Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
God only knows! i'm with you MGS.
i have a problem with the fact alot of people don't actually listen to what they hear.
way too many sheeple to hope he'll fade i'm affraid. and as bad as he walks all over the facts, you think he'd talk himself out of a job.
you'd think most people would see him for what he is.
Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Yeah, and the best part is you can say who you don't like and why.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Don't I have the free speech to question why this cretin is given prime time on an alleged 'news' channel to vent his spleen and political agenda and far fetched rhetoric?
Don't I have the free speech to question his time slot, wage and support on a channel that claims the catchphrase 'fair and balanced'?
As a permanent resident of this nation, the husband of a citizen and the potential father of little citizens of this nation, I think I might have the free speech to question the wisdom of the network in allowing this man to suggest violence against people who have a different political view. His claims and allegations have led to an elderly woman's life being threatened. His right to pronounce these theories on a bus whilst wearing his tinfoil hat or foaming at the mouth whilst typing his blog are one thing, being paid top dollar to spout this crap on a news channel is quite another.
corpsesarefun wrote:So frazzled surely as a mod your job is to censor, is this not against your free speech ideals?
Its ok. My free speech ideals are counterbalanced by my desired to hit things/people with large sticks all the while shouting "WATCH THE SKIES! WATCH THE SKIES!"
The problem with using 'Clear and Present Danger' to restrict free speech rights here is simple: Glenn Beck is not a clear and present danger. Under current law in the United States, you are allowed to say anything you want, and the government can not stop you UNLESS you are openly calling for people to break the law. E.g. I can say 'I HATE JEWS, AND HITLER HAD THE RIGHT IDEA!' in front of a synagogue all day long if I want, but the second I say 'KILL THE JEWS' I am going beyond my rights to free speech.
Glenn Beck, as insane and wacked out as he may be, is not calling for criminal action. He is not responsible for the types of things his viewers say, and we can not hold him to do that.
And the simple reason for why he's not fired? He makes money. People tune in to watch him, whether because they want to get pissed off at him, or whether they agree with him, people watch his show, buy his books etc. etc. And unless he stops making money, he's not going to be taken off the air by Fox.
alarmingrick wrote:Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!
Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad
Why?
I have the free speech to claim this man's incitements to violence against the elderly woman are hate crimes. That his allegations and insinuations may lead to murder. That you would react adversely to me calling this out, rather than this man speaking of political ideas not in keeping with his own as 'enemies of the nation' is odd. He is given a plinths to stand on and address millions of people on a channel that claims to bring fact and news, his rhetoric is therefore being protected and supported under those auspices.
The right to free speech has exceptions. The use of falsehoods and imminent threats for example, claiming this woman is responsible for the current economic woes and alluding to her being an enemy of the state that requires dealing with could certainly be claimed to fall under those exceptions.
If this woman is shot by someone who claims to have followed Beck's instruction that she is an enemy of the nation, will you still claim that anything and everything may be transmitted over the entire nation as 'news' and 'fair and balanced', including instruction to execute? Or would you finally, after her death, accept that certain other things should be joining the Obscenities applied by the Miller Test? Freedom of Speech is not universal nor absolute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:So frazzled surely as a mod your job is to censor, is this not against your free speech ideals?
Its ok. My free speech ideals are counterbalanced by my desired to hit things/people with large sticks all the while shouting "WATCH THE SKIES! WATCH THE SKIES!"
Extremist views really shouldn't be made for public consumption.
Unless of course your Freedom Of Speech allowance extends to other extremist persons or groups being allowed primetime to make death threats, spit general venom etc against America? Or is there a completely arbitrary line that some can cross?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The right to free speech has exceptions. The use of falsehoods and imminent threats for example, claiming this woman is responsible for the current economic woes and alluding to her being an enemy of the state that requires dealing with could certainly be claimed to fall under those exceptions.
I'm guessing that you're glossing over some important details of what Beck said that exempt him from directly inciting violence.
You should also remember that political speech is given a lot more leeway than other forms of speech.
Yeah sorry Fraz, much as i hate to agree with left wing socialist labour chumps like MGS, I feel I have to agree with the bloke. I think when you are that much of an absolute feth head, it is entirely resonable to say "this gakker shouldnt be on TV"
I mean, who decides where the bar is? We have fox news douche bags saying "oh you cant say bad things about Jerry Falwel cos you might upset his kids" but they wouldnt say the same about Osama Bin Laden or Hitler. Is there a secret list of people we should and shouldnt care about?
I think that if someone is clearly and obviously a fething idiot then it IS acceptable to say so. And Glen Beck, as amusing as I find him, im an absolute, unmitigated, 100% fething buffoon. He is helping to feth your country up, and i think it is eminently sensible to say that he should take a permenant vacation.
Glen Beck is allowed to advocate shooting people in the head, but MGS is bad for suggesting Glen Beck not be given air time? Frazzled, your perspective is so seriously skewed, I'd be amazed if you can walk in a straight line.
Also, at no point did MGS suggest Glen Beck be silenced, or denied his right to free speech. He queried when mainstream media should be helping him to espouse his views. There is a very big difference between allowing someone their right to state their opinion and actually giving them a platform to reach millions. Glen Beck has a right to say things, and the mainstream media have a right to ignore him. They choose not to, and anyone, American citizen or not, has the right to question that.
Coming from someone who is quick to throw accusations at people you yourself disagree with, then turn it all into a big joke by posting pictures of weiner dogs, it is a bit rich of you to criticise MGS.
Jokes aside... who the feth cares about that clown aside from rednecks and douchebags?
In the UK, this would be like giving the BNP a weekly or whatever slot to basically make stuff up, misreport facts etc. Daily Mail is bad enough, and I'd rather see dangerous political yahoos gently sidelined, so those interested in what they say can still find it, but they aren't really capable of spewing bollocks into the minds of the masses.
Mr Mystery wrote:Why? Surely Political Speech, given it's wider audience and greater amount of power, should be more closely policed for falsehood, and incitement?
Because political speech is often highly rhetorical, and so is difficult to police for falsehood. For example, the issue of alleged "death panels" while not literally accurate, could be argued as being nothing more than derisive naming.
Note also that while commercial speech is policed for falsehood, its still fairly difficult to prove that false statements have been made due to the use of indefinite qualifiers like "best".
alarmingrick wrote:Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!
Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad
Not liking the Message.... you're correct. he delivers falsehoods.
Making statements that he should be taken off...good, if it were due to the truth of his BS causing him to go.
i'm in no way in favor of "having him removed". as much as i disagree with him, he has a right to be wrong. but
more importantly, the last thing i want to do with him is make him a Martyr for his cause!
alarmingrick wrote:
i'm in no way in favor of "having him removed". as much as i disagree with him, he has a right to be wrong. but
more importantly, the last thing i want to do with him is make him a Martyr for his cause!
That's a point that a lot of people often miss, so good on you for bringing it up.
There is a lot to be said for allowing people to speak their mind in order to prevent them from taking more drastic action. Freedom of speech is one of the most effective methods of control ever devised.
ChrisWWII wrote:Glenn Beck, as insane and wacked out as he may be, is not calling for criminal action.
Considering that he's actively said he wants to hire someone to kill Michael Moore, I think he's definitely stepping on the line, if not crossing over.
ChrisWWII wrote:Glenn Beck, as insane and wacked out as he may be, is not calling for criminal action.
Considering that he's actively said he wants to hire someone to kill Michael Moore, I think he's definitely stepping on the line, if not crossing over.
Mr Mystery wrote:Why? Surely Political Speech, given it's wider audience and greater amount of power, should be more closely policed for falsehood, and incitement?
Because political speech is often highly rhetorical, and so is difficult to police for falsehood. For example, the issue of alleged "death panels" while not literally accurate, could be argued as being nothing more than derisive naming.
Note also that while commercial speech is policed for falsehood, its still fairly difficult to prove that false statements have been made due to the use of indefinite qualifiers like "best".
So why allow the derisive naming? We simply do not have anything even vaguely resembling 'death panels' in the UK. I believe Sarah Palin was fond of that term (might be wrong, please correct me if I go astray). Three of my friends work in the NHS. And yes, it is an imperfect service. But it is essential. And you still have the option and indeed right to go private if you so wish. To use the name 'Death Panels' is plain old scare mongering based on 'I don't like it because those funding my career don't like it, and nor should you!'. All sides of the political spectrum does this, and it's frankly not good enough.
ChrisWWII wrote:Glenn Beck, as insane and wacked out as he may be, is not calling for criminal action.
Considering that he's actively said he wants to hire someone to kill Michael Moore, I think he's definitely stepping on the line, if not crossing over.
I haven't heard that, do you have a source?
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." –responding to the question "What would people do for $50 million?", "The Glenn Beck Program," May 17, 2005
Mr Mystery wrote:
So why allow the derisive naming? We simply do not have anything even vaguely resembling 'death panels' in the UK. I believe Sarah Palin was fond of that term (might be wrong, please correct me if I go astray). Three of my friends work in the NHS. And yes, it is an imperfect service. But it is essential. And you still have the option and indeed right to go private if you so wish. To use the name 'Death Panels' is plain old scare mongering based on 'I don't like it because those funding my career don't like it, and nor should you!'. All sides of the political spectrum does this, and it's frankly not good enough.
It is, however, the nature of politics. The majority of people cannot spend their lives focusing on politics, or government policy, so in the name of democracy we find ways to convey relatively accurate statements to them. The alternative is a sort of impossible Platonic Republic where the golden philosopher-kings rule as ascetic wise men.
Well, that, or glorious autocracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." –responding to the question "What would people do for $50 million?", "The Glenn Beck Program," May 17, 2005
How to present the Healthcare Plan, in a way even a cretin can understand...
For : Hey, you're covered. I'm covered. Everyone is covered. And yes, it's not free, you cough up out your taxes.
Against: We've got this far without it, and it will raise taxes.
There you go, no mindless mudslinging, no paranoia inducing rhetoric. Simplified without making stuff up. Or indeed including suggestions a famous scientist would be dead if he was British, despite him in fact being British and saying he has benefitted from the NHS....
N.B. If like me, you intend to use the word cretin in a post, might be best to check your post before, erm...posting. D'oh.
Mr Mystery wrote: So why allow the derisive naming? We simply do not have anything even vaguely resembling 'death panels' in the UK. I believe Sarah Palin was fond of that term (might be wrong, please correct me if I go astray). Three of my friends work in the NHS. And yes, it is an imperfect service. But it is essential. And you still have the option and indeed right to go private if you so wish. To use the name 'Death Panels' is plain old scare mongering based on 'I don't like it because those funding my career don't like it, and nor should you!'. All sides of the political spectrum does this, and it's frankly not good enough.
There wasn't ever a "Death Panel". they twisted end of life counseling with a patient and Dr. into the Gov. was going to decide who lives and who dies.
The dumbass is also a paranoid douchebag who thinks that the Obama administration is out to kill him.
I always wonder at the extent to which he believes what he says. I know that he's conservative, but I don't think he's anywhere near as extreme as he portrays himself to be. He isn't like O'Reily, who very clearly believes what he says. Really, the only person that really reminds of Glen Beck is Dane Cook.
Space Marine Walks up to a chapter Master.
SM: Sir we have horrible news.... Glenn Beck has become fully aware of the situation.
Chapter Master: Uhh Nuke him with stupid info that no one wants to hear about and will probably will destroy his career.
SM: sir we tried that but people are still watching his segement!
Chapter Master: Damn, are they still claiming to be unbiased?
SM: yes.
Chapter Master: And they are?
SM: Yes sir.
Chapter Master: I hate fox news, somehow they are able to regenerate all their limbs like a freaking salamander. Thats it men! WE shall stop watching fox news!
