why the left hates glen beck

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.

Yeah, that didnt really happen.

 

[Coyote]

I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.

Yeah, that didnt really happen.

Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain how it was that Van Jones was a "convicted felon"?

 

[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.

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?

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]

I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.

Yeah, that didnt really happen.

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]

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.

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.

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.

I think we kind of did that in taking apart his lies.

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.

 

[paperview]

... 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]

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]

... 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.

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]

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]

... 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.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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 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.

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