Glenn Beck (1 Viewer)

[Saints-Man]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

Parodying that kind of rhetoric is this website: DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com.

...

Did Couric bring up this obvious hypocrisy later in the interview?

I don't think it is hypocrisy as much as poor taste in satire. I don't think it can be hypocrisy if they are trying to be intentionally ironic.

I think Saints-Man was referring to Beck's hypocrisy -- in trying to silence the website for using the same rhetorical tactic he uses, and in trying to have it silenced using a method he's criticized others for using.The website hasn't engaged in any hypocrisy. It's not actually trying to convince anyone, via its absurd rhetorical stunt, that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. It is, on the contrary, trying to demonstrate the absurdity of that very rhetorical stunt.

Thanks, MT. Yes, I was referring to Beck's hypocrisy.

 

[Balance]

Would it bother you if your President sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a preacher say that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs don't exist because they arent in the bible?It would bother me.

No, it would only bother me if my President believed that himself.I grew up in churches and private schools. I don't believe in god.If I can come out of sitting in a church listening to pastors and preachers for almost 20 years and come out OK... I'm going to assume anyone can. I disagreed with damn near every sermon I ever listened to, never walked out.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Would it bother you if your President sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a preacher say that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs don't exist because they arent in the bible?It would bother me.

No, it would only bother me if my President believed that himself.I grew up in churches and private schools. I don't believe in god.If I can come out of sitting in a church listening to pastors and preachers for almost 20 years and come out OK... I'm going to assume anyone can. I disagreed with damn near every sermon I ever listened to, never walked out.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yet incendiary social commentary rooted in fact from an African American preacher has be elevated to a virtual national outrage.

It's not "incendiary social commentary." It's more like racist and anti-American diatribes. I gave Obama a pass on this at the time, but it's not asking too much that you at least be honest in describing what some of the stuff spewed forth by Wright was like.

 

[jamny]

Since I've never seen either show, I'm going to watch a full week of Olberman and Maddow.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that there are differences in how people approach the facts. There are differences in how I evaluate the various commentators and I find the way Maddow approaches stories differs greatly in form and substance from the way that someone like Glenn Beck does. So it's not fair or open minded to say, "There's this person on the left; there's this person on the right; I guess it's all one game; let's call it a day." That's not reflective of any reality except a very superficial one. That's what I'm saying.

That is probably one of the the most superficial, thoughtless arguments that can be made, and yet it is made constantly around here.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that there are differences in how people approach the facts. There are differences in how I evaluate the various commentators and I find the way Maddow approaches stories differs greatly in form and substance from the way that someone like Glenn Beck does. So it's not fair or open minded to say, "There's this person on the left; there's this person on the right; I guess it's all one game; let's call it a day." That's not reflective of any reality except a very superficial one. That's what I'm saying.

Well done sir.They are going to hate you around here.

 

[Statorama]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that there are differences in how people approach the facts. There are differences in how I evaluate the various commentators and I find the way Maddow approaches stories differs greatly in form and substance from the way that someone like Glenn Beck does. So it's not fair or open minded to say, "There's this person on the left; there's this person on the right; I guess it's all one game; let's call it a day." That's not reflective of any reality except a very superficial one. That's what I'm saying.

So the problem is you, and the way you evaluate Right Wing and Left Wing nutjob commentators?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Preach on, Glenn!

 

[Gigantomachia]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that there are differences in how people approach the facts. There are differences in how I evaluate the various commentators and I find the way Maddow approaches stories differs greatly in form and substance from the way that someone like Glenn Beck does. So it's not fair or open minded to say, "There's this person on the left; there's this person on the right; I guess it's all one game; let's call it a day." That's not reflective of any reality except a very superficial one. That's what I'm saying.

So the problem is you, and the way you evaluate Right Wing and Left Wing nutjob commentators?

Pretty sure that does not follow.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

 

[Saints-Man]

Rule #16 of forum posting rules went into effect after Beck was discussed ad nauseaum. This tangent is a worthwhile discussion about political biases of media personalities and their prejudices, which grew out of the discussion of Beck. If you don't like rule #16, it is being debated in the test forum.