In a unfunny way. Glenn beck has to be one of the most useless sources of news on the planet.
Mr Mystery wrote:How to present the Healthcare Plan, in a way even a cretin can understand...
For : Hey, you're covered. I'm covered. Everyone is covered. And yes, it's not free, you cough up out your taxes.
Against: We've got this far without it, and it will raise tactics.
There you go, no mindless mudslinging, no paranoia inducing rhetoric. Simplified without making stuff up. Or indeed including suggestions a famous scientist would be dead if he was British, despite him in fact being British and saying he has benefitted from the NHS....
Sure, but people don't vote for that. If I walk up to you and say "CERN is pretty cool." your likely response is probably going to be fairly bland. If I say "ZOMG CERN is eh RoXoRz!!!!" then you'll have a strong reaction, either for or against.
Remember, politicians need people to vote for them (and, really, vote in general) in order to obtain legitimacy, and they can't walk around on election day poking people with sticks. They need to give them motivation prior to the fact.
Aye Dogma, i love watching fox news on youtube cos i find it piss funny, and honestly mate, GB comes out with some seriously wacky gak. I love the crack on American TV, its twice as funny as the gak the BBC knocks out, but you gotta be going some to convince me that the bloke aint a bad influence on the general public.
I mean, I dont think thats reason to ban someone, I think you should be able to say whatever the feth you like, I agree with 25% of what he says! Im just saying, we should be able to call the bloke a weirdo with no recourse.
Asherian Command wrote:Space Marine Walks up to a chapter Master.
SM: Sir we have horrible news.... Glenn Beck has become fully aware of the situation.
Chapter Master: Uhh Nuke him with stupid info that no one wants to hear about and will probably will destroy his career.
SM: sir we tried that but people are still watching his segement!
Chapter Master: Damn, are they still claiming to be unbiased?
SM: yes.
Chapter Master: And they are?
SM: Yes sir.
Chapter Master: I hate fox news, somehow they are able to regenerate all their limbs like a freaking salamander. Thats it men! WE shall stop watching fox news!
In a unfunny way. Glenn beck has to be one of the most useless sources of news on the planet.
And sadly a Prophet to others. or was that profit...
Mr Mystery wrote:How to present the Healthcare Plan, in a way even a cretin can understand...
For : Hey, you're covered. I'm covered. Everyone is covered. And yes, it's not free, you cough up out your taxes.
Against: We've got this far without it, and it will raise tactics.
There you go, no mindless mudslinging, no paranoia inducing rhetoric. Simplified without making stuff up. Or indeed including suggestions a famous scientist would be dead if he was British, despite him in fact being British and saying he has benefitted from the NHS....
Sure, but people don't vote for that. If I walk up to you and say "CERN is pretty cool." your likely response is probably going to be fairly bland. If I say "ZOMG CERN is eh RoXoRz!!!!" then you'll have a strong reaction, either for or against.
Remember, politicians need people to vote for them (and, really, vote in general) in order to obtain legitimacy, and they can't walk around on election day poking people with sticks. They need to give them motivation prior to the fact.
I respectfully disagree. Sensationalism has become the norm because it's easier. Why not just write your manifesto (not something the US uses, so apologies for the potential lack of relevance) clearly outlining the pros and cons, and let people decide from there. No more smoke and mirrors. No more recruiting the media to promote you. No more attacking the opposition. Just. Promote. Yourself. Much better, and mature.
Sorry. I just hate fox news. They claim to be unbiased and they are just idiots who know nothing of journalism and just rip on every culture and peoples on the planet.
Melissia wrote:Fox news isn't even really a news source, they're a politically minded entertainment source that thinks FACTUAL AND RELEVANT journalism is for sissies.
I did not hear about the Michael Moore quote, but even then he's more coming very, very, VERY close to the line, not stepping over it. He's not really saying 'I am going to go kill Michael Moore' or 'Hello there my viewers, go kill Michael Moore!' he's waxing hypothetically about what he could do. WHich,is still protected speech, unfortunately.
As far as most mainstream media goes, the fact is that they are, quite simply, companies first, and journalists second. They want to make money, and often unbiased reports on the situation don't sell, but sensationalized over the top stories sell like wildfire. In that sense, I'd say that almost every new corporation is a 'politically minded entertainment company'. If you think about it, they're responsible, not to the people watching, but to their shareholders and owners who want to see a profit more than fair and balanced reporting. I will admit I get a bit annoyed when people single out Fox News for this kind of treatment, when almost every other news sources is guilty of it to some degree.
ChrisWWII wrote:I did not hear about the Michael Moore quote, but even then he's more coming very, very, VERY close to the line, not stepping over it. He's not really saying 'I am going to go kill Michael Moore' or 'Hello there my viewers, go kill Michael Moore!' he's waxing hypothetically about what he could do. WHich,is still protected speech, unfortunately.
As far as most mainstream media goes, the fact is that they are, quite simply, companies first, and journalists second. They want to make money, and often unbiased reports on the situation don't sell, but sensationalized over the top stories sell like wildfire. In that sense, I'd say that almost every new corporation is a 'politically minded entertainment company'. If you think about it, they're responsible, not to the people watching, but to their shareholders and owners who want to see a profit more than fair and balanced reporting. I will admit I get a bit annoyed when people single out Fox News for this kind of treatment, when almost every other news sources is guilty of it to some degree.
but as seiously as some people take him, does he have to be over the line for an unstable follower to take it over for him? if so how far over?
i really think given the climate, and the % of unstable people in the world, it's better to not even go there. and if GB was so much more "in the
right" with his views over M. Moore, does he really need to threaten him? just shows his own weakness, inho.
Melissia wrote:All companies suffer from it, but not to as great a degree and as blatantly as Fox does.
Hmmm true I'd say, Fox is really the one that's most blatantly supportive of one political side, but that doesn't acquite the other to any degree. However, that does mean that the only way to get a really unbiased view is to watch both sides, and then mash what they say together.
alarmingrick wrote:
but as seiously as some people take him, does he have to be over the line for an unstable follower to take it over for him? if so how far over?
i really think given the climate, and the % of unstable people in the world, it's better to not even go there. and if GB was so much more "in the
right" with his views over M. Moore, does he really need to threaten him? just shows his own weakness, inho.
As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.
Melissia wrote:All companies suffer from it, but not to as great a degree and as blatantly as Fox does.
Hmmm true I'd say, Fox is really the one that's most blatantly supportive of one political side, but that doesn't acquite the other to any degree. However, that does mean that the only way to get a really unbiased view is to watch both sides, and then mash what they say together.
You cannot watch Fox news and get an unbiased view. Simply put, they don't care about news, they just want to sell their political viewpoint.
Frankly, if you want unbiased news, you should read articles from both sides... but not from Fox. If you're gonna read Fox, you might as well also read ONN too.
alarmingrick wrote:
but as seiously as some people take him, does he have to be over the line for an unstable follower to take it over for him? if so how far over?
i really think given the climate, and the % of unstable people in the world, it's better to not even go there. and if GB was so much more "in the
right" with his views over M. Moore, does he really need to threaten him? just shows his own weakness, inho.
As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.
and as correct as you may be, i think it falls harder on the sholders of the person stoking the fire(in this case Beck) to stress the fact that he's not asking for it to happen. if he cared as much for America
as much as he cries he does, then you think he'd go out of his way to make sure evil didn't happen in his name. instead of falling behind the cloak of "he's the one that's nuts".
alarmingrick wrote:
but as seiously as some people take him, does he have to be over the line for an unstable follower to take it over for him? if so how far over?
Does this mean that J.D. Salinger is responsible for writing and awful book, and for killing John Lennon?
alarmingrick wrote:
but as seiously as some people take him, does he have to be over the line for an unstable follower to take it over for him? if so how far over?
Does this mean that J.D. Salinger is responsible for writing and awful book, and for killing John Lennon?
did Salinger stoke fires of political turmoil like GB does?
Mr Mystery wrote:Does it mean Bin Laden is responsible for the various terrorist attacks?
Seriously?! of course it does. simply due to that's what he wants them to do!
Yeah, but just imagine if he DID kill Michael Moore. Like live on TV. Two jerks, one stone...
I dunno, I don't hate Glenny specifically, he is a product of our times. Mainstream media is so F'd it's not even funny; he is a symptom, not the cause. Let him rant all he wants I guess, it's not like getting rid of him would cause the need he fulfills to disappear.
alarmingrick wrote:
did Salinger stoke fires of political turmoil like GB does?
Salinger has, apparently, incited at least 2 murders. Glenn Beck has, thus far, incited none.
But it's not like Salinger was on the tv/radio everyday talking about how Lennon was a socialist trying to destroy America.
GB and the like are almost herding the crazies to the conclusions that could very easily end in murder.
alarmingrick wrote:
But it's not like Salinger was on the tv/radio everyday talking about how Lennon was a socialist trying to destroy America.
GB and the like are almost herding the crazies to the conclusions that could very easily end in murder.
Honestly, I think that most of his audience is composed of liberals looking to be outraged, and probably some conservatives looking to call out their side of the spectrum as well.
I know that I've watched him like I watch videos of people falling on their face, or Jackass.
You might be surprised. I know several former coworkers who thought that Glenn Beck was a reputable source of information and that Fox News was not only unbiased but the only unbiased source of news.
Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Tell that gak to the FCC, I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it before handing you the no fly list of what you can and can't say on tv. Boobs? Two hundred thousand dollar fine. Calling for the blood of members of an opposing political party? Free speech.
Yep. Go America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:You might be surprised. I know several former coworkers who thought that Glenn Beck was a reputable source of information and that Fox News was not only unbiased but the only unbiased source of news.
Frazzled wrote:[
Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad
He SHOULD be taken off. He is human garbage. He shouldn't be forced off, but it would be nice if those who employ him had even an iota of dignity and common sense, but well...
That being said He could still stand out on a street corner and spout his crazy talk if he chose (free speech and all), maybe even wear a tinfoil hat while he does it...
Albatross wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that the lady Beck was talking about was spouting some pretty wacky gak herself?
How right you are Alby, Frances Fox Piven is an advocate of violent revolution in her politics. She wants the Riots of Greece to happen here. She want s the system to collapse so she and people like her (Progressives) can remake the country with more economical justice (fancy way of dressing up socialism).
The sheer amount of fascistic thought on this thread pains my soul. "I don't like what he says, take him off the air!" That's a cry from a fascist. I would suggest you get the view straight from the source, not saying you have to agree with him or even enjoy watching his show or listening to his radio program, just don't take someone else's word for it.
Glenn has repeatedly said he abhors violence and anyone who claims he inspired them is crazy. Stop being childish people.
Albatross wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that the lady Beck was talking about was spouting some pretty wacky gak herself?
How right you are Alby, Frances Fox Piven is an advocate of violent revolution in her politics. She wants the Riots of Greece to happen here. She want s the system to collapse so she and people like her (Progressives) can remake the country with more economical justice (fancy way of dressing up socialism).
The sheer amount of fascistic thought on this thread pains my soul. "I don't like what he says, take him off the air!" That's a cry from a fascist. I would suggest you get the view straight from the source, not saying you have to agree with him or even enjoy watching his show or listening to his radio program, just don't take someone else's word for it.
Glenn has repeatedly said he abhors violence and anyone who claims he inspired them is crazy. Stop being childish people.
You can't really advocate and abhor something at the same time without a rather sheepish audience. Becks' got that in spades though. Piven advocated peaceful socio-economic revolution through manipulation of the welfare system. She also encouraged protests. These are not advocating violent revolution any more then beck is advocating violent political suppression.
fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3. ( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Also, censorship is not inherently fascism, nor is the wish that someone be taken off the air of a private network fascistic. Glenn Beck is an incompetent and corrupt demagogue who plays on false fears and bad science to fatten his wallet. The man has no place in political discourse, and he certainly shouldn't have a primetime show on a major news network. Wanting him gone isn't fascist, it's common sense. How he is removed is what would make it fascistic, and somehow I don't think people are asking Obama to throw him into guantanamo bay.
