|
I don't watch Glen Beck, except for the occasional snippet that seems interesting. I also don't listen to his radio program (or any talk radio for that matter). Still, I kind of like the guy - he seems funny and smart. I'm glad to see him get honored in his hometown that way.
I was slightly amused by the comment from the mayor of the neighboring town that he thought John Stewart contributed more to civil discourse. It's been my understanding that all Stewart does is mock people with whom he disagrees.
I was slightly amused by the comment from the mayor of the neighboring town that he thought John Stewart contributed more to civil discourse. It's been my understanding that all Stewart does is mock people with whom he disagrees.
Well that's the paradigm isn't it?
Conservative mocks liberals= 'mean spirited' , 'divisive', 'dangerous'
Liberal mocks conservatives= 'smart' ,'topical', 'meaningful'
Don't like the guy mainly because of his extreme right wing rhetoric that he promotes as news.
I also don't live in Washington.
That's a long drive from Texas, don't think I'll make the drive. Would be cool though.
Glen Beck visit hometown. Anyone going?
As I am a "treehugging socialist/communist/facist pinko who wants to see the country destroyed" Liberal... er, no.
|
I was slightly amused by the comment from the mayor of the neighboring town that he thought John Stewart contributed more to civil discourse. It's been my understanding that all Stewart does is mock people with whom he disagrees.Well that's the paradigm isn't it?
Conservative mocks liberals= 'mean spirited' , 'divisive', 'dangerous'
Liberal mocks conservatives= 'smart' ,'topical', 'meaningful'
Did you see Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno last night? He pretty much addressed this very topic. Jay asked him basicly why can't we all get along? Rush answered that we could all get along if liberals gave up everything they believe and supported conservitive ideas. Then he said that the reason he says that is because the template right now is that bipartisanship and cooperation is defined by conservatives surrendering their values to embrace liberal ideas. I was very surprised by how loud and long Lenop's audience clapped when he said this. However, to answer the original quesdtion, no I will not be going.
|
I was slightly amused by the comment from the mayor of the neighboring town that he thought John Stewart contributed more to civil discourse. It's been my understanding that all Stewart does is mock people with whom he disagrees.Well that's the paradigm isn't it?
Conservative mocks liberals= 'mean spirited' , 'divisive', 'dangerous'
Liberal mocks conservatives= 'smart' ,'topical', 'meaningful'
I must say, Stewart doesn't just mock people he disagrees with. He mocks EVERYONE. It's his job.
However, on the subject of Keith Olberman...
He belongs in the same category as Beck and O'Reilly.
|
|
Glen Beck visit hometown. Anyone going?As I am a "treehugging socialist/communist/facist pinko who wants to see the country destroyed" Liberal... er, no.
I think political parties are the worst thing ever to happen to America, and I voted for Nader in the '08 election... er, no.
Oh, yeah, and I live on the exact opposite side of the country. That would get in the way, wouldn't it.
I only have one thing to add...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I must say, Stewart doesn't just mock people he disagrees with. He mocks EVERYONE. It's his job.
However, on the subject of Keith Olberman...
He belongs in the same category as Beck and O'Reilly.
Don't watch Stewart, or Olberman for that matter.
Question about Olberman, does he laugh at himself, a lot?
Listening to GB now, he's complimenting a SNL skit on him, and saying 'you got me just right.' Also talking about Rush on Leno. "Rush has lost a lot of weight, he's looking svelt. I think I've found all the weight Rush lost. Now when people ask, "Where did all the weight go?" He can say "I gave it to Glenn Beck." And Rush, you can take it back now.'
|
|
Question about Olberman, does he laugh at himself, a lot?
No. Definitely not. He just screams at the camera and invokes Godwin's Law.
Listening to GB now, he's complimenting a SNL skit on him, and saying 'you got me just right.' Also talking about Rush on Leno. "Rush has lost a lot of weight, he's looking svelte. I think I've found all the weight Rush lost. Now when people ask, "Where did all the weight go?" He can say "I gave it to Glenn Beck." And Rush, you can take it back now.'
My stand on Glenn Beck: he's a charismatic guy, and he has the ability to laugh at himself. This is very good. However, he is an entertainer, first and foremost. Basically, he's a right-wing version of Jon Stewart that puts a little more spin on the ball.
[sarc]Then why are you using a computer? Do you know how much carbon you're generating?[/sarc]
I have Ed Begley Jr and Janeane Garofalo chained to exercise bikes in the shed to generate power.
|
|
Conservative or liberal, hosts like Beck are all contributing to a big problem in today's culture. Most people don't make up there own mind anymore. They are more interested in regurgitating the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, Frank Rich, or Rush Limbaugh than they are in forming their own conclusions. Somewhere along the line, Americans decided that these jokers were giving us the facts, rather than their opinions.
