why the left hates glen beck

[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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

That is true...and I generally agree.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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:

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

Case in point:

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??????

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.