Thanks for the hyperbole though, it goes great with the skewing of widely available information and the redirection of fault/backpedaling Beck and his fans love to practice.
To be clear, I would only be happy to see Glenn Beck on my TV screen if it was a news story reporting that he'd been found in a ditch with a single gunshot wound to the head. Let's just say that I'm not a fan.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Piven sounds equally as crazy.
Albatross wrote:To be clear, I would only be happy to see Glenn Beck on my TV screen if it was a news story reporting that he'd been found in a ditch with a single gunshot wound to the head. Let's just say that I'm not a fan.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Piven sounds equally as crazy.
Albatross wrote:To be clear, I would only be happy to see Glenn Beck on my TV screen if it was a news story reporting that he'd been found in a ditch with a single gunshot wound to the head. Let's just say that I'm not a fan.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Piven sounds equally as crazy.
Agreed.
Sweet Jesus and Mary Chain! I almost choked on my monocle!
Dark Eldar have been released, Duke Nukem Forever has a release date, Albatross and Shuma agree, and I'm pretty sure I saw Satan buying some winter coats in town today.
Asherian Command wrote:
In a unfunny way. Glenn beck has to be one of the most useless sources of news on the planet.
As Dane Cook is to George Carlin, Glenn Beck is to John Stewart.
Such a good comparison, wow.
TBH, I think we are focusing too much on Glen. Yes, he is a complete idiot, but share the loathing with Bill O'reilly, an equally stupid person, possibly more. Because Bill actually thinks what he says is true, and that he is right, while I think Glen sort of just feths around.
Glen should be on comedy central.
In the end, whatever we say doesn't matter. Glen/Bill won't change their viewpoint until their death. I think its funny how everyone is saying "Oh, he's bad for saying he wants to kill Michale Moore" when we are clearly implying we would kill Glen Beck if given the chance.
Melissia wrote:You might be surprised. I know several former coworkers who thought that Glenn Beck was a reputable source of information and that Fox News was not only unbiased but the only unbiased source of news.
Yay Texas... Every family event I go to I get to hear about this. At some point when a football game isn't on, FOX news usually gets flipped to.
Asherian Command wrote:
In a unfunny way. Glenn beck has to be one of the most useless sources of news on the planet.
As Dane Cook is to George Carlin, Glenn Beck is to John Stewart.
Such a good comparison, wow.
TBH, I think we are focusing too much on Glen. Yes, he is a complete idiot, but share the loathing with Bill O'reilly, an equally stupid person, possibly more. Because Bill actually thinks what he says is true, and that he is right, while I think Glen sort of just feths around.
Glen should be on comedy central.
In the end, whatever we say doesn't matter. Glen/Bill won't change their viewpoint until their death. I think its funny how everyone is saying "Oh, he's bad for saying he wants to kill Michale Moore" when we are clearly implying we would kill Glen Beck if given the chance.
I never implied that. Merely that I dislike the stupid fether.
By comparison to Glen Beck's own words and actions, albatross can't be criticised for wanting him dead unless you accept that Glen Beck should be criticised too. And once again, freedom of speech does not entitle you to a national TV platform. That is something he has got, but not a right he is entitled to if the TV executives decide to take it away.
Karon wrote: In the end, whatever we say doesn't matter. Glen/Bill won't change their viewpoint until their death. I think its funny how everyone is saying "Oh, he's bad for saying he wants to kill Michale Moore" when we are clearly implying we would kill Glen Beck if given the chance.
I think one of the Worst "Oreally" moments has to be when the "Pinhead" said WE (the USA), were responsible for the Malmedy massacre in WWII, when it was actually GIs that where killed!
and i think you are off a bit Karon. i think the bigger point is "how long until the people realize what a donkey cave he is", not let's find his schedule and a good vantage point. i like others have
said, i don't want him dead, but i won't miss any sleep if he were.
here's a link to the O'Reilly story. now before all of you Beck believers cry fowl, the link is to MediaMatters.org. i get that you don't trust them, but just listen to/read the story. it plays him in his own words.
as much as the Right doesn't trust MM, they can't control what the man said himself, on air.
"... Bill O'Reilly falsely accused -- for the second time -- U.S. troops of committing the massacre at Malmédy, Belgium, during World War II. On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor two days earlier, O'Reilly had attempted to compare the incident at Malmédy to the alleged killings in Haditha, Iraq. O'Reilly stated: "In Malmédy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down." In fact, 84 American bodies were found at Malmédy murdered by SS troops."
I'm not saying he's entitled to it at all. I wouldn't cry boo hoo if Glenn's TV show got taken away from him, not at all. I think Glenn can be criticized as much as we want to for what he said, the same as we'd criticize anyone here. Glenn just happens to have a way of spreading his word much farther than the average human being.
Stormrider wrote:
How right you are Alby, Frances Fox Piven is an advocate of violent revolution in her politics. She wants the Riots of Greece to happen here. She want s the system to collapse so she and people like her (Progressives) can remake the country with more economical justice (fancy way of dressing up socialism).
No, if that's what you think then you have never read anything that she has written. She isn't a very good political scientist, but she also doesn't advocate the violent overthrow of the state. Even the article that Beck claims as an incitement to violence is nothing of the sort. Its literally a theory predicated on the idea that full use of present welfare benefits would cause the system to collapse, not the state, but the welfare system. I don't think she's right, but she also isn't what you're talking about.
Stormrider wrote:
Glenn has repeatedly said he abhors violence and anyone who claims he inspired them is crazy. Stop being childish people.
While I don't consider Beck to be anything other than a poor entertainer, simply saying that one abhors violence doesn't really matter. The skinhead gang Volksfront has repeatedly made public statements about its hatred of violence, while also having its members beat homeless black people to death.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Agreed. Free speech. I just won't buy anything from people who advertise during his show.
Free speech is protected, but the consequences of what you say are all yours when your done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.
Frazzled wrote:We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Only if you consider the debate over public discourse to begin and end with government involvement. You're absolutely right that there's no place for government to come in and take him off the air.
But you're absolutely wrong in ignoring the responsibility FOX news, their affiliated networks, and those on Beck's side of politics have to look at what he's saying and really, honestly question if he should be allowed to continue spouting hate-filled nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:It would be like me musing as to whether or not I could kill Noam Chomsky.
No, you couldn't. THe man might not look like much but he carries knives all about his person. He would cut you up.
Fateweaver wrote:
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
MSNBC, sure, but the other major networks are no particularly left-leaning.
There's this weird tendency on the right and extreme left (lots of people I went to school with claim CNN et al as Conservative shills), most likely associated with zero-sum conceptions of power, to assume that anything that isn't for you is against you. This was really obvious during the Giffords coverage, as many people tried to call out news networks for stating that certain people claimed it was motivated by Conservatism.
There is an important distinction between saying that someone else is saying X, and actually saying X. A distinction that is apparently lost on large swathes of the population.
ChrisWWII wrote:As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.
Believing one's responsibilities begin and end with the legality of the situation is basically the expert's guide to being an donkey-cave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Does this mean that J.D. Salinger is responsible for writing and awful book, and for killing John Lennon?
It's a good book
And surely there's some measure of common sense involved in relating the message given and the one received. If Someone claimed that the Tides Foundation is part of a leftist conspiracy to take over America* and a guy took up arms to stop them*, is not the same thing as someone writing a book about a ferret lost in the big city, and a guy reading it and thinking it's a code telling him to the kill the vice president in charge of marketing at Coca Cola.
*This is really happened by the way, Beck claimed that about the entirely obscure Tides Foundation, and a guy gathered his guns and drove there, only for police to attempt to pull him over for speeding on the way. He was arrested following a shoot out with police.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that the lady Beck was talking about was spouting some pretty wacky gak herself?
No doubt. But she's nothing more than a whacky intellectual on the absolute fringes of academia, and he's a guy with a prime time tv show. The lunacy of one of these people actually matters, the lunacy of the other doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:How right you are Alby, Frances Fox Piven is an advocate of violent revolution in her politics.
She's an almost wrote the book in the 1960s. Calling her out now as a sudden threat to the freedoms of US citizens is like declaring the Weather Underground a dramatic new threat to the US. It's scare mongering nonsense.
The sheer amount of fascistic thought on this thread pains my soul. "I don't like what he says, take him off the air!" That's a cry from a fascist.
First of all, if you're going to comment on the thread please actually read it. No-one has stated he should be taken off the air because they don't like what he says.
Second of all, if you're going to comment on fascism or public speech please read about what each is, and how they are in fact entirely different things. A state can have tight media controls, or even entirely state controlled media, and not be fascist in the slightest. All you're doing is showing your love for incendiary name calling is much greater than your interest in what words actually mean.
I would suggest you get the view straight from the source, not saying you have to agree with him or even enjoy watching his show or listening to his radio program, just don't take someone else's word for it.
I've seen the show, lots. It isn't that he's biased, it's that his show makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even that he makes no sense, it's that he is almost entirely indifferent to the idea of making sense. He just doesn't care if his political arguments make any sense.
sebster wrote:
And surely there's some measure of common sense involved in relating the message given and the one received. If Someone claimed that the Tides Foundation is part of a leftist conspiracy to take over America* and a guy took up arms to stop them*, is not the same thing as someone writing a book about a ferret lost in the big city, and a guy reading it and thinking it's a code telling him to the kill the vice president in charge of marketing at Coca Cola.
*This is really happened by the way, Beck claimed that about the entirely obscure Tides Foundation, and a guy gathered his guns and drove there, only for police to attempt to pull him over for speeding on the way. He was arrested following a shoot out with police.
Yeah, no question there is a qualitative difference. I'm merely saying that the difference isn't categorical, and so it remains the sort of thing that the legal system should be left out of.
As you said before, the state should do nothing, but his viewers and benefactors probably should do something.
Albatross wrote:Nevertheless, the fact remains that Piven sounds equally as crazy.
Equally crazy, but entirely irrelevant. I mean, who'd even heard of her before Beck started talking about her on his show?
There are people who are crazier than both Beck and Piven, you can find them standing on street corners wearing their underwear outside of their pants. But they aren't given prime time tv shows, so we don't really worry about their impact on the national discourse. In terms of her impact, Piven is much closer to the crazy on the street corner than she is to Glenn Beck.
Ok,but where do we draw the line?
Glenn Becks rhetoric may inspire some crazy to grab some guns and shoot Micheal Moore..ok.
What about the Televangelist who's rhetoric inspired some nut to load his car with guns and go hunting for Marilyn Manson...do we ban him as well?
What about inflammatory music that allegedly inspires youth to commit crime in an attempt to be "Gangsta"...do we get rid of that too?
Once we start outlawing offensive speech..where do we stop?
Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.
NBC isn't great, and is getting worse, but pretending it's anywhere near FOX is ridiculous.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is.
That's completely ridiculous.
Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
Yes, most MSM sources are bad, and most are getting worse. FOX is much worse than any other. Pretending otherwise is allowing oneself to believe a truly ridiculous thing, and doing it for the sake of a political convenience.
sebster wrote:
I've seen the show, lots. It isn't that he's biased, it's that his show makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even that he makes no sense, it's that he is almost entirely indifferent to the idea of making sense. He just doesn't care if his political arguments make any sense.
Word.
If he actually believes what he says, and I really doubt that he does, then he's basically just Rainbow Randolph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Equally crazy, but entirely irrelevant. I mean, who'd even heard of her before Beck started talking about her on his show?