AGAIN, Beck is a shrill for the right and I pay him no mind. I have answered this question for you previously(just look up a few posts), and I don't know what else you want to know. Do you have a more specific question about him?

Fine, but AGAIN, if you pay him no mind, how can you reasonably contribute to the conversation and reasonably compare different media personalities? You seem to be focused on having a discussion with everyone else on their biases whereas a number of other people seem focused on actually the content and the delivery of their message. You can be the most partisan, biased person in the world and still host a fact-based, informative show. It's not just about, "Well this guy is on the right, but there's this other person is on the left"... that's just pandering. What it's about is, "This person's style incorrectly leads his/her viewers to believe this" whereas, "this person's style makes a real attempt to stick to the facts".It's NOT all politics.

We just went through a discussion where Maddow was disingenuous about the ACORN situation. These points were mentioned by a very fair minded poster in Pickles. That whole piece was opinion, and only loosely contained facts, and not many pertinent facts at that.Are you attempting to say that Maddow is not engaging in politics? Seriously?

To this ilk, it IS all politics. The "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that reflects and contributes to the polarization of our country.

You have posted some wild stuff, but to infer that Maddow is not playing politics is absurd.

No, what I'm saying is that there are differences in how people approach the facts. There are differences in how I evaluate the various commentators and I find the way Maddow approaches stories differs greatly in form and substance from the way that someone like Glenn Beck does. So it's not fair or open minded to say, "There's this person on the left; there's this person on the right; I guess it's all one game; let's call it a day." That's not reflective of any reality except a very superficial one. That's what I'm saying.

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own. It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

 

[urbanhack]

Preach on, Glenn!

 

[urbanhack]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

yes

 

[Gigantomachia]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I think you are confusing facts for partisanship.

 

[Saints-Man]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I think you are confusing facts for partisanship.

Gig, are you seriously claiming that she sticks to the facts and only the facts and does not inject her partisanship into her discourse? Seriously?

 

[Spanky267]

Would it bother you if your President sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a preacher say that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs don't exist because they arent in the bible?It would bother me.

No, it would only bother me if my President believed that himself.I grew up in churches and private schools. I don't believe in god.If I can come out of sitting in a church listening to pastors and preachers for almost 20 years and come out OK... I'm going to assume anyone can. I disagreed with damn near every sermon I ever listened to, never walked out.

Okay so you don't believe in god. Was your Pastor saying, "god **** america?" or "that the government lied about inventing the aids virus." I doubt he was. I've been in alot of churches in my life and heard some fire and brimstone sermons. But never have I heard some of this conspiracy theory garbage. Wright might be the greatest preacher and biblical scholar in history, but spouting off stuff like that really tarnishes the credibility.

 

[urbanhack]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

God is dead and people are leaving him to become atheists and go worship the government. Hilarious.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I think you are confusing facts for partisanship.

Gig, are you seriously claiming that she sticks to the facts and only the facts and does not inject her partisanship into her discourse? Seriously?

You are confusing the argument. I doubt anyone denies when she is in commentary mode you take it with a grain of salt, and perhaps there could be more clarity as to when that is exactly. Nevertheless, I fully agree with dude that when she does cite facts they actually are facts, unlike Beck who cites everything from god to being, most of which is simply wrong. Oh, and we can prove it is wrong, and therein lies the difference between the chick and the fat man.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

God is dead and people are leaving him to become atheists and go worship the government. Hilarious.

I missed the memo on the Church of the Gov, could you forward that, or are we taking your word for it?

 

[urbanhack]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

God is dead and people are leaving him to become atheists and go worship the government. Hilarious.

I missed the memo on the Church of the Gov, could you forward that, or are we taking your word for it?

Don't take my word for it, take Glenn Beck's.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

God is dead and people are leaving him to become atheists and go worship the government. Hilarious.

I missed the memo on the Church of the Gov, could you forward that, or are we taking your word for it?

Don't take my word for it, take Glenn Beck's.

Sorry, I mixed up my subjects.In that case, well sure, naturally.

 

[Saints-Man]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I think you are confusing facts for partisanship.

Gig, are you seriously claiming that she sticks to the facts and only the facts and does not inject her partisanship into her discourse? Seriously?

