus honestly ... Obama has a rockstar status abroad ... seriously. People LOVE him here in Sweden. I mean... which last US president had that?

The Brits love him, mainly because they think he's naive and a bit of a joke. Also, of course, they have no problem with socialism, etc.

I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks - I care only about my country. I see Obama as a puppet - I don't think he cares very much about anything but Obama - but the people around him.... they make me very nervous.

I see from Beck's investigations that there is the strong potential for America to become something that I don't want my country to be. Without Beck, Van Jones would still be in the WH, ACORN would still be funded and few of us would be aware of exactly who our POTUS is surrounding himself with. No wonder the WH want to shut him up.

Still I see not one of the lefties have much to disprove any evidence that Beck provides.

Doll, I would really appreciate if you stopped throwing all the 'lefties' into the same bag. Not everything is so black and white. I'm what you'd probably consider a leftist and I am engaging in an honest discussion here with you, am I not? I even watched his show in order to engage in this discussion. I've been trying to convey the inanity of separating people into these camps for a while now ... I wonder why people insist on doing so. Why do you do it? Is it helping somehow? Or do you just want to agitate?

From what I know of Van Jones ... I understand how would Americans be upset about him being associated with the WH, but I personally don't see that much 'evil oozing out of him' as you might. So, whether it is good or not that he is outta there remains to be more of a subjective issue. At least to me. I might be missing something as I've not been paying that much attention to the whole Van Jones issue, I must confess. I did look him up online though If you have a good source detailing the dangers of Van Jones, do post it and I'll gladly read it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgkWG4VnOIg]YouTube - Glenn Beck - Van Jones: SHOCKING WORDS! 9/01/09 Part 1/5[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz0U0XODwuk&feature=related]YouTube - Glenn Beck - Van Jones is a 9/11 Truther 9/3/09 Part 2/5[/ame]


Glenn Beck on Van Jones. Note: unlike the people who 'edit' Becks words to make it sound as though he hates 9/11 families or victims of Katrina - Beck provides the whole context of Van Jones' own words.

That's just two of the 5 clips of one show. I didn't want to Beck you to death!! LOL.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dun dun dun dun DUUUUUUN!

Come on Terry ... yes, it is disconcerting that Obama made such poor choices in people he's surrounding himself with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the WH has been taken over by some insidious ninja Marxists ... I understand your concern, but while Beck is right to point all that out, he is more of an alarmist than a person concerned purely with facts. In other words, don't worry ... "Give ze prez the benefit of a doubt" ... that's what I'd been hearing under the rule of Bush - besides - "shut the fuck up and go back where you came from!" But I guess those were different times.

Sorry, we are not lookin at the previous administration. Those days are done and using the 'but Bush did....' so nothing more than an excuse.

I actually have no problem with people studying Mao, I have. I certainly would not hold his methods or philosophy up as a shining example for THIS country.

And I am also fine with a POTUS surrounding himself with 'challenging' thinkers - that is not a bad thing.... it is a bad thing when they are all so remarkably similar in their marxist views.

However, this thread is about Glen Beck and whether anyone who keeps ranting about his lies can actually evidence their claims from his programs. Clearly, they can't. That is because every fact that Beck uses is verifiable. He is hanging this Administration by its own words.

Same question: What if he is right?

I don't think he's right. I dont' think he's nowhere near being right. He's got some very good points and raises some interesting issues, but that is about it. That's how I feel. He'd have to provide way more proof if he wants to convince me - in a proper manner. If I'm wrong, then I really suck at reading people. And I think I'm darn good at reading people.

With me, Cali, it's not really so much what he says as it is how he says it and how ridiculous some of his conclusions and connections are - and also - his show is unwatchable for me for all the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts (too much melodramatic bullshit, etc.) He often puts causation where correlation should go and busts a nut over every single thing this administration does. If he picked battles and made more coherent and well-structured arguments, I am sure he'd have a much bigger following. It's almost like the story of the boy that cried wolf - and acted like a hormonal hysterical woman at the same time.

I know there are some that will utterly discount him and ignore him ... but ... do you really blame them? I get a damn rash when I'm watching that shitty talkshow. Standards, gotta have standards! And he's way under mine. I'm sorry. Gotta say it. If someone would write it all down for me - edit it for all the emotional bs, etc. I'd read it. But I won't give an hour of my time a day to watch the charade of what seems to be a mentally unstable individual - even if he has some darn good points.

Are you with me?

Your problem is trying to read people instead of looking at the facts that people like Beck present. You don't like the messenger so you forego the message. That's ignorance at it's finest.