Very well put.
|
|
Did you see Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno last night? He pretty much addressed this very topic.Conservative or liberal, hosts like Beck are all contributing to a big problem in today's culture. Most people don't make up there own mind anymore. They are more interested in regurgitating the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, Frank Rich, or Rush Limbaugh than they are in forming their own conclusions. Somewhere along the line, Americans decided that these jokers were giving us the facts, rather than their opinions.
The thing is, they get viewers, and always will. Back when the news was somewhat less biased (I'm not going to say completely unbiased, as I don't live in a gumdrop kingdom), it wasn't doing well, so people figured out that things like "Action News" worked. When people got used to that, they took sides in political debate (more conflict, better ratings). In other countries, (such as Russia and here in Canada), some even started going nude (oddly enough, embracing a little more objectivity in the process). The revolution, it would seem, will not be televised.
At the end of the day, guys like Glen Beck have tons of money, awards, friends in high places, and keys to the city. The results of their work are secondary.
...Conservative or liberal, hosts like Beck are all contributing to a big problem in today's culture. Most people don't make up there own mind anymore. They are more interested in regurgitating the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, Frank Rich, or Rush Limbaugh than they are in forming their own conclusions. Somewhere along the line, Americans decided that these jokers were giving us the facts, rather than their opinions...
As much as find much of what comes out of Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. offensive and misleading, I don't blame them. If they didn't have a strong demographic of listeners/watchers/readers, they'd be out of a job. I blame the people -- Repubs, Dems, Libertarians, and Liberals -- who won't think for themselves and resort to soundbites/"facts." A lot of talking heads would have a better time convincing me (and others) of their views if they more carefully consider their choice of words... but conflict and outrage is what sells these days.
I haven't had cable/satellite for the last couple years, and I only occasionally seek out recent clips of the Daily Show on the 'Net. But from past viewing, I think he softballs too many of his interviews and he does occasionally step onto a soapbox. But he always seemed to consider everyone fair game, and he has always maintained that he is only an entertainer.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh BTW, I won't be going. :P
I do think that the 'bombastic' folks along with the net do make a difference as long as you can sort out the facts from the opinion. Glenn Beck's work on Van Jones and others, Powerline and LittleGreenFootballs' work on the Dan Rather/TANG fraud, posting evidence of Reuter's fauxtography, etc. I'm sure the left leaning sources do some of the same as well, though I'll admit that I heard of the Harriet Meyers scandal from National Review, not the Daily Kos.
Heck, I just read about Bibi calling Iran on the carpet, not just for the Holocaust denial but for the treatment of gays on a conservative website. (Disclaimer: You can find my comments posted under 'The_Livewire')
To quote Ronald Reagan's favourite quote. "Trust, but verify."
Well, it's better than letting either of them make more movies. I've been trying to capture Uwe Boll too, but he's been too wiley so far. :)I have Ed Begley Jr and Janeane Garofalo chained to exercise bikes in the shed to generate power.You win. I can't top that :P
To quote Ronald Reagan's favourite quote. "Trust, but verify."
Don't get me started on Saint Ronnie.
|
|
Did you see Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno last night? He pretty much addressed this very topic.I thought Leno's new show was supposed to be about comedy - What the hell was Limbaugh doing on it?
I could say pretty much the same thing about Barney Frank, who as on on Tuesday. Or President Obama on Letterman for that matter. Leno is doing the same show he did on the Tonight Show, complete with interviews of celebs. Like it or not, Limbaugh is a celeb.
No.
If I wanted to see a crazy idiot spout absurdities, I'd just go watch the homeless on the corner.
No.
If I wanted to see a crazy idiot spout absurdities, I'd just go watch the homeless on the corner.
I dunno. I'd buy the homeless guy a sandwich and give him $20. I can't say I'd do that for Beck.
|
|
Whoever the OP is, I guess you know that even putting Glen Beck's name on a message thread was going to open a political controversial flamewar.
I personally find it amusing when people bash Mr. Beck. I've tried to have intelligent arguments with these people, asking why they think Mr. Beck is spouting absurdities, or is "stoopid" or whatever, and all they say is "Have you watched his show?"
I have, almost everyday. It's a very common thing for him to say that he's not presenting news but his opinion. So I think that's fair. He also tells the viewers to think for themselves, to investigate and research on their own. Mr. Beck has contributed a lot to our political discussions in the family, and so far the people that are laughing at him seem more absurd than he does. I am trying to be open-minded about it though, and am still waiting for an intelligent argument against anything Mr. Beck's said. To be fair, there are a few things he has said that I know he needs to research more. Like questioning what other news media outlets publish, or why they haven't published news about something he's recently discovered.
