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.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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?

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=67&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

His radio program.

But for an internet source:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

The dumbass is also a paranoid douchebag who thinks that the Obama administration is out to kill him.

I found that to be utterly hilarious.

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

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=67&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

Ah, ok. Yeah, that's protected speech. He didn't ask anyone, directly, to kill Michael Moore. He only mused about his own capacity to do it.

It would be like me musing as to whether or not I could kill Noam Chomsky.

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.

Melissia wrote:His radio program.

But for an internet source:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

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...

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Fox news isn't even really a news source, they're a politically minded entertainment source that thinks journalism is for sissies.

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.

Fix'd

Factual?!

What, so Obama really is a communist baby killer?

mattyrm wrote:Factual?!

What, so Obama really is a communist baby killer?

they're saying Fox isn't factual!

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.

All companies suffer from it, but not to as great a degree and as blatantly as Fox does.

Melissia wrote:All companies suffer from it, but not to as great a degree and as blatantly as Fox does.

+1 sorry thats so true

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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?

Does it mean Bin Laden is responsible for the various terrorist attacks?