You are confusing the argument. I doubt anyone denies when she is in commentary mode you take it with a grain of salt, and perhaps there could be more clarity as to when that is exactly. Nevertheless, I fully agree with dude that when she does cite facts they actually are facts, unlike Beck who cites everything from god to being, most of which is simply wrong. Oh, and we can prove it is wrong, and therein lies the difference between the chick and the fat man.

So, we agree that she is a partisan hack? This has been my only point. If you read how this discussion progressed, that was my only point so I don't see how that is confusing the argument. Some people have inferred that since she uses facts(which only support her side and ignores the others), that she is not a partisan hack. I never compared her directly to Beck. Go back and read the thread. My only point was that partisan hacks don't contribute to the serious discussion of our nation. They are all a derivative of Crossfire, and as John Stewart so famously said, "Stop it, just stop it"(to the Crossfire panelists). I think the same thing applies here.

 

[jamny]

Preach on, Glenn!

So God is dead?Sweet.

yes

I prefer the Carnivore version

 

[Saints-Man]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I would posit that everyone, including myself and including you, "let's [their] side slide" in similar situations. However, if that's going to be your yardstick then political discourse is essentially a waste of time. All it boils down to is two sides yelling past each one another. However, if you believe (and not all people do) that political discourse has a greater goal that is attempting to be achieved; that there is an end to the Socratic dialogue whereby we actually arrive somewhere... then yah, it does matter how you approach it. And I feel capable to make those judgments (as arrogant as I am) despite political prejudices, not because of them.

Which exactly has been my point.

 

[Saints-Man]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I would posit that everyone, including myself and including you, "let's [their] side slide" in similar situations. However, if that's going to be your yardstick then political discourse is essentially a waste of time. All it boils down to is two sides yelling past each one another. However, if you believe (and not all people do) that political discourse has a greater goal that is attempting to be achieved; that there is an end to the Socratic dialogue whereby we actually arrive somewhere... then yah, it does matter how you approach it. And I feel capable to make those judgments (as arrogant as I am) despite political prejudices, not because of them.

Which exactly has been my point.

And this is mine.

So, what sources on the right do you consume that allows the information to make these reasonable decisions? How do you arrive somewhere if you don't consider conflicting viewpoints?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I think you are confusing facts for partisanship.

Gig, are you seriously claiming that she sticks to the facts and only the facts and does not inject her partisanship into her discourse? Seriously?

You are confusing the argument. I doubt anyone denies when she is in commentary mode you take it with a grain of salt, and perhaps there could be more clarity as to when that is exactly. Nevertheless, I fully agree with dude that when she does cite facts they actually are facts, unlike Beck who cites everything from god to being, most of which is simply wrong. Oh, and we can prove it is wrong, and therein lies the difference between the chick and the fat man.

So, we agree that she is a partisan hack? This has been my only point. If you read how this discussion progressed, that was my only point so I don't see how that is confusing the argument. Some people have inferred that since she uses facts(which only support her side and ignores the others), that she is not a partisan hack. I never compared her directly to Beck. Go back and read the thread. My only point was that partisan hacks don't contribute to the serious discussion of our nation. They are all a derivative of Crossfire, and as John Stewart so famously said, "Stop it, just stop it"(to the Crossfire panelists). I think the same thing applies here.

According to your standards, everyone is a partisan hack. There is absolutely no way anyone can present 100% of the facts in an objective manner 100% of the time. Hell, even deciding which issues to discuss/present, one is making editorial decisions.The fact that you can't tell the difference between a baffoon like Beck and a liberal, but brilliant journalist like Maddow is astonishing. Your quest to equate everything on the right with everything on the left is one of the problems in our political system today. For many issues, there aren't equal sides to the argument. Yet people like you equate people from either side regardless of substance, and dismiss it all entirely. This marginalizes the folks who actually do try and get it right, despite their political leanings. Which plays right into the hands of idiots like Beck.

 

[Saints-Man]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

Please share the 100% completely unbiased sources you frequent.

 

[Saints-Man]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

Please share the 100% completely unbiased sources you frequent.

Already have, many times. Don't you remember? You have asked me this question over and over again. You make me feel like I have a stalker.But you have never answered the question yourself. Care to do so?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

Please share the 100% completely unbiased sources you frequent.