So, if anyone here would like to make an intelligent argument against what Mr. Beck stands for or argues for, please do so. I'm all ears. You can put it in spoilers if you like to avoid building political tension. :)
Beck stuff snipped
To many people (myself included), Mr. Beck would appear to stand for Higher Ratings Through Moral Outrage. From watching his show (I haven't seen any of his live performances or read his books), I find that most of what he presents as "facts" are only partially correct, are misrepresented, or even sometimes completely incorrect. I find it frustrating that he presents himself as a news source, then when confronted with evidence that he is wrong, says "Whoops, I'm just a 'commentator' and entertainer." And I am very distressed when he singles out some minority group as the supposed cause of whatever hot button topic is wrong with America.
I don't single him out as being the only one guilty of this, on either the "right" and "left."
And I am very distressed when he singles out some minority group as the supposed cause of whatever hot button topic is wrong with America.
I must have missed that show. When did he do this?
|
|
Beck stuff snippedTo many people (myself included), Mr. Beck would appear to stand for Higher Ratings Through Moral Outrage. From watching his show (I haven't seen any of his live performances or read his books), I find that most of what he presents as "facts" are only partially correct, are misrepresented, or even sometimes completely incorrect. I find it frustrating that he presents himself as a news source, then when confronted with evidence that he is wrong, says "Whoops, I'm just a 'commentator' and entertainer." And I am very distressed when he singles out some minority group as the supposed cause of whatever hot button topic is wrong with America.
I don't single him out as being the only one guilty of this, on either the "right" and "left."
So, I'm sorry if my "moral outrage" is blocking the federal government from stepping all over my personal rights. I guess I should just lay down and let the tanks roll over me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
This summer Nerrat got a chance to talk to the leader of the official opposition and asked him how difficult it is to get the different parties to agree. Once he stopped patronizing the nine-year-old, Michael Ignatieff answered, "It's very difficult because our disagreements are legitimate. We honestly believe that our answer is the best answer at this time. The disagreements are not bad things, however, because it's through these disagreements that we can find better answers." Good enough for me.
And I am very distressed when he singles out some minority group as the supposed cause of whatever hot button topic is wrong with America.I must have missed that show. When did he do this?
Really? If someone were to go through and cite specific video and transcripts, would it really change anyone's pro-Beck opinions? I've done it before in other political threads (before they degenerated and got banhammered), and nobody ever watches/reads it unless it already agrees with their existing opinion. Or it get's dismissed as "biased mainstream media."
Meh, not my cup of tea.
Even as a conservative I wouldn't go. If I wanted to see a guy cry I'd look in a mirror on payday.
...So, I'm sorry if my "moral outrage" is blocking the federal government from stepping all over my personal rights. I guess I should just lay down and let the tanks roll over me.
That wasn't what I meant.
Fine. I'm too tired of trying to parse my words to be as neutral and non-confrontational as possible. I've had different versions of this argument for the last couple months in RL and all over the 'Net.
[much extra crap deleted]
I'm done attempting to have reasonable discourse about politics for a while. If I pop up in another Politics thread here, would someone please smack me with a large wet fish?
...So, I'm sorry if my "moral outrage" is blocking the federal government from stepping all over my personal rights. I guess I should just lay down and let the tanks roll over me.That wasn't what I meant.
Fine. I'm too tired of trying to parse my words to be as neutral and non-confrontational as possible. I've had different versions of this argument for the last couple months in RL and all over the 'Net.
[much extra crap deleted]
I'm done attempting to have reasonable discourse about politics for a while. If I pop up in another Politics thread here, would someone please smack me with a large wet fish?
Rummages around pack.
All I've got is a wet baby echidna. He's cute though! :D
And I am very distressed when he singles out some minority group as the supposed cause of whatever hot button topic is wrong with America.I must have missed that show. When did he do this?Really? If someone were to go through and cite specific video and transcripts, would it really change anyone's pro-Beck opinions? I've done it before in other political threads (before they degenerated and got banhammered), and nobody ever watches/reads it unless it already agrees with their existing opinion. Or it get's dismissed as "biased mainstream media."
Sure, if you can prove it my opinion will change. The problem is political debate in this country has degenerated into name calling and belittling the other person to avoid discussion of their message. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Your statement comes across as this belittling.