They aren't equally crazy, though. Yeah, she wants more rights for the poor, lots of people do. However, the whole thing about her desiring the collapse of the state is simply wrong. As I said before, the Nation article she wrote is about her beliefs with respect to intended inefficiency in the bureaucracy, and how it might be rectified by "force".
I think her assessment is wrong, but not so wrong as to be crazy.
Never been a bright but disaffected young kid, simultaneously full of naivety and cynicism?
Yeah, no question there is a qualitative difference. I'm merely saying that the difference isn't categorical, and so it remains the sort of thing that the legal system should be left out of.
There is a point where you reach incitement to violence, but yeah, Beck is nowhere near that point.
As you said before, the state should do nothing, but his viewers and benefactors probably should do something.
Like a lot of things, when you read it is going have as much of an impact as the fact that you read it. Of course considering the limited knowledge of today's youth and their short attention span I imagine a book that doesn't reference the internet, cell phones, or Nikki Minaj while simultaneously not having hyperlinks would be impossible to get through. It wouldn't surprise me if schools had to use the Illustrated Classics versions of books in High School these days. They would still need a teacher on hand to help of course becuase anything pre-1995 is treated like it is from the Roman Era. Richard Nixon...not just a head in a jar.
Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
That koolaid must be delicious.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.
I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.
ChrisWWII wrote:As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.
Believing one's responsibilities begin and end with the legality of the situation is basically the expert's guide to being an donkey-cave.
Hell yes it is, and I don't pretend to believe it's true. I like to think that I am not a donkey cave, and I fully believe that just because someone is legally innocent of a crime there is still the possibility that they are guilty, just not in a way the law can punish. However, for purproses of censoring free speech? We have to go with what the law says, even if it means lettign people we'd rather not have on TV talking to the whole world on TV.
Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
That koolaid must be delicious.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.
I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.
If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.
How's the Liberal Koolaid? Probably not as tasty as the Conservative Koolaid I drink
Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.
That koolaid must be delicious.
Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.
It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.
I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.
If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.
How's the Liberal Koolaid? Probably not as tasty as the Conservative Koolaid I drink
MSNBC is left leaning for sure. but seriously folks, Fox news and the endless array of conservative talk shows that exist, are the only things most conservative people
will believe. anything outside of that collection tends to fall into the catagory of "Main Stream Media" meaning it's not to be trusted. i'm sorry, i prefer to have the facts laid out
in front of me and let me make up my own mind. not have someone tell be what i think. or "these are the facts which could only mean ______".
dogma wrote:Sure, but I didn't read Catcher until I was no longer disaffected.
Well there's your problem right there.
Ahtman wrote:I don't watch that much right wing news, what is MSM?
Mainstream media. It's used by the right wing to complain about all the news services that don't just list all the Republican talking points.
If you try and point out that FOX news is by far the biggest cable news service, and is therefore more mainstream than anyone... then it gets really weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:Hell yes it is, and I don't pretend to believe it's true. I like to think that I am not a donkey cave, and I fully believe that just because someone is legally innocent of a crime there is still the possibility that they are guilty, just not in a way the law can punish. However, for purproses of censoring free speech? We have to go with what the law says, even if it means lettign people we'd rather not have on TV talking to the whole world on TV.
Yeah, but no-one was talking about government banning Beck or anyone else. That was just something Fraz decided to argue against for reasons known only to him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.
Yes, they're biased, NBC in particular has made an effort to court liberal voters. But your original claim stated they were just as biased as FOX, which is completely ridiculous.
Don't make an outrageous claim then try to shift the goalposts so that you can defend something more reasonable. Or at least, don't do it so obviously. To paraphrase Charlie Brown's famous line, I'm less offended that you'd play a little game like that, and more offended that you think we're stupid enough to fall for it.
In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.
But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?
There's a difference between claiming that MSNBC is as biased as FOX (it is), and claiming that every other news group is just as biased as FOX (they aren't).
In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.
But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?
It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.
My first thought was maybe if someone actually did beat a 78 year old lady to death with a hammer we might not have to put up with Glen Beck's insane babbling anymore, but then I realized it's Fox news we are talking about. Glen Beck would just put on some waterworks, and Fox news would just spin the whole thing to make Glen Beck the victim of a liberal media attack because some crazy psychopath beat an old lady to death with a hammer and the "liberal media" is blaming the whole thing on Glenn Beck. If it worked for Caribu Barbie wit should work for Glenn Beck. In the end it would only increase his own ratings.
In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.
But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?
It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert.
Valhallan42nd wrote:“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert.
This is from a New York Times article, the was unnamed at the time, but was later announced as Karl Rove;
"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
It was incredible at the time. Infuriating really, for a group with such power to be almost hostile to the idea of discussing how the world works. Now, after all that's happened since, the quote just reads as kind of pathetic.
Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Hate speech is not free speech. As a future lawyer you might start thinking about that.
Mr Mystery wrote:Extremist views really shouldn't be made for public consumption.
Unless of course your Freedom Of Speech allowance extends to other extremist persons or groups being allowed primetime to make death threats, spit general venom etc against America? Or is there a completely arbitrary line that some can cross?
1. It should be. It makes the best disinfectant.
2. I don't care what you do in your country. Here we do have that freedom of speech. WE also have the freedom of speech to make fun of him, and list the top ten people we are mad at and who can suck our balls.
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.
Frazzled wrote:
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.
Beck can certainly, speaking from a media platform on a television channel that proports to be a 'news' channel, be accused of inciting a mob.
Beck's placement on said television channel can be argued to be a locality and we could certainly say the locality of Fox News should be considered for an exception.
And like the wikileaks guy, we can certainly claim Beck's actions are sedition in a time of war... Espousing conspiracy theories on a national network, touting claims that the current Government is lead by an enemy of the people etc etc.
Frazzled wrote:
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.
Beck can certainly, speaking from a media platform on a television channel that proports to be a 'news' channel, be accused of inciting a mob.
Beck's placement on said television channel can be argued to be a locality and we could certainly say the locality of Fox News should be considered for an exception.
And like the wikileaks guy, we can certainly claim Beck's actions are sedition in a time of war... Espousing conspiracy theories on a national network, touting claims that the current Government is lead by an enemy of the people etc etc.
Still, let's lighten the mood...
Its not the forum, its the content. You really have to look at the relevant case law on this but effectively its a simple - is he inciting immediate harm, and does the crowd have the realistic means to create that harm. The test is usually tested extremely narrowly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:When a 78 year old woman actually is murdered for being left wing?
Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.
So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?
Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.
We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.
Hate speech is not free speech. As a future lawyer you might start thinking about that.
Don't ever practice law. Disbarment is a painful thing.
Fafnir wrote:You know what the worst part is? A lot of people actually watch his segment. And a lot of those people agree with him.
Scary thought, huh?
Yes, quite. I can't believe it. Every time I even read a fragment of his show, I'm metaphorically scratching my head thinking "How can people be so ridiculous and zealous over this guy?"
It's quite sad, to be honest. Some of us americans really are dumb
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
I'm fairly certain that this doesn't extend to private commercial enterprise broadcasting on public spectrum, hate speech is protected under the same laws that govern issues of censorship and content. There is significant precedent for censorship of hate speech, derogatory terms, and visually explicit imagery. Free speech is great, except in the real world it's not particularly universal on spectrum broadcasts which are already very heavily regulated for content and have been for quite some time. Becks version of hate speech is quite difficult to legislate against since it's weasel worded through mantra like inferences and the dissemination of lies. You're allowed to lie on TV and present it as the truth (sadly) even if you aren't allowed to advocate actionable violence against a group of citizens.
Are you talking about the pain of the disbarment process from personal experience?
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.
It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.
If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.
It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.
If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...
There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.
It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.
If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...
There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.
1. Really, and your case law to discuss this interesting view is?
2. Again its not relevant. Neither of those matter for the real limiting factor-are they inciting violence which could be carried immediately and realistically (yes I know I'm paraphrasing in a big way).
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?
He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.
Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.
Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.
Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.
It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.
If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...
There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.
1. Really, and your case law to discuss this interesting view is?
I'll present precisely as many as you have. . There, done.
2. Again its not relevant. Neither of those matter for the real limiting factor-are they inciting violence which could be carried immediately and realistically (yes I know I'm paraphrasing in a big way).
You're both paraphrasing and incorrect about how and where constitutional free speech is unregulated and unrestricted, but then aren't you in property law or something?
Robert Brasillach, an anti-Semitic French writer and collaborator, was executed after the war because of his writings. Similarly three Rwandan radio station managers/mouth pieces were convicted of genocide. The Beck clip posted by the OP is too close for comfort. He's arguing that left wingers "may" have to be shot in the head. Will make me nervous the next time I'm teaching the Manifesto to 400 freshmen.
Robert Brasillach, an anti-Semitic French writer and collaborator, was executed after the war because of his writings.
***Was he in the USA? If no, who gives a gak?
Similarly three Rwandan radio station managers/mouth pieces were convicted of genocide.
***Again I reference the law firm of Who, and Gives a gak?
The Beck clip posted by the OP is too close for comfort. He's arguing that left wingers "may" have to be shot in the head. Will make me nervous the next time I'm teaching the Manifesto to 400 freshmen.
***Listening to Glen Beck for more than 18.7 seconds always makes me nervous. Here, this will provide a calming effect.
I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.
Monster Rain wrote:I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.
I want him off the air because I disagree with him, he lies to the public, is a crook, and is turning Americans into raving idiots. His incitation of violence towards political opposition is simply the method by which my dreams might become reality.
I rarely agree with you, but you do know what you're talking about more often than not. I guess your tone rubs some people the wrong way sometimes though.
Monster Rain wrote:I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.
I think its more a danger to the public welfare, as in it lowers the IQ of the viewing public. Beck's like the Nixon Kennedy debate. Listen to him on the radio and you get mad. See him on TV and you just laugh and laugh.
In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.
But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?
It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.
Nice assumption mate. You just made an ass of yourself.
How many times must I tell you that I don't WATCH or LISTEN to Fox news?
Liberal view is the truth according to who? Liberals? Pot smoking hippies? Minorities? Foreigners (as in those across the pond who think they know our country better than we do?
The town I live in (and Dogma knows where I'm from) is mostly liberal and hanging out at the local nerd shop with all the liberal nerds has me shaking my head every time I leave that place.
If what they believe is the truth then you people on the left side of the podium are as brainwashed and spoon-fed as the right-wingers you claim are the same.
But I digress. Leftists claim they are right and righties claim they are right. Neither side will convince the other.
In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.
But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?
It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.
Nice assumption mate. You just made an ass of yourself.
How many times must I tell you that I don't WATCH or LISTEN to Fox news?
Liberal view is the truth according to who? Liberals? Pot smoking hippies? Minorities? Foreigners (as in those across the pond who think they know our country better than we do?
The town I live in (and Dogma knows where I'm from) is mostly liberal and hanging out at the local nerd shop with all the liberal nerds has me shaking my head every time I leave that place.
If what they believe is the truth then you people on the left side of the podium are as brainwashed and spoon-fed as the right-wingers you claim are the same.
But I digress. Leftists claim they are right and righties claim they are right. Neither side will convince the other.
Monster Rain wrote:I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.
I remember having a conversation with one of my more stereotypical liberal friends that went something like this:
Friend: What will it take to get his violent drivel off the air, someone dying with the words "Beck made me do it on his lips"?!?
Me: Yeah, pretty much, maybe not even then.
Friend: That's not acceptable.
Me: It doesn't matter if you can accept it, that's the way it is.
In any case, I take comfort in knowing that anyone foolish enough to take Beck seriously is probably either too foolish to locate a ballot box, or too disenfranchised to try and find one.
