Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How about a video of a radio with the show on at the time of the statement?

Monster Rain wrote:How about a video of a radio with the show on at the time of the statement?

You jest, but honestly, how do we know that he actually said something if we don't have the proof that he actually said it?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:



here you go....

I already provided a transcript of the episode containing that video. In context, it isn't what you think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:How about a video of a radio with the show on at the time of the statement?

You jest, but honestly, how do we know that he actually said something if we don't have the proof that he actually said it?

Oh, you're absolutely right. I was just kidding around.

Slarg232 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:How about a video of a radio with the show on at the time of the statement?

You jest, but honestly, how do we know that he actually said something if we don't have the proof that he actually said it?

Audio recordings aren't that unreliable. That level of paranoia excludes all things from being proof.

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.

edit
i can't freaking spell!

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.

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.

He is directly inciting violence.

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.

For someone that abhors violence he seems to get a stiffy from dealing with 'the bad guys'.

Dr. Temujin wrote:

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 what a 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.

Mannahnin wrote:And what a clean up!

Pinesol and mops baby. Its all about the pinesol and mops.

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?

Ahem...
EDITED.... someone else posted the video already : ( but yea, this is what i linked to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ

frgsinwntr wrote:

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?

Ahem...
EDITED.... someone else posted the video already : ( but yea, this is what i linked to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ

Ahem...

We've been over that. Twice.

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!

mattyrm wrote:

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!

Frazzled wrote:

Dr. Temujin wrote:

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.

How can you spur a crash when you had nothing to dowith it? Thats like saying Obama was responsible for the 2008 crash.

Nonsense.

the crash happened before Obama took office...

Just saying...

frgsinwntr wrote:the crash happened before Obama took office...

Just saying...

ah, but he was still in America. his fault do to proximity alone!

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.

I heard Glenn Beclk raped and killed a woman in 1992....

I don't know if he did... but... I mean he hasn't proved he didnt...

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".

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.

Edit: 4% unemployment.

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.