Already have, many times. Don't you remember? You have asked me this question over and over again. You make me feel like I have a stalker.But you have never answered the question yourself. Care to do so?

Sorry, I don't remember. I replied to your comment that was directed at me. How is that "stalking"?My homepage is http://www.bbc.co.uk/. It's the first place I go to daily for world news. I read the San Diego Union Tribune in hard copy every morning. I have a subscription to the Economist; it is the only magazine I subscribe to. Otherwise I get my news from the internet, msnbc.com, cnn.com, yahoo.com, and digg.

I tivo Rachel Maddow and Hardball everynight. I usually catch 10-15 minutes of Hannity and/or Beck per night.

 

[Saints-Man]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

Please share the 100% completely unbiased sources you frequent.

Already have, many times. Don't you remember? You have asked me this question over and over again. You make me feel like I have a stalker.But you have never answered the question yourself. Care to do so?

Sorry, I don't remember. I replied to your comment that was directed at me. How is that "stalking"?My homepage is http://www.bbc.co.uk/. It's the first place I go to daily for world news. I read the San Diego Union Tribune in hard copy every morning. I have a subscription to the Economist; it is the only magazine I subscribe to. Otherwise I get my news from the internet, msnbc.com, cnn.com, yahoo.com, and digg.

I tivo Rachel Maddow and Hardball everynight. I usually catch 10-15 minutes of Hannity and/or Beck per night.

That is fair. You have asked me the question before, but I can appreciate you forgot. I listed to NPR, and watch BBC America when I can.I read the Dallas Morning News(leans right) and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram(leans left).

 

[urbanhack]

I doubt that you would see that if that way you were the middle or on the right of the political spectrum. I strongly suggest that you accept her partisanship because it agrees with your own.

It has already been established that she let's her side slide where in similar situations she attacks her opponents. Where is the intellectual honesty in that? Or does is that quality not matter to you? Who does that sound like to you?

You are mistaking a better vocabulary and some better rudimentary logic skills as somehow this great defining characteristic. How in any way does it change the fact that she(like others both on the left and right) is any less of a partisan shrill?

All you are doing here is saying which band plays better on the Titanic as it sinks. In the end, that difference is so negligible as not to matter. I find a well-polished political shrill not any better than an unpolished political shrill. While their polish is noticeable, at the core they are the same.

I would posit that everyone, including myself and including you, "let's [their] side slide" in similar situations. However, if that's going to be your yardstick then political discourse is essentially a waste of time. All it boils down to is two sides yelling past each one another. However, if you believe (and not all people do) that political discourse has a greater goal that is attempting to be achieved; that there is an end to the Socratic dialogue whereby we actually arrive somewhere... then yah, it does matter how you approach it. And I feel capable to make those judgments (as arrogant as I am) despite political prejudices, not because of them.

Which exactly has been my point.

And this is mine.

So, what sources on the right do you consume that allows the information to make these reasonable decisions? How do you arrive somewhere if you don't consider conflicting viewpoints?

Have you seen any reports on PBS or BBC regarding Acorn?

 

[Saints-Man]

...Have you seen any reports on PBS or BBC regarding Acorn?

NPR discussed it(I forgot which show) and I am not sure about the BBC, but I am not able to watch that as regularly.Why do you ask?

 

[urbanhack]

...Have you seen any reports on PBS or BBC regarding Acorn?

NPR discussed it(I forgot which show) and I am not sure about the BBC, but I am not able to watch that as regularly.Why do you ask?

Because I haven't seen it discussed or reported beyond the "sound byte" American media. You state you like objective media sources, I was just curious how much they have been covering it.

 

[Saints-Man]

...Have you seen any reports on PBS or BBC regarding Acorn?

NPR discussed it(I forgot which show) and I am not sure about the BBC, but I am not able to watch that as regularly.Why do you ask?

Because I haven't seen it discussed or reported beyond the "sound byte" American media. You state you like objective media sources, I was just curious how much they have been covering it.

