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.

We really need to educate those other 4 out of 5 quick :(

Snikkyd wrote:I'm embarrased to admit that I actually have family that believes this. They also believe that Socialism is taking over America. This is a result of watching Fox News, and actually believing what Glen Beck says.

Which makes me kind of sad.

It should. It would make me sad

Wait, people actually listen to glenn Beck? I thought even country bumpkins thought he was dumb?

IMO,Obama is not a muslim and there is nothing to indicate that he is.

What I do find troubling is:
A) That any attempts to verify his birth as a US citizen and school records are being blocked as a matter of national security.

B)That the majority of people do not know the basic rules and requirements for presidential candidacy.

C)And most troubling is that when positted with the hypothetical situation that Obama might not fully meet these requirements that his supporters have expressed a willingness to just let it slide.

Now please note that I am not saying that Obama was born outside of the country, just when the subject was brought up by another, I was unable to find or access the records that would prove the conspiracy theorist wrong.

Gailbraithe wrote:Yes. When the Founders first asserted the right to a free press and free speech, they could have hardly envisioned the possibility of the rise of Fox News.

That's irrelevant. They hardly could have envisioned the 20th century at all, and that has never had bearing on the enforceability of the law.

Here we have a "news organization" that has defended its right to lie in court, has given money exclusively to one party, which has supported and encouraged a anti-government movement, and which broadcasts propaganda 24/7.

This wouldn't have been strange at all during the constitutional convention; I have no idea why people are under the impression that political debate in the late 1700s was a bunch of well-mannered men in wigs talking calmly amongst each other. The American Revolution was founded by "news organizations" that "encouraged a anti-government movement". A civil war was fought as a result of the political discourse of the time, and people outside of the fighting were still frequently murdered or executed for their sympathies. Remember the Whisky Rebellion? Remember Alexander Hamilton, ex-Secretary of the Treasury, being killed by the Vice President?

One thing the founding fathers did agree on pretty readily was that factionalism was a serious danger to the workings of the republic. However, you don't seem to me to be any less partisan than Glenn Beck, given that every one of your complaints is with the actions of the right wing, and you go to great lengths to defend even the most observably left wing station.

Serious question: has there ever been a time in which you wished that the "Fairness Doctrine" would come and help support a position held by the right? Or do you only ever itch for it when you hear the left's position being slammed by Fox News, and right wing radio shows?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Seriously question: has there ever been a time in which you wished that the "Fairness Doctrine" would come and help support a position held by the right? Or do you only ever itch for it when you hear the left's position being slammed by Fox News, and right wing radio shows?

That is the most excellent point I've ever heard made about the fairness doctrine.

I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, but I hate the idea of any ideology trying to stifle the free speech of anyone.

Honestly, I realized Fox was an awful station after some sort of "exclusive story" about how the inside of Christmas tree lightbulbs are poisonous and will KILL YOUR CHILDREN if they happen to eat them. Just looking at one of their "120%" polls will confirm this further.

However, nothing Fox News can do will ever compare to the unending stream of complaints about them that seems to gush forth from the left, in terms of sheer annoyance.

(Also, it appears I need a proofreader!)

Gailbraithe wrote: When the Founders first asserted the right to a free press and free speech, they could have hardly envisioned the possibility of the rise of Fox News.

Some of them had their own newspapers. Which they used to plug their own ideas relentlessly. There were also some pretty savage attack ads against Jefferson if I recall correctly. I like to think they understood what they allowed with free speech perfectly well.

Gailbraithe wrote: Here we have a "news organization" that has defended its right to lie in court,

Shame on them. I trust they are suffering the penalties for any laws they have broken.

Gailbraithe wrote:has given money exclusively to one party,

the wrong one of course. But why can't they support who they want with their money?

Gailbraithe wrote:which has supported and encouraged a anti-government movement,

I'm guessing you're referring to the tea party, who are really just reactionaries who would like to pay less taxes and feel comfortable about their nation's debt management program. [awfully hard to do both at the same time but hey, a movement is a movement!]

Gailbraithe wrote:and which broadcasts propaganda 24/7.

I'd say propaganda is still free speech so long as it avoids hate stuff and all that destruction of property jazz.

Gailbraithe wrote:It is damaging to our democracy. Democracy, more than anything, relies on the free exchange of ideas. There needs to be honest and reasoned discussion of policies, priorities and agendas. But we cannot have that kind of conversation in this country anymore, because the right-wing has turned every single issue into one of partisan attack politics, and Fox News has played a huge role in disinforming the general public and stiffling honest debate.