In any case, I take comfort in knowing that anyone foolish enough to take Beck seriously is probably either too foolish to locate a ballot box, or too disenfranchised to try and find one.
I'd take comfort in that as well, if not for the fact that nearly all such people are also armed to the teeth.
In any case, I take comfort in knowing that anyone foolish enough to take Beck seriously is probably either too foolish to locate a ballot box, or too disenfranchised to try and find one.
I'd take comfort in that as well, if not for the fact that nearly all such people are also armed to the teeth.
And yet so few people are assassinated for political reasons.
In any case, I take comfort in knowing that anyone foolish enough to take Beck seriously is probably either too foolish to locate a ballot box, or too disenfranchised to try and find one.
I'd take comfort in that as well, if not for the fact that nearly all such people are also armed to the teeth.
And yet so few people are assassinated for political reasons.
And yet some are and Mr Beck is hardly causing that figure to go down... we have no evidence that he's caused it to go up...yet, but time will tell if he is allowed to continue his vitriolic accusations.
We can't honestly say that Glenn Beck is having an effect on political violence one way or the other. I'm also wondering if there have been any politically motivated murders or attempted murders that haven't been committed by people that were a bit off to begin with?
Should Jodie Foster be removed from the public eye due to her negative effect on John Hinckley?
In any case, I take comfort in knowing that anyone foolish enough to take Beck seriously is probably either too foolish to locate a ballot box, or too disenfranchised to try and find one.
I'd take comfort in that as well, if not for the fact that nearly all such people are also armed to the teeth.
And yet so few people are assassinated for political reasons.
And yet some are and Mr Beck is hardly causing that figure to go down... we have no evidence that he's caused it to go up...yet, but time will tell if he is allowed to continue his vitriolic accusations.
You actually have to have one before you can make the claim. To date, you don't.
I agree with Monster Rain. Savage makes my ears bleed.
Thing is I'm not the right wing nutjob certain posters on this forum think I am. Hell, I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortions; I don't think gays are going to take over the world and turn me into one of them. I'm right of center but I'm not Savage or Beck right of center.
@Shuma. I very rarely watch or listen to news. Not world news at least. I skim Yahoo for any updates and if a story grabs my attention I'll read more about it. Most news I listen to is local, ie city and county news, maybe even State news.
The only thing I really pay attention to politically is the NRA website. Go figure eh?
Fateweaver wrote:I agree with Monster Rain. Savage makes my ears bleed.
Thing is I'm not the right wing nutjob certain posters on this forum think I am. Hell, I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortions; I don't think gays are going to take over the world and turn me into one of them. I'm right of center but I'm not Savage or Beck right of center.
@Shuma. I very rarely watch or listen to news. Not world news at least. I skim Yahoo for any updates and if a story grabs my attention I'll read more about it. Most news I listen to is local, ie city and county news, maybe even State news.
The only thing I really pay attention to politically is the NRA website. Go figure eh?
Then how do you know what MSN or NBC are like? You don't know what on their networks because you don't watch them, you don't know what they're talking about because you don't really follow the news, yet you maintain that they have a severe liberal bias.
I've watched them in the past. Then I stopped watching because when I watched Clinton was in office and it was all about how Clinton was this and that and how the things he wanted were so awesome and great. Not Obamasiah great but great.
Then Bush came into being and even Bush Sr. was depicted by MSNBC and CNN as some incompetent moron, which clearly showed me what side of the podium the news anchors/reporters were on concerning those networks.
Maybe it's changed but I saw enough to distort my view of those networks and leave me jaded. Just as my view of certain posters on this board is a bit jaded.
I've watched them in the past. Then I stopped watching because when I watched Clinton was in office and it was all about how Clinton was this and that and how the things he wanted were so awesome and great. Not Obamasiah great but great.
Then Bush came into being and even Bush Sr. was depicted by MSNBC and CNN as some incompetent moron, which clearly showed me what side of the podium the news anchors/reporters were on concerning those networks.
Ahh, so the fact that virtually every tracked aspect of performance in American security, economics, rights, and global standing took a hit starting a month into bushes reign and ending with the financial collapse at the end of it had nothing to do with it. His failures were reported because of liberal bias and not the legitimate and repeated failures of his administration in almost every field.
Got it.
Maybe it's changed but I saw enough to distort my view of those networks and leave me jaded.
How old were you and what was your political standing at the time. The time being a decade ago.
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
I could ask why, if Obama is so great as a liberal President, the economy hasn't improved noticeably in 2 years (hello 9%+ unemployment in some states STILL) ? The border wars in Mexico are getting worse and oh look, we still have troops in Afghan and there are more going in in May.
Yeah, Obama is doing such an awesome job and yet he is still pictured as some sort of "hero".
I was in my early 20's when Bush Sr. took the Oath and my political standing has always been right of center. Like I said, not Beck or Savage or Limbaugh right but I do lean right.
I have voted liberal, shock and awe. I voted for our current governor who is Dem. and I voted for the current mayor who is also Dem. I consider myself right of center due to the majority of my voting being for Republican candidates.
Contrary to what most liberals think Shuma it doesn't take having a college degree to vote. Being for one party or the other is supposed to be based on how you feel about issues, not what people feed you. From what I gather in my hometown the typical liberal view is what the liberal college brats are spoon fed by their liberal college professors.
Maybe I should drink liberal koolaid. What flavor is it? My koolaid is red and has kind of an almond taste to it. Must be from Jim Jones' stock.
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
I think raegan started the ball rolling and the deregulatory spirit of the 90's and 00's cemented the culture of credit that created the housing bubble and removed all oversight from the financial industry.
Do you seriously think it was clinton?
I could ask why, if Obama is so great as a liberal President, the economy hasn't improved noticeably in 2 years (hello 9%+ unemployment in some states STILL) ? The border wars in Mexico are getting worse and oh look, we still have troops in Afghan and there are more going in in May.
The economy has improved dramatically, you're clearly not an economist. Unemployment is the employment rate, not the economic output of the country. Our economy has returned to pre-collapse levels, the reason people don't have their jobs back is because there were too many jobs before. If we can shed that many jobs and then be back to peak performance for GDP within 2 years then those people were clearly part of a system that had a lot of fat to trim in the first place. It ever occur to you that those jobs were lost precisely because the economy was bloated and wasteful pre recession? Its going to take a half decade or more for jobs to get back to a prefall level, just like virtually every respectable economist in the country predicted in 2009-2010.
Also, the hell does this have to do with what I asked you (though its funny as the collapse actually reduced border crossings)?
Yeah, Obama is doing such an awesome job and yet he is still pictured as some sort of "hero".
It's funny how the hyperconservatives are the only ones calling him that. They use quotes, but still they're the only ones even bringing it up.
I was in my early 20's when Bush Sr. took the Oath and my political standing has always been right of center. Like I said, not Beck or Savage or Limbaugh right but I do lean right.
According to most of your stated views on this forum you're father right then O'rielly. You're pretty far from the middle on the political spectrum.
I have voted liberal, shock and awe. I voted for our current governor who is Dem. and I voted for the current mayor who is also Dem. I consider myself right of center due to the majority of my voting being for Republican candidates.
You should base your political standing on the issues and not who you vote for. Otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse.
Contrary to what most liberals think Shuma it doesn't take having a college degree to vote.
Really? I had no idea. Thank you for pointing that out.
Being for one party or the other is supposed to be based on how you feel about issues, not what people feed you.
How you feel about issues is based on what information you are fed.
From what I gather in my hometown the typical liberal view is what the liberal college brats are spoon fed by their liberal college professors.
This what you're learning in the local game store?
Maybe I should drink liberal koolaid. What flavor is it? My koolaid is red and has kind of an almond taste to it. Must be from Jim Jones' stock.
Try to avoid koolaid, I know it's easy to make and easier to drink, but it's empty.
Monster Rain wrote:I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.
Seriously, read about the Tides Foundation. A guy went there, guns in hand, to shoot the place up. Incredibly luckily he was stopped by police before he arrived, and was arrested after a shoot out. And the big and really important thing to understand is that the only place the Tides Foundation has ever appeared in the kookosphere was in Beck's rants. The only reason the attempted killer even knew the incredibly obscure Tides Foundation existed is through Beck. He has in at least one instance incited a crazy to go shoot some people.
Personally, I'd have more respect if people said they recognised Beck was dangerous, but censoring him is creates too great a risk that it might lead to legitimate speach being dismissed down the track. Pretending what he's doing isn't dangerous is ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:How many times must I tell you that I don't WATCH or LISTEN to Fox news?
Probably about a dozen more times. But maybe more.
Meanwhile, you still haven't clarified which of your two statements you actually believe, is MSNBC as biased as FOX, or is it merely biased but not as much as FOX. Because you originally claimed the very silly first, then retracted to the second.
Liberal view is the truth according to who?
There is no specific liberal view, just as there is no specific conservative view. The two terms are just a way for people to treat the whole thing as a football game and bash heads. Which would be fun and all, except it makes the people who play that game into idiots.
Foreigners (as in those across the pond who think they know our country better than we do?
I'm not from the US, and I don't think I know your country's politics better than Americans. I just think I know US politics better than you do.
I don't dispute that you do but you take a greater interest in it than I do. Why? I'm not sure but I'm not nor will I ever admit to getting into politics beyond "I like what this person stands for so I'm going to vote for him/her."
I have no interest in poli-sci nor will I ever. To some posters on here the fact I'm not a poli-sci major makes me a koolaid drinker or nutjob for the right. If there is no specific right or left view then your statement about it being a football game means that Shuma and Dogma are calling me a "righty nutjob" because they are players of the game and idiots. In that I agree with you.
I have no interest in poli-sci nor will I ever. To some posters on here the fact I'm not a poli-sci major makes me a koolaid drinker or nutjob for the right.
No, the fact that your views and opinions often make no sense and are terrifying while being almost perfectly in line with Becks talking points makes you a koolaid drinker or a nutjob for the right. To date, I don't think dogmas ever called you a nutjob.
I find it terrifying that liberal pansies think there is no "bad" to all the illegals entering our country; that Muslim extremists should be ignored or not taken seriously while at the same time whining about the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals of gay or Catholic peoples; etc, etc.
Liberals don't want the US turning into a police State but instead want it turned into a nanny State. How is a nanny state better than a police state?
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
to FateWeaver: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Clinton actually improved the economy, and that by the end of his second term, our national debt was starting to get smaller.
Perhaps I'm getting in way over my head on this, but I just wanted to point this out.
As for my opinion on the topic, I sincerely wish that Glenn Beck would just shut up already.
I find it terrifying that liberal pansies think there is no "bad" to all the illegals entering our country; that Muslim extremists should be ignored or not taken seriously while at the same time whining about the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals of gay or Catholic peoples; etc, etc.
Yeah, it's one sided bs like that. Stuff that is totally unrepresentative of reality that is creepy. The fact that you believe that liberals don't think terrorists should be taken seriously, or that they (as if they were one entity at all) want open borders. Thats not correct. Its never been correct. You have and will always be wrong about that because at a very basic level you understand nothing about the political, social, or economic environment of this country or planet. You have this world in your head where liberals are spineless cowards who just want to hug Osama and let all the mexicans in because it's a unicorn planet, until you can get all that out you're never going to actually understand the real world. It's a complicated place, stop trying to make it black and white to suit your ideology.
Liberals don't want the US turning into a police State but instead want it turned into a nanny State. How is a nanny state better than a police state
Fateweaver wrote:I find it terrifying that liberal pansies think there is no "bad" to all the illegals entering our country; that Muslim extremists should be ignored or not taken seriously while at the same time whining about the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals of gay or Catholic peoples; etc, etc.