The NPR was quite fair. They went through ACORN's origins and discussed the good community work. Then, they discussed how they had close ties with the Democratic party in several cities(and yes, New Orleans was mentioned) and how they increasingly were coming under more and more scrutiny through the years and cited things that I didn't know. They did discuss that politics was a part of it, but they also discussed that ACORN did bring a lot of scrutiny on their own, like when an employee stole close to $1M and there was very little communication even through the organization itself.They also brought up the fact of ACORN's ties to the census and how this was naturally going to bring more scrutiny. I wish I remember which show did it.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, TG.

Please share the 100% completely unbiased sources you frequent.

Already have, many times. Don't you remember? You have asked me this question over and over again. You make me feel like I have a stalker.But you have never answered the question yourself. Care to do so?

I tivo Rachel Maddow

:(

 

[Saints-Man]

I would posit that everyone, including myself and including you, "let's [their] side slide" in similar situations. However, if that's going to be your yardstick then political discourse is essentially a waste of time. All it boils down to is two sides yelling past each one another. However, if you believe (and not all people do) that political discourse has a greater goal that is attempting to be achieved; that there is an end to the Socratic dialogue whereby we actually arrive somewhere... then yah, it does matter how you approach it. And I feel capable to make those judgments (as arrogant as I am) despite political prejudices, not because of them.

Which exactly has been my point.

I'm curious. I see you take part in lots of political discussions.If this is how you feel about political discussions, why don't you spend your time more productively? Like by trolling the internet for good pr0n?

The tab feature in Firefox has been wonderful in this regard.Actually, I find the FFA a wealth of information and leads me down many pathways. I find this a much more informative place than cable news shows.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

BECK

 

[Novice2]

They have found no evidence of tracking implants being contracted by the goverment.

although these tracking implants do exist.

Now i get to watch red eye which is a show that if you don't love then you are probably a racist.

 

[Daywalker]

Limbaugh, Beck and Fox News are turning the Republican party into a cult. Hannity used to have Colmes for a bit of sparring. But they got rid of Colmes because the conservatives would rather have just someone preaching to the choir. You ever not want to scream at a Fox News fan? Like Jim Carrey in that Batman movie where he is just pumping everyone's head with propaganda. How dare the president talk to our kids. Doesn't he know he's black. How dare he spend money flying to Copenhagen for an outside chance to get the Olympics for a U.S. city. It's so over the top it's ripe.

The Democrats are embarrassing because they can't get anything done. Special interest money. Republicans are just loons. I imagine special interest money plays just a big a factor but at least it goes with their politics.

It was less then 20 years ago when a third party contender was a factor. Hope it would happen again.

Universal healthcare and higher tax rates for the wealthy. That's the way to win and the way it should be. Trickle-down? Who are you kidding?

 

[The Commish]

...Maddow is one of the few TV hosts that will outright say that she's a raging liberal.

I am glad she is honest, but does it really contribute constructively to the discussion? If you already know where she stands, why watch the show? Also, just because she is honest about her slant, does it not still make her slanted? Does she portray herself as a "journalist"?

The thing is, reality isn't right down the middle. One side is getting it correct more than the other. How do you not get that?

I have the same question of those who don't get there are more than two sides It's all a matter of perspective really.

 

[mr. furley]

http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-118...nse%20Brief.pdf

from metafilter:

"You can blame Gilbert Gottfried, or you can blame Fark, but either way a website was born that pissed Glenn Beck off enough that he sicced his lawyers on Isaac Eiland-Hall. The First Amendment protects Eiland-Hall, so Beck's lawyers are trying an end run on the Constitution by petitioning the ICANN to give rights to the website glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com to Beck. Eiland-Hall's lawyer Marc J. Randazza responds in a well-written and hilarious brief."

this is actually pretty funny stuff

"A poignant example of Beck using the Gottfried Technique is this Glenn Beck interview with Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim. Beck famously said:

No offense and i know Muslims, i like Muslims, i've been to mosques, i really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And i have to tell you, i have been nervous about this interview because what i feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And i know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way i feel, and i think a lot of Americans feel that way."

=========

The Respondent's site invokes the Glenn Beck - Keith Ellison interview:

"Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 - in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?"

 

[Gigantomachia]

So, we agree that she is a partisan hack? This has been my only point. If you read how this discussion progressed, that was my only point so I don't see how that is confusing the argument. Some people have inferred that since she uses facts(which only support her side and ignores the others), that she is not a partisan hack. I never compared her directly to Beck. Go back and read the thread. My only point was that partisan hacks don't contribute to the serious discussion of our nation. They are all a derivative of Crossfire, and as John Stewart so famously said, "Stop it, just stop it"(to the Crossfire panelists). I think the same thing applies here.