Personally, I agree with the main points of the tea party crowd. Specifically, that our politicians are corrupt (both parties), that politicians represent special interests rather than the people, that the deficit spending has lost what little semblance of control it used to have and will destroy our country, that our representatives and senators should be reading the bills before they vote on them, and that our representatives and senators should be writing the bills rather than having portions written by special interest groups. Unfortunately, rather than discussing the issues the tea party crowd has, they generally are mocked and insulted by the media (Fox's coverage being one exception). Belittle the messenger to avoid discussion of the message.
So, if anyone here would like to make an intelligent argument against what Mr. Beck stands for or argues for, please do so. I'm all ears. You can put it in spoilers if you like to avoid building political tension. :)
How about just showing examples of Glenn Beck demonstrating hypocrisy:
|
|
So, if anyone here would like to make an intelligent argument against what Mr. Beck stands for or argues for, please do so. I'm all ears. You can put it in spoilers if you like to avoid building political tension. :)How about just showing examples of Glenn Beck demonstrating hypocrisy:
Wow... interesting links.
So, if anyone here would like to make an intelligent argument against what Mr. Beck stands for or argues for, please do so. I'm all ears. You can put it in spoilers if you like to avoid building political tension. :)How about just showing examples of Glenn Beck demonstrating hypocrisy:
The first one seems easy enough. Beck never claimed our healthcare system was perfect or that it didn't need changes. Just that it was better than anyone else in the world has. So no hypocrisy. (Just like a person can be for healthcare reform but against congress's healthcare plan).
The second one is trickier. He seems to be talking about the bailout money not being enough to buy up all the troubled assets. Which is what the bailout was originally intended to be. But the bailout we got instead was used to buy banks (the problem with congress hurrying to pass a bill they didn't bother to read). So it looks like Beck was for the bailout plan to buy up the troubled assets, but against the bailout that resulted in buying banks. But I could be wrong.
|
|
So, if anyone here would like to make an intelligent argument against what Mr. Beck stands for or argues for, please do so. I'm all ears. You can put it in spoilers if you like to avoid building political tension. :)How about just showing examples of Glenn Beck demonstrating hypocrisy:
The first one seems easy enough. Beck never claimed our healthcare system was perfect or that it didn't need changes. Just that it was better than anyone else in the world has. So no hypocrisy. (Just like a person can be for healthcare reform but against congress's healthcare plan).
The second one is trickier. He seems to be talking about the bailout money not being enough to buy up all the troubled assets. Which is what the bailout was originally intended to be. But the bailout we got instead was used to buy banks (the problem with congress hurrying to pass a bill they didn't bother to read). So it looks like Beck was for the bailout plan to buy up the troubled assets, but against the bailout that resulted in buying banks. But I could be wrong.
That is how I see it. I guess you get more ratings if you just bash and snarl insted of saying "This doesn't make sense. Let's see if we can put it together in a way that does make sense."
How about demonstrating that Glenn Beck has a hard time telling the truth:
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How about demonstrating that Glenn Beck has a hard time telling the truth:
*yawn*
1) I'm unaware of Van Jones recanting his past.
2) Not only did he sign the petition, he organized a 9/11 rally. As the petition language is here
Let me quote the relevant part:
An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
3) If you by never endorsed you mean coauthored the book with those ideas then you'd be correct.
4) I've not heard that statement from him, so you might be one of four. I'd need the quote in context.
|
|
1.1) I'm unaware of Van Jones recanting his past.
2) Not only did he sign the petition, he organized a 9/11 rally. As the petition language is here
3) If you by never endorsed you mean coauthored the book with those ideas then you'd be correct.
4) I've not heard that statement from him, so you might be one of four. I'd need the quote in context.
He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said.
The article can be found here.
2. The PolitiFact site does not just list lies, but also truths. This one was one of them. The attached article states that, while Beck took the statement out of context (the petition was a call for further investigation, rather than outright finger-pointing), he was right, and Van Jones did sign the petition.
3.
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.
Does that sound like he's giving it his full endorsement? No. Of course it doesn't. What it does sound like (to me, at least), is someone giving a possible solution to a hypothetical situation. On the link you provided (a subset of a rather biased right-wing website), many of the passages are taken out of context, and all are sensationalized. Taking that article as gospel is rather like using a Rob Liefeld drawing as an anatomical reference. If you want to take a look, the attached PolitiFact article can be found here.
4. The U.S. is one of the few developed countries that does have birthright citizenship. However, some of the other developed countries that do (Canada and Brazil immediately come to mind) are fairly large in population. As stated by the article, in this case, Beck made a blanket statement that was just plain wrong.
A list of nations granting birthright citizenship may be found here.