Fox news isn't stopping you and me from doing anything.

How many americans total watch any of the news stations two or more times a week? ten million? thirty million? I'd be surprised if the number hit a third of our population.

Still, what laws would you make or change to solve the problem?

focusedfire wrote:IMO,Obama is not a muslim and there is nothing to indicate that he is.

What I do find troubling is:
A) That any attempts to verify his birth as a US citizen and school records are being blocked as a matter of national security.

Here we have a "news organization" that has defended its right to lie in court

Neat. So in your world, "free speech" does not include being allowed to lie.

Let me guess the next step: Anything that doesn't agree with your political outlook is a lie.

And so, in your world, "free speech" is agreement with you, and disagreement with you is illegal. Sounds like utopia, where do I sign up?

Seriously though: free speech is about people being free to speak. The downside is they won't always say what you want them to.

It is damaging to our democracy. Democracy, more than anything, relies on the free exchange of ideas.

Oh, I agree, Fox is damaging to our democracy. So is MSNBC. The difference between you and I is that you're so flagrantly partisan and brainwashed that you can't tell the difference between "the idiots on my team" and "the idiots on the other team." In your world there's only "the idiots on the other team" and "people who are right."

The Fairness Doctrine is only a threat to professional liars and con-artists who fear being challenged by facts.

Amazing. The will to power, the desire to control and oppress, it just DRIPS off of everything you say.

Political disagreement can be frustrating, but in the end, it's fine. People on these forums say things I don't agree with, and maybe we argue, but it's just a difference of opinion, and that's that.

Not so with you. You're already angling to silence those who you don't agree with as "liars." That's one step beyond tolerable.

But you don't stop there. You don't just plan to silence dissent, you've already built up language and rhetoric about how doing so promotes "freedom" and stimulates the exchange of ideas.

It's funny you refer to Orwell, because you're EXACTLY the person he feared. I've always wondered how a guy like Orwell, who was himself a progressive, could write a dystopia that to me seemed like the corrupt outcome of his own ideology. I think the answer is that he looked at his peers, saw people like you, and feared what would become of his utopia if entrusted to a petty tyrant like you.

Fox News is not the right wing version of MSNBC, because MSNBC is not a partisan Democrat operation.

I'm quite clear on your opinion. Obviously I don't agree with you. I view Fox and MSNBC as being different sides of the same idiot coin. Better send somebody over to make sure I stop lying, huh?

Keith Olbermann called the Democrats the "amateur left" only a few days ago

Sure, cause they're not left enough.

And Sean Hannity routinely cricizes the Republicans for not being right enough.

It's the EXACT same thing.

Phryxis wrote:Neat. So in your world, "free speech" does not include being allowed to lie.

I am glad you support the right to lie about military honours then.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/18/national/main6783832.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+%28PC+Answer%3A+CBSNews.com%29

Frazzled wrote:
Bush's numbers were higher at the end of his Presidency than Obama's are now.

According to Rasmussen (who tends to report lower than average approval) Obama's rating is 45%.

Bush's aggregate rating at the end of his Presidency never reached above 30%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Fox News is not the right wing version of MSNBC, because MSNBC is not a partisan Democrat operation. MSNBC is highly critical of the Obama administration and the Democratic party in general.

Fox is about as critical of the Republicans as MSNBC is of the Democrats. Note many of the things Beck has said regarding the Bush administration in the context of stories about the Tea Party.

I am glad you support the right to lie about military honours then.

Well, I certainly support your right to totally misrepresent what I said, transparent and ridiculous as it may be.

I never said that all forms of lying are covered under free speech. The fact is, certain forms of lying ARE illegal in the US and other countries. For example, libel and slander... I was responding to Gailbraithe's belief that ANY form of lying was not protected by free speech.

But, by all means, misrepresent my argument. I fully support your right to be wrong.

Fox is about as critical of the Republicans as MSNBC is of the Democrats. Note many of the things Beck has said regarding the Bush administration in the context of stories about the Tea Party.

Wow, dogma, thanks to my expert training, I can tell just by reading this that you're a total RACIST.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bush's numbers were higher at the end of his Presidency than Obama's are now.

According to Rasmussen (who tends to report lower than average approval) Obama's rating is 45%.