According to your standards, everyone is a partisan hack. There is absolutely no way anyone can present 100% of the facts in an objective manner 100% of the time. Hell, even deciding which issues to discuss/present, one is making editorial decisions.The fact that you can't tell the difference between a baffoon like Beck and a liberal, but brilliant journalist like Maddow is astonishing. Your quest to equate everything on the right with everything on the left is one of the problems in our political system today. For many issues, there aren't equal sides to the argument. Yet people like you equate people from either side regardless of substance, and dismiss it all entirely. This marginalizes the folks who actually do try and get it right, despite their political leanings. Which plays right into the hands of idiots like Beck.

And thanks, I didn't want to have to say it.

 

[The Commish]

According to your standards, everyone is a partisan hack. There is absolutely no way anyone can present 100% of the facts in an objective manner 100% of the time. Hell, even deciding which issues to discuss/present, one is making editorial decisions.

Why can't they? If one just states the facts, I would think it's very simple to do this. However, most of these "journalists" you guys are talking about lack the ability to keep their own opinions out of it. Reporting facts isn't what makes one a partisan hack. Interjecting personal opinion as fact is what makes one a partisan hack.

 

[Gigantomachia]

According to your standards, everyone is a partisan hack. There is absolutely no way anyone can present 100% of the facts in an objective manner 100% of the time. Hell, even deciding which issues to discuss/present, one is making editorial decisions.

Why can't they? If one just states the facts, I would think it's very simple to do this. However, most of these "journalists" you guys are talking about lack the ability to keep their own opinions out of it. Reporting facts isn't what makes one a partisan hack. Interjecting personal opinion as fact is what makes one a partisan hack.

And as far as I can tell, every time Maddow makes a personal claim she says she is doing so. A point that seems strangely unseen by many in this discussion. Again, it is not that Maddow's opinion is not slanted, it's that she separates the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me.

 

[Saints-Man]

...And as far as I can tell, every time Maddow makes a personal claim she says she is doing so. A point that seems strangely unseen by many in this discussion. Again, it is not that Maddow's opinion is not slanted, it's that she separates the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me.

She creates an entire environment slanted to her point of view. Just like the ACORN piece, which has been cited, she used strawman without giving a complete overview of the situation. I am not sure she even acknowledged that ACORN employees had done anything wrong. She completely interjected her whole view on that situation, WITHOUT saying she was doing so. So, that claim of your is simply untrue in that piece I saw. In that situation, she did not "separate(s) the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me."

 

[Gigantomachia]

...And as far as I can tell, every time Maddow makes a personal claim she says she is doing so. A point that seems strangely unseen by many in this discussion. Again, it is not that Maddow's opinion is not slanted, it's that she separates the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me.

She creates an entire environment slanted to her point of view. Just like the ACORN piece, which has been cited, she used strawman without giving a complete overview of the situation. I am not sure she even acknowledged that ACORN employees had done anything wrong. She completely interjected her whole view on that situation, WITHOUT saying she was doing so. So, that claim of your is simply untrue in that piece I saw. In that situation, she did not "separate(s) the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me."

Link me the clip, as of now all I have is your opinion about this "one" piece.

 

[Saints-Man]

...And as far as I can tell, every time Maddow makes a personal claim she says she is doing so. A point that seems strangely unseen by many in this discussion. Again, it is not that Maddow's opinion is not slanted, it's that she separates the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me.

She creates an entire environment slanted to her point of view. Just like the ACORN piece, which has been cited, she used strawman without giving a complete overview of the situation. I am not sure she even acknowledged that ACORN employees had done anything wrong. She completely interjected her whole view on that situation, WITHOUT saying she was doing so. So, that claim of your is simply untrue in that piece I saw. In that situation, she did not "separate(s) the facts from her opinion about the facts. Why that is so hard to understand by some is beyond me."

Link me the clip, as of now all I have is your opinion about this "one" piece.

It has been linked in this thread. You need me to go find it for you?