Liberals don't want the US turning into a police State but instead want it turned into a nanny State. How is a nanny state better than a police state?
As a liberal I find many bad points to illegals entering the country.
As a liberal I believe the threat posed by extremists of many kinds, Islamic amongst them, should be taken very seriously.
As a liberal I believe my complaints about the Westboro Baptists protesting the funerals of ANYONE including servicemen and women, are not whining but valid objections to obscene behaviour.
As a liberal I wish neither a police nor nanny state, I simply wish more care for those who need it.
As a liberal, I am personally insulted by your referral to people who are liberal as 'pansies'. You suggest that my political leanings make me less of a man, I find your need to undermine that somewhat telling about you as a man.
It's statements like the one I've just quoted that cause people here to call you a 'koolaid drinking nutjob', you koolaid drinking nutjob.
Fateweaver wrote:I don't dispute that you do but you take a greater interest in it than I do. Why?
I like US politics because everything is turned to 11. The true believers are like ours, but they believe on a level ours could never reach, the mercenaries are like ours, but really open about saying or doing anything to chase the dollars.
I'm not sure but I'm not nor will I ever admit to getting into politics beyond "I like what this person stands for so I'm going to vote for him/her."
Which is fine. It's how most people operate, and it's all that's needed for democracy. All the extra detail we go into is just for our own fun, I'd never pretend otherwise.
I have no interest in poli-sci nor will I ever. To some posters on here the fact I'm not a poli-sci major makes me a koolaid drinker or nutjob for the right. If there is no specific right or left view then your statement about it being a football game means that Shuma and Dogma are calling me a "righty nutjob" because they are players of the game and idiots. In that I agree with you.
So there isn't a football game. But there are people who believe there is. You talk a lot about what 'liberals' are like, and this makes you look like a koolaid drinker, going into battle against the monolithic liberal block that exists in your head.
And you repeat a lot of conservative talking points, including a lot of very obviously false ones. The only conclusion we can draw is that you're absorbing a lot of Republican press releases from somewhere, either knowingly or unknowingly, and these are forming your worldview.
sebster wrote:Seriously, read about the Tides Foundation. A guy went there, guns in hand, to shoot the place up. Incredibly luckily he was stopped by police before he arrived, and was arrested after a shoot out. And the big and really important thing to understand is that the only place the Tides Foundation has ever appeared in the kookosphere was in Beck's rants. The only reason the attempted killer even knew the incredibly obscure Tides Foundation existed is through Beck. He has in at least one instance incited a crazy to go shoot some people.
Because the guy was a model citizen before Glenn Beck turned him into an automaton of death? From what I can tell this guy already had problems and something was going to set him off sooner or later. Probably that damn Jodie Foster.
sebster wrote:Personally, I'd have more respect if people said they recognised Beck was dangerous, but censoring him is creates too great a risk that it might lead to legitimate speach being dismissed down the track. Pretending what he's doing isn't dangerous is ridiculous.
If there was an demonstrable causal relationship between Glenn Beck and violence the show would already be off the air.
People don't like what he says and want him removed, end of.
Again, I don't watch the show and can't stand the guy.
Fateweaver wrote: If there is no specific right or left view then your statement about it being a football game means that Shuma and Dogma are calling me a "righty nutjob" because they are players of the game and idiots. In that I agree with you.
I've never called you a right-wing nutjob. I think that almost every political opinion you hold is based on an erroneous understanding of factual information, but that's an entirely different matter.
Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".
Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?
Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?
Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?
The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say. I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".
Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?
Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?
Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?
The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say. I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.
Monster Rain wrote:Because the guy was a model citizen before Glenn Beck turned him into an automaton of death? From what I can tell this guy already had problems and something was going to set him off sooner or later. Probably that damn Jodie Foster.
Yes, there's lots of crazies who are a second away from freaking out entirely. When a guy goes on television and spouts nonsense about the government's imminent plans for socialist takeover of the country, that's likely to fuel the fantasies of the crazies who are then more likely to be set off. Actions that are likely to set off crazies are dangerous. Therefore Beck's show is dangerous.
If there was an demonstrable causal relationship between Glenn Beck and violence the show would already be off the air.
People don't like what he says and want him removed, end of.
Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.
Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.
But I believe it would be more dangerous for government to take his show off the air, because of the precedent it would set, and the threat it might be used to censor important but politically dangerous speach in future.
So no, I'm really not looking to have Beck taken off the air. But I believe people need to recognise that there is a real danger in pundits spouting irresponsible nonsense such as his.
Every time a woman is beaten Eminem should go to jail.
Eminem wrote:You want what you can't have, ooh girl that's too damn bad
Don't touch what you can't grab, end up with two backhands
Put anthrax on a tampax, and slap you till you can't stand
The horror.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.
I didn't say "sebster" I said "people." I get that you said you didn't want him taken off the air.
sebster wrote:Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.
Many people who watch any show are mentally unwell. Many people who read books and listen to music are unwell. Do you need a list of people that have had crazy reactions to various types of media?
Is John Hinckley Jodie Foster's fault? Is Mark David Chapman J.D. Salingers's?
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".
But the only way the nutter knew about the Tides Foundation was through Beck's show. You can't pretend he didn't have an influence.
Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?
Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?
Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?
No, we shouldn't 'blame' anyone for anything, that's a simplistic and frankly useless way to address the issue. We should have an informed debate about the influence of various media on people's actions.
The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say.
No, the best way to respond to nut jobs is to encourage informed debate that addresses the issues they raise with informed, considered opinions. You don't fight nonsense with silence. You fight it with reality.
I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.
And again (and I'm guessing again and again and again) the idea that someone's speach is dangerous is entirely seperate to the idea that it should be banned. You can recognise the first without believing the second is a valid response.
Fateweaver wrote:I find it terrifying that liberal pansies think there is no "bad" to all the illegals entering our country;...
Actually, the negatives of illegal immigration tend to be ignored by people of a certain income, or education threshold. For example, I'm never going to compete with an illegal immigrant for employment, so their presence means nothing to me on a personal level. In fact, if anything, the presence of a large number of Spanish speakers significantly improves my ability to find employment.
Its not like the conservative establishment is chomping at the bit to tighten immigration controls.
Fateweaver wrote:
...that Muslim extremists should be ignored or not taken seriously while at the same time whining about the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals of gay or Catholic peoples; etc, etc.
How many extreme, Muslim protests have taken place in the US?
Fateweaver wrote:
Liberals don't want the US turning into a police State but instead want it turned into a nanny State. How is a nanny state better than a police state?
Is that a serious question?
I mean that honestly, because from where I'm sitting you're basically equating the present day UK with fascist Italy.
Monster Rain wrote:Because the guy was a model citizen before Glenn Beck turned him into an automaton of death? From what I can tell this guy already had problems and something was going to set him off sooner or later. Probably that damn Jodie Foster.
Yes, there's lots of crazies who are a second away from freaking out entirely. When a guy goes on television and spouts nonsense about the government's imminent plans for socialist takeover of the country, that's likely to fuel the fantasies of the crazies who are then more likely to be set off. Actions that are likely to set off crazies are dangerous. Therefore Beck's show is dangerous.
If there was an demonstrable causal relationship between Glenn Beck and violence the show would already be off the air.
People don't like what he says and want him removed, end of.
Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.
Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.
But I believe it would be more dangerous for government to take his show off the air, because of the precedent it would set, and the threat it might be used to censor important but politically dangerous speach in future.
So no, I'm really not looking to have Beck taken off the air. But I believe people need to recognise that there is a real danger in pundits spouting irresponsible nonsense such as his.
He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.
People who like Beck are not "brainwashed" by him. That is a matter of your opinion. Just as it's my opinion that people who bought into Obamasiah's rhetoric and treat him like the next Savior are brainwashed.
Brainwashed is a term used by people who don't believe others can form their own opinion about someone or something, that is contradictory to their own, without having been influenced or shaped or moulded by some outside force.
I'm accused all the time by a certain poster of being brainwashed by GW because I'm not as cynical as he is and therefore I don't hate everything GW does. I'm brainwashed in his opinion but that is his opinion and he cannot say for a fact I am.
*Disclaimer: I used brainwashed so no this is not me pointing the finger. But when mud gets slung my way I grab a backhoe and sling the whole effing mud puddle back.
He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
to FateWeaver: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Clinton actually improved the economy, and that by the end of his second term, our national debt was starting to get smaller.
Perhaps I'm getting in way over my head on this, but I just wanted to point this out.
As for my opinion on the topic, I sincerely wish that Glenn Beck would just shut up already.
Saying that any President 'improved' the economy is really not a verifiable claim. The economy is so ridiculouslly complex, that almost no one can fully predict what will happen when you change something, and more importantly, things take time to propagate. Saying that Clinton 'improved the economy' is the same as saying that Hoover caused the Great Depression...yes, he was in office at the time, but controlling the economy is a power even beyond the President's hands.
Monster Rain wrote:I didn't say "sebster" I said "people." I get that you said you didn't want him taken off the air.
And once you realise that your descriptor doesn't apply to at least me, and I'm one of only two people to respond to your claim, you need to start considering that your claim may not be a valid descriptor of many people talking about Glenn Beck.
Many people who watch any show are mentally unwell. Many people who read books and listen to music are unwell. Do you need a list of people that have had crazy reactions to various types of media?
Is John Hinckley Jodie Foster's fault? Is Mark David Chapman J.D. Salingers's?
Do we really need to play the silly game of pretending that all media is completely unknowable in how it might influence people. Do we need to pretend that Catcher in the Rye is just as likely to inspire someone to political violence as Glenn Beck talking about the conspiratorial plotting of the Tides Foundation?
Because that's a very silly, and very pointless game. Please tell me you're not going to try it.
Fateweaver wrote:He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.
No, he's dangerous to anyone who thinks it is bad when people are killed for no reason. Which is everyone outside of the lunatic fringe.
People who like Beck are not "brainwashed" by him. That is a matter of your opinion. Just as it's my opinion that people who bought into Obamasiah's rhetoric and treat him like the next Savior are brainwashed.
No-one is talking about anyone being brainwashed by anyone. Don't pretend that's some opinion of mine so you can attack it. How about you stop making gak up and actually follow the conversation.
And no, not every political opinion is equal. Pretending that is true is fuzzy non-thought, the kind that the leftwing academics embraced when postmodernism reached its silliest peak, but is found more and more within the rightwing, as people look defend utter fantasy as being perfectly valid 'opinion'.
[quoteI'm accused all the time by a certain poster of being brainwashed by GW because I'm not as cynical as he is and therefore I don't hate everything GW does. I'm brainwashed in his opinion but that is his opinion and he cannot say for a fact I am.
Well then, feel free to tell that poster he's being foolish. But for the purposes of this thread, no-one is talking about brainwashing. We're talking about Beck's deranged fantasies, and how those fantasies impact his viewers.
Monster Rain wrote:People verifiably killed because of Catcher in the Rye- 1
People killed because of the Glenn Beck Show- 0
The word you're looking for, gentlemen, is amazing.
Look, here is a thing that is obvious, that no-one on God's Earth should have to ever explain to anyone else, ever. People take different interpretations from books. Some of these interpretations are sensible, and some are less sensible and often reflect more on the reader. For instance, it would be sensible to interpret from Catcher in the Rye that while we make strive to protect the innocence of children, maturity is inevitable, even if it is hard and even tragic. It would not be sensible to interpret that we need to shoot John Lennon. Because the former is sensible and the latter is deranged, people interpret the former a whole lot more than the latter. As such, the latter reflects only on the reader, and we can say with confidence that he probably would have shot John Lennon over some other stupid book instead.
Whereas the direct conclusion of Beck tirade against the Tides Foundation was to stop the organisation. It is reasonably likely that someone might decide to do that force. When we observe someone attempting to take that action, we can conclude they were following logically from the ideas Beck himself presented.