Bush's aggregate rating at the end of his Presidency never reached above 30%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
Fox News is not the right wing version of MSNBC, because MSNBC is not a partisan Democrat operation. MSNBC is highly critical of the Obama administration and the Democratic party in general.

Fox is about as critical of the Republicans as MSNBC is of the Democrats. Note many of the things Beck has said regarding the Bush administration in the context of stories about the Tea Party.

Gallup.Looky looky!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

I wouldn't cite Rasmussen if I were you.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
As many people strongly disapprove (44%) as approve in total (45%).

Frazz, not sure if this is what's going on, but drag the slider out to show the whole Presidency.

When I saw GWB's numbers, I was a bit shocked until I saw the whole run of his term, and how his ratings tanked at the end.

No question he was much more popular than Obama at this point in his Presidency, but obviously that didn't last.

Phryxis wrote:Frazz, not sure if this is what's going on, but drag the slider out to show the whole Presidency.

When I saw GWB's numbers, I was a bit shocked until I saw the whole run of his term, and how his ratings tanked at the end.

No question he was much more popular than Obama at this point in his Presidency, but obviously that didn't last.

Woops I stand corrected.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Wait, people actually listen to glenn Beck? I thought even country bumpkins thought he was dumb?

Don't make fun of poor little Glenn. His feelings are easily hurt, and it isn't his fault he was dropped on his head as a small child.

Wait, people actually listen to glenn Beck? I thought even country bumpkins thought he was dumb?

A LOT of people listen to Glenn Beck.

While I find his act to be a bit over-the-top emotional at times, and too laden with appeals to Christian values, a lot of what he spends time on is actually valid political criticism.

By no means do I think he's for everyone, but I think that if all the people who are SURE he's an idiot had actually listened to his show, a lot fewer people would be so sure.

I recall reading "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" back when it first came out, right at the end of my time in High School (I think?). I had no idea who any of the people being criticized were, I had certainly never actually heard Rush Limbaugh's show, but I felt that the book was very accurate, very true, and I was very clever for having read it.

It's the same thing today with Glenn Beck. I have no problem with people who don't like Glenn Beck. I just don't like it when people are sure he's an idiot, but haven't listened to a single show.

Since I listen to both the criticism of him AND to his show, I know both sides of it. Most people have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about.

For example: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008060020

Bottom line, I'm reminded of something I was once told about the Japanese, which I'll just assume is true, regardless. I heard that the Japanese find arguments embarassing, whether they're correct or not, because even being in an argument is an embarassment to the person involved. This is how I view somebody like Beck. People like (say) Joe Klein fancy themselves to be above the likes of Beck, but in bickering with Beck he proves himself to be no better, and, in fact, to be a far less successful, far less recognized animal of the exact same species.

Frazzled wrote:
Gallup.Looky looky!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

43% is higher than 30%.

Frazzled wrote:
I wouldn't cite Rasmussen if I were you.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
As many people strongly disapprove (44%) as approve in total (45%).

But approval ratings, which are what we are discussing, relate only to those that do approve; ie. if 43% of the population approves of what you do, then your approval rating is 43%.

You may be thinking of approval indices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
When I saw GWB's numbers, I was a bit shocked until I saw the whole run of his term, and how his ratings tanked at the end.

No question he was much more popular than Obama at this point in his Presidency, but obviously that didn't last.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

His polling numbers are substantially lower by Gallup so that might be a yes...

Bush was riding on 9/11 at this point in his presidency. Obama is still doing better than a majority of his second term and vastly better then towards the end of it. Bush didn't really have to deal with much, he made his own problems (aside from katrina). Obamas getting blamed for the reds inability to understand economic instability and for his attempt at killing everyones grandparents according to fox.

Approval rates directly correspond to American confidence in the nations course. During bad times they go down, no matter how little the president has to do with it or how its actually going.

Bush's numbers were higher at the end of his Presidency than Obama's are now.

They were in the low 30's at the end of his presidency. Now I know you don't know history, but c'mon this was two years ago. Your memory should trace back at least that far.

A LOT of people listen to Glenn Beck.

While I find his act to be a bit over-the-top emotional at times, and too laden with appeals to Christian values, a lot of what he spends time on is actually valid political criticism.

Not really, no. It's just blatant misinformed ranting by a man who has built a career on lying knowingly to his viewership. There are no valid points of criticism being worked on by beck unless you can consider the socialist conspiracy a "valid political criticism".

By no means do I think he's for everyone, but I think that if all the people who are SURE he's an idiot had actually listened to his show, a lot fewer people would be so sure.

I think he's very intelligent. I also think he plays a pretty brilliant act that ropes in millions from idiotic people. He's unscrupulous and immoral, but he's hardly stupid.

Bottom line, I'm reminded of something I was once told about the Japanese, which I'll just assume is true, regardless. I heard that the Japanese find arguments embarassing, whether they're correct or not, because even being in an argument is an embarassment to the person involved. This is how I view somebody like Beck. People like (say) Joe Klein fancy themselves to be above the likes of Beck, but in bickering with Beck he proves himself to be no better, and, in fact, to be a far less successful, far less recognized animal of the exact same species.

I wouldn't really equate financial success and moralistic values. Glen beck is most definitely the bottom of the heap as far as political "thinkers" go, but he's been near the top of the media market for pay for a few years. His methods of disseminating his views, and his views themselves are the lowest common denominator gak being spoonfed to the worst of the conservative movement. He's reviled by many in his own party and his show is a constant source of controversy for fox (and it's advertisers). That said, he's one of the most brilliant success stories of a new commentator in the last decade. Lowbrow works.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Of course it does. He's the American president, not the benevolent leader of some bizarre land that celebrates freedom and tolerance.

+1

I just saw this topic on sxephil........

News of the poll comes amid fears by some US Muslims that they will be targeted due to the fact that the holiday of Eid falls on 11 September this year, the anniversary of the terror attacks of 2001

Hoo-boy.

I'm just glad I live in the UK and have Radio 4 to listen to.

There are no valid points of criticism being worked on by beck unless you can consider the socialist conspiracy a "valid political criticism".

Listen to him a lot, do you?

I doubt it.

Regardless, one thing he spends a lot of time on is explaining the lobbying/fundraising/thinktank organizations behind the Democrats, and how they interact with the party. This is exactly the sort of "transparency" that we should have into both parties, all the time.

He looks into the czars, the people heading commissions, the people really setting policy in the administration. Again, something we should know about both parties.

Now, it's not like he's just objectively examining these people/orgs, and giving a totally fair, unbiased report. On the contrary, he's attacking them in the most aggressive, partisan fashion he can manage. But, as he sometimes does, if he can find these people saying things that are COMPLETELY out of phase with the American mainstream, I think that's something worth knowing.

I think it's a commentary on how pitiful the mainstream media is, that a guy like Beck is the one trying to create transparency, while everyone else is polling if Obama is really a Muslim.

I think he's very intelligent.

Meh, I don't think he's all that smart. I think he's got a fantastic read on how people think, on how to appeal to them, and strike an emotional chord, but I don't think he's really especially intelligent. He's just got very good instincts.

I also think he plays a pretty brilliant act that ropes in millions from idiotic people. He's unscrupulous and immoral, but he's hardly stupid.

Well, right, people who don't agree with you politically are stupid, and people who cater to that audience are immoral. The only way somebody could ever disagree with you is if they're stupid or lying.

But we know that. No need to restate it.

Listen to him a lot, do you?

I doubt it.

More than I'd like too. Roomates used to like to listen to him as a joke. I didn't find it funny, but I was always outvoted in the car.

Regardless, one thing he spends a lot of time on is explaining the lobbying/fundraising/thinktank organizations behind the Democrats, and how they interact with the party. This is exactly the sort of "transparency" that we should have into both parties, all the time.

Yeah, he spends time inaccurately explaining them in hyperbolic and entirely misleading ways. He's to political commentary what smash lab is to science.

He looks into the czars, the people heading commissions, the people really setting policy in the administration. Again, something we should know about both parties.

No, he just "talks about them". Like we just did. We just went over them in as much factual detail as Beck does and we managed to avoid being raving idiots about it.

Now, it's not like he's just objectively examining these people/orgs, and giving a totally fair, unbiased report. On the contrary, he's attacking them in the most aggressive, partisan fashion he can manage. But, as he sometimes does, if he can find these people saying things that are COMPLETELY out of phase with the American mainstream, I think that's something worth knowing.

Do you listen to the crazies on the soap box because they might tell you what the weather is like when they're explaining how the sky is falling?

Meh, I don't think he's all that smart. I think he's got a fantastic read on how people think, on how to appeal to them, and strike an emotional chord, but I don't think he's really especially intelligent. He's just got very good instincts.

I'm not entirely sure those are separate things, but then again I don't think he personally believes the things he says. He could't. He makes them up most of the time.