This is an obvious thing, and you know it. So can you please give it up, and we can go back to talking about the actual issues surrounding Beck?
People wanting GB off the air want him off because of personal distaste, NOT because he is dangerous.
That's absurd. Why bother posting if you can't even pretend that you're following other people's points?
I have explained multiple times that while Beck is obviously dangerous, I think taking him off the air is more dangerous. You continue to ignore this because it is easier to dismiss people with vague accusation than come to understand their ideas. This describes most of your politics, really, and is largely the reason you continue to know almost nothing about how the world actually works.
Those thinking he is dangerous need to lock themselves in their basements because media portrays dangerous stuff all the time.
Rap, Manson, video games, gorn (gore porn like Hostel).
Which would be an excellent point if there wasn't a very obvious difference between fiction and political commentary. But there is a big difference, and this makes your point utterly stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Wait, Glenn Beck specifically said that someone should kill people at the Tides Foundation? I may have missed it.
I'm sure he criticized them, but what's wrong with that?
He didn't criticise it as much as claim it was part of communist conspiracy by Obama to destroy religion and redistribute the wealth. If true, then the need to stop that conspiracy would probably be justify violence. Whch would be a sensible interpretation of Beck's claims, if one was to believe Beck.
So again, you can see the obvious difference from someone deciding Catcher in the Rye somehow meant we should kill John Lennon.
Again, 7 pages in and every comment you think is aimed at YOU.
Reread posts from page 1-5. Lots of posters want the show off the air because they don't like him. His "dangerous" speech has nothing to do with anything.
In the wrong mind fact or fiction means nothing. It's been argued D&D in prison has been causing problems; that MM was behind the Columbine massacre; that Eminem is responsible for inciting hate crimes against homosexuals and women.
So the source of potentially dangerous behavior matters not when the subject exposed to the source is not mentally stable to begin with.
Again, too someone who doesn't agree with Beck for whatever reason he is dangerous. The same has been said about Palin, about Bush Jr and Sr. Conservatives feel that Obama and Muslims and illegals are dangerous. The real heart of the matter is how far are people willing to go to prove their "point" or their side right?
I don't like Obama and never will but I would never nor have I wished him assassinated, while there are those who think on the same side of the spectrum as me want him dead.
Get over yourself Seb. Political agenda/speeches/satire has nothing to do with it. What's to say he couldn't have stumbled upon info about the Tides Foundation on his own?
But yeah, let's blame others for the actions of people who obviously should have been eliminated from the gene pool at birth.
Fateweaver wrote:
Those thinking he is dangerous need to lock themselves in their basements because media portrays dangerous stuff all the time.
Rap, Manson, video games, gorn (gore porn like Hostel).
If everything considered dangerous was not allowed in public it'd be one boring, lame ass world.
It seems you fail to grasp the difference between the lyrics of a rap song and the language and insinuation and extreme bias of a 'commentator' on a news channel.
You are not understanding the thread. It is not about song lyrics or computer games, it is not about the rights of an individual to hold vicious and repellent conspiracy nazi-communist theory as his version of the truth. It's about questioning the giving to that man a plinth to stand on and be touted as an educated opinion, it's about that man having a prime time spot on a purported news channel that carries the slogan 'fair and balanced'. Granting his extreme views, lacking in much evidence and insinuating or openly skating around notions of violence towards people who do not share his version of the truth, a sense of mistaken authority.
You are not reading other people's viewpoints here, you are reading poster names and filling the rest in with your own anti-liberal hyperbole. Perhaps FOX should give you a show...
Only people taken Beck seriously are nutjobs who are emotionally unstable.
It doesn't matter where the source comes from, only that someone nutty enough to act on it did and people got hurt.
Until it's proven GB incited violence against the Tides Foundation he has as much right to be on air as Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr. He ranted against them and their beliefs. He is no more dangerous than any of the WBC nutjobs.
If I was just picking names and filling in the blanks MGS I'd have 20 pages dedicated to slamming on you. I'm above that and apparently from the temper tantrum you are throwing right now above you.
Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps you should learn to fething read MGS.
Only people taken Beck seriously are nutjobs who are emotionally unstable.
It doesn't matter where the source comes from, only that someone nutty enough to act on it did and people got hurt.
Until it's proven GB incited violence against the Tides Foundation he has as much right to be on air as Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr. He ranted against them and their beliefs. He is no more dangerous than any of the WBC nutjobs.
Is his show put forward as comedy? No. It is listed as a political commentary program.
Is it on an entertainment channel? No. Fox claims to be a news channel.
So if someone is nutty enough to act on his claims, they would be acting on the claims of a political commentary program on a major news network.
As to me learning to read, I must point out that your second sentence isn't structured correctly and doesn't actually make any sense, so I'll make a deal with you and learn to read what you've written when you learn to fething write correctly, that seem fair?
Fateweaver wrote:
If I was just picking names and filling in the blanks MGS I'd have 20 pages dedicated to slamming on you. I'm above that and apparently from the temper tantrum you are throwing right now above you.
See, this is case in point. I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm currently chuckling at your post whilst sipping a cold Guinness. Also, if you are above all that, why mention it? Do you expect reward? Please don't mistake my sarcasm and disdain for anger, I'm really not angry at you, just mildly repelled.
Your personal distaste for me apparently clouds the facts I am trying to state.
We get you don't like Beck. To you he is dangerous. But until he actually incites violence on purpose or seriously threatens someones life it would be, as Sebster said, even more dangerous to censure his show to the point of taking it off the air.
I'm chugging bottles of Grainbelt and laughing at you. At least we have something in common.
What I don't think anyone has noticed is that Mr beck has for lack of a better phrase more free speech than the rest of us. for example I would say perhaps 5 people know. or are able to guess, where I stand on most political and moral issues, If I were to be more open about my politics I could increase that number to about 30, if I were to openly assert my politics to people that number may reach the hundreds. However in one day Glenn beck can influence the minds of millions of people without even a pretense of debate or contradicting ideas. This leads me to conclude that the US and other nations that promise freedom of speech to it's citizens should actually promise freedom to speak to an equal and discerning audience. while not as catchy this seems to be a much more practical option.
I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.
Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.
Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?
Slarg232 wrote:I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.
Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.
Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?
I believe it was on his radio show, so 'video' evidence may not exist in the way you want.
Slarg232 wrote:I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.
Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.
Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?
I believe it was on his radio show, so 'video' evidence may not exist in the way you want.
Have you noticed the name calling? "Obamasiah" and "liberal panzies"? and the claiming they were being called something?
that's one thing that drives me nuts. conservatives ALWAYS throw out names, labels and titles and the liberals let them.
i don't agree with Fateweaver, but i'm not calling him anything.
he's wrong about the liberal "happy" list. you can't just rubber stamp one group into one narrow label.
i like owning guns, but i'm pro choice.
and Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush left Obama 2 unfunded wars, and a sinking ship. and if you're going to start
talking Clinton anything, i'm going to start talking about a war we had no business being in, Yes Iraq.
The whole point of this thread, to me, is what is it going to take before people realize what BS GB is shoveling.
and the man makes a case for his own stupidity just about every time he opens his mouth. and yet people let
the BS walk right on by.
i think the part of the issue in America right now is you have 15%(MOL) on one side and 15%(MOL) on the other.
that leaves you 68% that totaly don't give a Rat's rump and 2% undecided. i think a majority of his ranting is just not on the
Radar of average people, just the Hyper politically aware.
and as much as we don't like the fact he can lie about anything he choses to, and his employers let him, there's not alot going to change it sadly.
And i have a feeling what does eventually end his "reign", will be self inflicted.
But the deeper problem for me isn't the video, now.
Monster Rain, i did miss your transcript posting, sorry!
the whole piece he's talking about the Revolutionaries, communists and Marxists Obama brought in. WTF?
that's my problem with him. he tells you what they are, and how you should feel/ react to them. how about their body of
work and actions tell us who they are, and what they're doing/going to do?
"The raticals have infected the (democratic)party.". because he's so concerned i'm sure. if that was truely the case, what does he
care. wouldn't that make his "job" easier?! More like the radicals are trying to affect the party from without, imho.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh man, I have no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't make much sense, my only point is that I don't think he's trying to incite violence.
The show is painful to watch.
Even if he's not directly inciting violence, he's in the business of demonizing and dehumanizing liberals, turning them from a person you disagree with, and making them out to be a sinister "other".
Most Americans see the connotations of words like fascist, communist, and socialist as inherently negative and anti-American. And those are the labels Beck consistently applies to those on the left. All of a sudden, I'm not an Obama supporter; I'm someone who has an Obamissiah, a brainwashed drone. Which makes it easy for those who disagree unthinkingly to dismiss any cogent argument I might have to support my position.
When doctor George T was murdered, mis killer directly named the fox monkeys, and its painfully obvious to any impartial observer that his ridiculous slander is having the desired effect. He can deny it and says he abhors violence all he likes, its just that obvious.
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
to FateWeaver: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Clinton actually improved the economy, and that by the end of his second term, our national debt was starting to get smaller.
Perhaps I'm getting in way over my head on this, but I just wanted to point this out.
As for my opinion on the topic, I sincerely wish that Glenn Beck would just shut up already.
You conveniently forgot the internet bubble that burst at the end of his Presidency, leaving it for Bush to clean up.
It's not exactly an easy job to clean up after an economic crash....especially when you're the President. Hell, I'd say it's nigh impossible to clean up, unless you're FDR and have 12 years, and a World War to help you clean it up.
Emperors Faithful wrote:For someone that abhors violence he seems to get a stiffy from dealing with 'the bad guys'.
Lol.
The man is an absolute fething buffoon.
And he is the rich one?
I dont get it!
it's simple really. he went to a Rich network made up of other buffoons.
then he's followed by other buffoons on TV / Radio. they then buy what his
sponsors pedal. then the sponsors give him lots of money, making him a rich Buffoon!
You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?
to FateWeaver: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Clinton actually improved the economy, and that by the end of his second term, our national debt was starting to get smaller.
Perhaps I'm getting in way over my head on this, but I just wanted to point this out.
As for my opinion on the topic, I sincerely wish that Glenn Beck would just shut up already.
You conveniently forgot the internet bubble that burst at the end of his Presidency, leaving it for Bush to clean up.
And he cleaned that mess by putting a rug over it and telling people that the invisible hand will clean the floor. Dude wasn't responsible for the crash, but he certainly helped to spur it on through the deregulatory policies he and greenspan advocated for heavily.
Frazzled wrote:How can you spur a crash when you had nothing to dowith it? Thats like saying Obama was responsible for the 2008 crash.
Nonsense.
I'm not sure how he could have nothing to do with it, the housing and subprime booms occurred on his watch and his fiscal and regulatory policy actively encouraged both. It takes decades to really fundamentally feth up an economy, bush had lots of help from the previous administrations, but the top layer that collapsed did so in such brilliant fashion specifically because of policies and actions that and his administration followed. He's not responsible because the crash was likely going to happen regardless and the government doesn't run the economy. It had been building for a long time. Bush just managed to set up two bubbles at the same time and convinced himself they couldn't pop.
Thats staggeringly in conflict.
Bush caused the internet bubble because he started office but Obama isn't? They are either both guilty or neither is guilty.
Frazzled wrote:Thats staggeringly in conflict.
Bush caused the internet bubble because he started office but Obama isn't? They are either both guilty or neither is guilty.
Shuma said, twice now, that Bush wasn't responsible for the internet bubble, but rather responsible for "fixing" the underlying problems that created it by "throwing a rug over it".
Frazzled wrote:Thats staggeringly in conflict.