Well, right, people who don't agree with you politically are stupid, and people who cater to that audience are immoral. The only way somebody could ever disagree with you is if they're stupid or lying.

Don't pretend that everyone who disagrees with me listens to Beck. You know not all of them do. People who disagree with me and take beck seriously are idiots people who disagree with me but think becks a loon could well be perfectly intelligent reasonable people.

But as I said. If you take beck seriously, you need your head examined and then punched.

But we know that. No need to restate it.

I'm sorry, did I insult your crazybox idol? Do you want me to grab a few chalkboards and explain how I'm leading the zionist conspiracy to bring hitler to the whitehouse so you can feel better?

Normally you can expect around 5% of people to pick the stupidest answer on a poll just to mess with it. That number goes up when the question is really ridiculous, and can get up towards 20%. You can normally pick out the goofy answer percentage if they show the age breakdown, because the silly answer will be massively over-represented in the 18-25 age bracket.

Unfortunately, that doesn't look like what's happening here. The polling numbers closely poll to political ideology, with Republicans representing a large portion of those who believe he is a Muslim. It's a worry.

Grignard wrote:And why would the media help. If that really is the case, then I imagine mass media is part of the problem.

I don't think the media is to blame for this one. They've covered this a lot and given the pretty clear answer that Obama is Christian. This is really just a case of idiots believing what they want to believe to help them hate the other political side.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not sure why it matters. The people who are so inclined to think whatever negative(in their mind, anyway) thing about B-Rock probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. They should have just said "Hardcore Conservative Base Doesn't Like Democrat President."

It's fine to dislike Obama and there are plenty of reasons to do so, but it isn't alright to be an idiot. Believing something as obviously untrue as Obama being a muslim makes people idiots.

There's also the notable correlation between people believing Obama is a muslim and people being opposed to Obama - which is very sad for a country that prides itself of religious tolerance.

Frazzled wrote:Gallup.Looky looky!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

I wouldn't cite Rasmussen if I were you.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
As many people strongly disapprove (44%) as approve in total (45%).

Yes, Obama has as many approve as disapprove. This has nothing to do with your earlier statement that Bush' approval ratings at the end of his presidency were higher than Obama's are now. They are not.

Phryxis wrote:By no means do I think he's for everyone, but I think that if all the people who are SURE he's an idiot had actually listened to his show, a lot fewer people would be so sure.

I've seen plenty of Glenn Beck's show. I'm not convinced he's an idiot, given his background as a shockjock and how absurd so many of his claims are I suspect he might just be saying whatever will get him ratings. But I do know that the people who tune and believe him are idiots, or at least people who've chosen to stupid in order to believe things they want to believe.

I recall reading "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" back when it first came out, right at the end of my time in High School (I think?).

I think it's just as bad an idea to read Al Franken as it is to listen to Limbaugh or Beck. They're all playing a particularly stupid brand of identity politics, and they make their audiences dumber for having heard them.

sebster wrote:Normally you can expect around 5% of people to pick the stupidest answer on a poll just to mess with it. That number goes up when the question is really ridiculous, and can get up towards 20%. You can normally pick out the goofy answer percentage if they show the age breakdown, because the silly answer will be massively over-represented in the 18-25 age bracket.

Unfortunately, that doesn't look like what's happening here. The polling numbers closely poll to political ideology, with Republicans representing a large portion of those who believe he is a Muslim. It's a worry.

I mean, I don't think that, on its own, believing that Obama is a Muslims is all that bad, or even overly foolish. Presidents falsify their religious beliefs all the time, its really par for the course for anyone that isn't some sort of Protestant. What I would find disconcerting is the number of people who believe that it matters at all what religion the President follows, but then I have the same reaction to the general need for Presidents to falsify their religious beliefs.

Regardless, I think its pretty clear that, no matter what he believes, Obama is not devout at all.

My god, what if Obama is an atheist? He'd be an atheist masquerading as a Muslim masquerading as a Christian it's the perfect cover; nobody would ever suspect him of pushing his godless Bolshevik agenda onto hard working god fearing Americans.