Bush caused the internet bubble because he started office but Obama isn't? They are either both guilty or neither is guilty.
Shuma said, twice now, that Bush wasn't responsible for the internet bubble, but rather responsible for "fixing" the underlying problems that created it by "throwing a rug over it".
No he's impugning that Bush is responsible by accelerating it in some method. Of course the economy went to 4% under this administration, but whatever you say.
Of course the economy went to 4% under this administration, but whatever you say.
4%? Want to qualify the random numerical?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats staggeringly in conflict.
Bush caused the internet bubble because he started office but Obama isn't? They are either both guilty or neither is guilty.
Shuma said, twice now, that Bush wasn't responsible for the internet bubble, but rather responsible for "fixing" the underlying problems that created it by "throwing a rug over it".
No he's impugning that Bush is responsible by accelerating it in some method. Of course the economy went to 4% under this administration, but whatever you say.
I also wasn't talking about the internet bubble, I was talking about housing and sub prime.
Frazzled wrote:
No he's impugning that Bush is responsible by accelerating it in some method. Of course the economy went to 4% under this administration, but whatever you say.
I'm not saying anything, I'm explaining what someone else said.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, 7 pages in and every comment you think is aimed at YOU.
Reread posts from page 1-5. Lots of posters want the show off the air because they don't like him. His "dangerous" speech has nothing to do with anything.
Okay, now note how many people you know, and how many people on the internet have said Glenn Beck is dangerous. I'm guessing it's lots of people, on lots of occasions. Now consider how many actual efforts have been made at having Glenn Beck considered so dangerous that he must be removed from the air. The answer is zero. No efforts. Not one. So it becomes very clear, very quickly that people pointing out that Glenn Beck is dangerous really aren't part of any plan to have Glenn Beck removed
Now think about all the other conservative pundits on television and radio, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly... The progressives would also like them off the air, yes? I mean, in terms of politics they're much more powerful and reach a far more important audience than Beck and his ludicrous buffoonery. Yet they're not claiming Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly are dangerous, just Beck.
At this point we're left with only one sensible conclusion, that people are saying they think he's dangerous because they actually think he's dangerous.
So the source of potentially dangerous behavior matters not when the subject exposed to the source is not mentally stable to begin with.
That's a ridiculous claim, and I don't believe for one second that you really believe it. While an unstable mind might find the reasoning for violence in all kinds of media, media which is more incendiary is far more likely to fuel violent fantasies.
This is an incredibly obvious thing.
Get over yourself Seb. Political agenda/speeches/satire has nothing to do with it. What's to say he couldn't have stumbled upon info about the Tides Foundation on his own?
Common sense and reason. Which clearly has no place in your politics, but plays an important part in the politics of many of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:The whole point of this thread, to me, is what is it going to take before people realize what BS GB is shoveling.
and the man makes a case for his own stupidity just about every time he opens his mouth. and yet people let
the BS walk right on by.
It's at least positive that no-one has actually tried to defend Beck's content in this thread.
Instead we've got this kind of defence by proxy weirdness, where the usual suspects are attempting the defend Beck against attacks no-one is making. "I don't agree with what you're saying, but you're on my side of the political fence so I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it, against the evil censorship efforts that exist entirely in my head".
Which is odd, but at least no-one is actually defending his content. It's progress.
sebster wrote:Instead we've got this kind of defence by proxy weirdness, where the usual suspects are attempting the defend Beck against attacks no-one is making.
You're saying he's dangerous and people disagree with you.
How is that an attack that "no one is making," exactly?
sebster wrote:Okay, now note how many people you know, and how many people on the internet have said Glenn Beck is dangerous. I'm guessing it's lots of people, on lots of occasions. Now consider how many actual efforts have been made at having Glenn Beck considered so dangerous that he must be removed from the air. The answer is zero. No efforts. Not one. So it becomes very clear, very quickly that people pointing out that Glenn Beck is dangerous really aren't part of any plan to have Glenn Beck removed
sebster wrote:Instead we've got this kind of defence by proxy weirdness, where the usual suspects are attempting the defend Beck against attacks no-one is making.
You're saying he's dangerous and people disagree with you.
How is that an attack that "no one is making," exactly?
Well, i think he's dangerous, i just don't won't him "forced" off.
he's just not imploding fast enough.
sebster wrote:Instead we've got this kind of defence by proxy weirdness, where the usual suspects are attempting the defend Beck against attacks no-one is making.
You're saying he's dangerous and people disagree with you.
How is that an attack that "no one is making," exactly?
Well, i think he's dangerous, i just don't won't him "forced" off.
I get that. It's a rather common standpoint.
I don't think he's going to convince an otherwise sane person to commit random acts of violence, nor do I think he's giving out any information that couldn't also be found on Google. Someone who wanted to kill people who are liberal doesn't need Glenn Beck to tell them where to find them.
alarmingrick wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
here you go....
This, if taken by itself alone, is not anything to be worried about really. He was worked up into one of his little frenzies (which is why I abhor his show) and probably just said the wrong thing. I would hope he was talked to by his producer about that one.
However....
Emperors Faithful wrote:For someone that abhors violence he seems to get a stiffy from dealing with 'the bad guys'.
When you add in this.... For someone so for the "American Way", he doesn't really seem to like the Rights of the People, does he? Now, I partly agree with him in the fact that this dude is a terrorist bastard and we should be doing more to him than most, but torturing and "shooting him in the head" is not really going to help us that much, especially not with the powers already on the fence about us being over there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Will you all stand for the national anthem.
Also, I really, really fething hope that that was done in Alaska....
Monster Rain wrote:You're saying he's dangerous and people disagree with you.
How is that an attack that "no one is making," exactly?
Given that's an attack people have made, it obviously isn't the one I was referring to. Instead, it's the other defence, started by Fraz, that Beck has the right of free speech to say what he wants. Which was a defence made against government censorship, something no-one had even mentioned before Fraz came in to defend him.
So there's at least one and I looked for 3 seconds. Boom goes the dynamite.
Umm, what? Never in the history of this Earth, and it's a long history, has an opinion piece ever gotten someone taken off the air. That is just not how process works. Actually getting someone taken off the air would involve legislation in congress, or an initiative within the FCC. That would be how you actually get someone taken off the air.
That hasn't happened, despite all the people saying Beck is dangerous. Because the goal isn't to sneak Beck off the air to stop him saying that stuff. The goal is for people to realise Beck's show is dangerous.
And again, note that no-one is claiming the much more influential pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, are dangerous, and it'd be much better for the left if those guys were off the air. At which point you have to realise that there is no plan to use danger as an excuse to sneak Beck off the air.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I get that. It's a rather common standpoint.
When folk wanted to claim that the dangerous thing was just an excuse, and I pointed out I thought he was dangerous but didn't want him off the air... it was just me. Now it's a common standpoint. Whatever.
I don't think he's going to convince an otherwise sane person to commit random acts of violence, nor do I think he's giving out any information that couldn't also be found on Google. Someone who wanted to kill people who are liberal doesn't need Glenn Beck to tell them where to find them.
It isn't a binary state, you know... sane or violently insane. As has been explained several times, the issue is people who on the edge, who have violent and paranoid tendencies. They aren't certain to tip over the edge, but they might, and having someone spout dangerous conspiracies at them every night certainly doesn't help. It makes it more likely someone will go over the edge.
I must thank the gods that he's not on television here, nor do we have an equivalent (Finally, the ACMA comes in handy).
From the material provided (The transcripts and the videos), as well as some slight independant study via Youtube videos, I'd have to conclude the guy is a grade A moron who hates alot of people. I'd prefer he wasn't on any television simply based on that (Does that count as wanting him off because I disagree with him Monster? Do I get more respect? ). My brain can't comprehend the intelligence of some who are taken to be reputable sources, but I suppose those who take them at word value are just as bad if not worse.
But, is he dangerous? From the outside looking in, I'd say no more than any other idiot. People who take in his arguments are going to believe that stuff anyway, they've just got a convenient way of getting the information. Much like people who are mentally challenged, and actually act on his words are going to find people to attempt to harm (In this case, 'Liberals') regardless.
sebster wrote:Umm, what? Never in the history of this Earth, and it's a long history, has an opinion piece ever gotten someone taken off the air. That is just not how process works. Actually getting someone taken off the air would involve legislation in congress, or an initiative within the FCC. That would be how you actually get someone taken off the air.
That hasn't happened, despite all the people saying Beck is dangerous. Because the goal isn't to sneak Beck off the air to stop him saying that stuff. The goal is for people to realise Beck's show is dangerous.
And again, note that no-one is claiming the much more influential pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, are dangerous, and it'd be much better for the left if those guys were off the air. At which point you have to realise that there is no plan to use danger as an excuse to sneak Beck off the air.
That's all rather beside the point. You said there are Zero people saying he should be removed from the air because he's dangerous. I showed that there is at least one, that's all. Whether or not he will be removed from Fox News because of it is completely irrelevant.
The fact remains that are people who think he's dangerous but don't want him to be taken off the air, and there are people that are using the idea as a convenient excuse to say that he should be taken off the air for the public safety. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/exposing-glenn-beck-as-a_b_528966.html This is a good example of it. You don't have to come directly out and say "This show should be removed from broadcast" when it's this heavily implied.
I'm sorry this fact upsets some posters so much.
VenerableBrotherPelinore wrote:IFrom the material provided (The transcripts and the videos), as well as some slight independant study via Youtube videos, I'd have to conclude the guy is a grade A moron who hates alot of people. I'd prefer he wasn't on any television simply based on that (Does that count as wanting him off because I disagree with him Monster? Do I get more respect? ).
Frankly, yes you do. I like honesty.
I agree with you that the show is pretty unwatchable, even as a goof. I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, really.
Monster Rain wrote: You said there are Zero people saying he should be removed from the air because he's dangerous.
He didn't say that zero people are saying he should be removed (heck people on this thread have said as much), he said that there have been zero attempts to remove him.
Monster Rain wrote:That's all rather beside the point. You said there are Zero people saying he should be removed from the air because he's dangerous.
Wow. I mean, I get that you can misread something, we all do it. You did it here, and it's no biggie. But to just insist your initial reading was correct, and not even bother to go back and check it? That's just plain lazy.
Here's what I said "Now consider how many actual efforts have been made at having Glenn Beck considered so dangerous that he must be removed from the air. The answer is zero. No efforts. Not one."
The wording is very clear, I am talking about actual efforts to have Beck removed.
Whether or not he will be removed from Fox News because of it is completely irrelevant.
No, it's very relevant. Because without there at least being an effort to remove him from television, then the plan to declare him dangerous in order to remove him from television doesn't exist. You've just got people saying he's dangerous... and then nothing.
At which point it becomes clear the plan to have him declared dangerous and then removed from the air exists on no level but in the imaginations of people looking to defend Beck. And once we discard that fantasy, we have to consider other possible reasons why people might call Beck dangerous. We might, for instance, consider they actually think spouting delusional conspiracy theories is dangerous.
Monster Rain wrote: You said there are Zero people saying he should be removed from the air because he's dangerous.
He didn't say that zero people are saying he should be removed (heck people on this thread have said as much), he said that there have been zero attempts to remove him.
It's funny in the way some of the creationist websites and Chick tracts are just plain hilarious. Sometimes, it's just so wrong you can't help but laugh...
I'm not really sure how to react to these. I don't really find those comics particularly funny, since they condemn every other religion.
So basically, he is an evangelical cartoonist. With Glenn Beck at least I can laugh but here I'm just not sure.
A friend of mine used to collect Chick tracts so I was familiar with most of these,what makes them "funny" is how absolutely batgak crazy the content of the tracts are...sad..but funny.
BTW,that's not meant as a "shot" at "religion".
Well done Sir.