Seriously though it's obvious Obama is one of those terror babies Louie Gohmert is warning us about. He was born in Hawaii and then moved to Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, when he was 6. That's a little too suspicious don't you think? Who knows what kind of stuff the indoctrinated/programmed into him when he was there for 4 years. Then re-infiltrates America easily since he's a natural born citizen and runs for president, the perfect Manchurian candidate.

dogma wrote:I mean, I don't think that, on its own, believing that Obama is a Muslims is all that bad, or even overly foolish. Presidents falsify their religious beliefs all the time, its really par for the course for anyone that isn't some sort of Protestant. What I would find disconcerting is the number of people who believe that it matters at all what religion the President follows, but then I have the same reaction to the general need for Presidents to falsify their religious beliefs.

In addition to people associating 'Muslim' with 'bad', it's a problem because there is simply no reason to believe it, there's been a lot of coverage of Obama's actual faith. It's demonstrative of how many people's political beliefs are reality proof.

since 4 out of 5 americans LOVE FOLLOWING THE FORUM POSTING RULES EVERYTHING IS GREAT !

AF

Do you listen to the crazies on the soap box because they might tell you what the weather is like when they're explaining how the sky is falling?

No, I listen to him because - and I know you're not willing to engage this possibility - they're all crazies on soap boxes on both sides of the debate.

For example, Joe Klein writes for Time magazine, and he's a "respected" liberal columnist, and he's very smart. Only he's not. He's just a soapbox lunatic without the oratorical power of Beck.

I don't think he personally believes the things he says

I do. Or, at least, I think he believes the things that he says on his radio show. I've never watched his TV show, and from what I can gather, it's way more over the top than his radio show.

Honestly, I think all these talking heads believe themselves. They may have warped themselves a bit over time, fighting the good fight, but I think they all generally believe it. They inject drama, they heighten emotion, but at the end of the day, I think they believe it.

But as I said. If you take beck seriously, you need your head examined and then punched.

I'm not sure what "seriously" means to you. I take him as seriously as most other talking heads. Say, Chris Matthews. That's not very serious, but I don't totally disregard everything he says just because he says it.

I take him quite seriously when it comes to his predictions for certain topics. For example, I think he (and Limbaugh as well), both have a very good sense of what people will believe, what people will vote for, what motivates people. I feel like they've got a very good read on the American right.

I also believe sound bytes he plays. Sound bytes can be edited to be misleading, but they're generally not falsified. So when he plays somebody saying something, I take it seriously.

That's actually the core of how I view him (and anybody like him). I want verification. If he says XYZ is a raving Marxist, great, I want him to be right. But I'll need to see proof that he's right, and not from him. Generally I consider the left admitting something is true to be "proof." If both sides agree on a partisan point, it's probably true.

Put differently: I take him seriously enough to allow him to try to convince me of his argument. I don't always agree, but I'm almost always willing to listen to what he's saying. When he starts getting all emotional and tearful, I'm not really willing to listen to that.

I'm not convinced he's an idiot, given his background as a shockjock and how absurd so many of his claims are I suspect he might just be saying whatever will get him ratings.

Actually, now I need to know what he's saying that people think is so absurd. A lot of people say he's absurd, but I don't really know what they're thinking of when they say that.

As I said, I listen to his radio show only. And that's for the 15 minutes it takes me to drive home. It adds up, though, and I've listened to hours of his show over the months. That's my exposure to him. I find that pretty much everything he's saying is run-of-the-mill partisan commentary. Nothing absurd, but all of it is choir preaching. And then, on top of that, he's a bit more aggressively investigatory than Limbaugh/Hannity and others.

I think it's just as bad an idea to read Al Franken as it is to listen to Limbaugh or Beck.

Right, that was my point, one has to understand that the game is the game, and picking a side doesn't exempt you from the game. There's no "right" side in that game.

Of course, Franken is now a Senator. So you can take from that what you will...

And, honestly, from what I've seen, he's actually one of the better ones. That's just how pitiful the competition is.

Presidents falsify their religious beliefs all the time, its really par for the course for anyone that isn't some sort of Protestant.

I was thinking something similar. I mean, Pelosi and Kerry are Catholics and they're aggressively pro-choice. REALLY? I mean, REALLY? I'm not the pope, but if you're pro-choice, doesn't that make you NOT a Catholic?

So, on some level, I've just assumed that "lying" about your faith is part of the deal in American politics, and we've all agreed that as long as you're at least willing to pretend, you should be left alone.

That said, what the hell do people expect to accomplish? How are you EVER going to PROVE that somebody is a Muslim? Lie detector? ESP? This is the sort of argument that's over before it starts. "Well, he says he's a Christian." Where do you go from there? Go drill a hole and his head, see if it looks Christy in there?