Beck invokes the Holocaust in Fox News/Obama Administration "War"

[California Girl]

come back to me when fox mouth pieces are in gitmo, muppet.

Ooooh, ok. They are supposed to wait until Fox has been destroyed and THEN recognize that the Government is out of order. See, I didn't know that bit. I thought we were supposed to defend our freedom while we have them and not wait until they are taken from us to get up off our asses.

I see now why liberals and the rest of us are so very different.

ja, ja.

first they came for l.k.eder, trying to silence the poor guy. i guess my name will be read right after glenn beck in yad vashem.

If they came for you, LK, I would be there to defend you.

 

[Modbert]

TBH, I have never really cared for Beck. However, his point is not without merit. Journalists who value an environment that allows them to continue to practice their profession are standing by while that environment is subjectively closed. There is a forest among the trees.

See, that's the thing about Beck, sometimes he makes really good points with merits. However, he then proceeds to destroy any sort of merit by making over-the-top rheoric, using lies or distortions, and basically taking whatever he can out of context to suit his ends.

Journalists environment are not being closed. As I stated previously, anyone in the Obama Administration being ruthlessly attacked by Glenn Beck still have a right to stand up and say their opinion. They still have a right to speak up and defend themselves. The things Beck is saying are outlandish if you have paid attention to him. The problem is, many people are believing some of his outlandish lies.

It ironically reminds me of a Jack Webb speech from Dragnet that has been used on here previously. At least a portion of it anyway.

"I don't think that we're telling you to lose your ideals or your sense of outrage; they're the only ways ever get done. And there's still a lot that needs doing and we'll hope you'll tackle it. You don't have to do anything dramatic like trying to come up with a better country, you can find enough to keep you busy right here. While you're at it, don't break things up in the name of progress, or crack a placket stick over someone's head to help them see the light. Be careful of his rights, because your property and your person and your rights aren't any better than his. And next time you may be the one to get it. We remember a man who killed six million people and called it social improvement. So hang in, don't try to build a new country, make the old one work. It has for over 400 years. And by the world's standards that's hardly more than yesterday."

And I'll wait for the irony of me using this speech to be said.

 

[California Girl]

[Emphasis added] Do you see how you do the same in this thread? We understand that many don't like FNC, but that hatred (or strong dislike) is not an excuse to toss aside rationale in critique, for those who value that, that is.

Except I don't use half-truths nor over-the-top rhetoric. Beck's critique is not rational nor correct. You have ignored my link of Beck's outrageous statement. That's not the only one by far.

When we have a figure on television who is taken at his word, has admitted he is not any sort of Journalist, and is taken in the light to be always light without any fact checking then we have created a very dangerous environment for people who are the wrong political side of him.

Do you not? Hmmmm. Interesting. I see your OP is half-truth and over the top rhetoric. You do not. See, that's called opinion. People view things differently. You see what Beck did as one thing yet refuse to acknowledge that it may not be viewed the same by others.

 

[The Rabbi]

[Emphasis added] Do you see how you do the same in this thread? We understand that many don't like FNC, but that hatred (or strong dislike) is not an excuse to toss aside rationale in critique, for those who value that, that is.

Except I don't use half-truths nor over-the-top rhetoric. Beck's critique is not rational nor correct. You have ignored my link of Beck's outrageous statement. That's not the only one by far.

When we have a figure on television who is taken at his word, has admitted he is not any sort of Journalist, and is taken in the light to be always light without any fact checking then we have created a very dangerous environment for people who are the wrong political side of him.

Do you not? Hmmmm. Interesting. I see your OP is half-truth and over the top rhetoric. You do not. See, that's called opinion. People view things differently. You see what Beck did as one thing yet refuse to acknowledge that it may not be viewed the same by others.

The whole thread proves my contention that whatever liberals say about conservatives is true, but it is true about liberals themselves.
So liberals think of themselves as open minded. But in fact they are only open minded to those opinions they agree with. Everyone else needs to be suppressed because, well, whatever the reason it is unimportant.

 

[Si modo]

TBH, I have never really cared for Beck. However, his point is not without merit. Journalists who value an environment that allows them to continue to practice their profession are standing by while that environment is subjectively closed. There is a forest among the trees.

See, that's the thing about Beck, sometimes he makes really good points with merits. However, he then proceeds to destroy any sort of merit by making over-the-top rheoric, using lies or distortions, and basically taking whatever he can out of context to suit his ends.

Journalists environment are not being closed. As I stated previously, anyone in the Obama Administration being ruthlessly attacked by Glenn Beck still have a right to stand up and say their opinion. They still have a right to speak up and defend themselves. The things Beck is saying are outlandish if you have paid attention to him. The problem is, many people are believing some of his outlandish lies.

It ironically reminds me of a Jack Webb speech from Dragnet that has been used on here previously. At least a portion of it anyway.

"I don't think that we're telling you to lose your ideals or your sense of outrage; they're the only ways ever get done. And there's still a lot that needs doing and we'll hope you'll tackle it. You don't have to do anything dramatic like trying to come up with a better country, you can find enough to keep you busy right here. While you're at it, don't break things up in the name of progress, or crack a placket stick over someone's head to help them see the light. Be careful of his rights, because your property and your person and your rights aren't any better than his. And next time you may be the one to get it. We remember a man who killed six million people and called it social improvement. So hang in, don't try to build a new country, make the old one work. It has for over 400 years. And by the world's standards that's hardly more than yesterday."

And I'll wait for the irony of me using this speech to be said.

As I said, this issue is bigger than Beck. This is the first time in recent history that a major media outlet has been systematically shut out from access granted to all others (this is not the same as granting access while all others are not). Systematically applies as I cannot recall a recent president with so many crises on his plate ever paying so much attention to a single media outlet.

And, the other 'professionals' remain silent while this happens.

 

[Modbert]

The whole thread proves my contention that whatever liberals say about conservatives is true, but it is true about liberals themselves.
So liberals think of themselves as open minded. But in fact they are only open minded to those opinions they agree with. Everyone else needs to be suppressed because, well, whatever the reason it is unimportant.

Where have I called for the suppression of anyone's opinion? I haven't. I'm always willing to have a debate with anyone. I have never been shy about my opinion and my use of it. That's called being passionate about what you believe in. However, unlike you, I am not going to attempt to stomp on the opinions of others simply because they have an opinion.

Ironically enough, you call yourself open minded but proved quite well last night that you believe my opinion should be suppressed simply because of my age. You have ironically just called yourself out. Now only if you could see yourself for the hypocrite that you truly are.

 

[Modbert]

This issue is bigger than Beck. This is the first time in recent history that a major media outlet has been systematically shut out from access granted to all others (this is not the same as granting access while all others are not). Systematically applies as I cannot recall a recent president with so many crises on his plate ever paying attention to a single media outlet.

And, the other 'professionals' remain silent while this happens.

And it's someone right to go ahead and not speak to a news outlet. Simply because a news outlet exists, should they be forced to give an interview? Should Obama be forced to sit down with World Net Daily? Should President Bush have been forced to sit down with Rachel Maddow and answer whatever questions she damn well pleases?

You can say whatever you want about Obama or anyone else from the Obama Administration not going on Fox News. However, that is their right as Americans and as public officials to do so. The minute you start forcing people to go on certain programs or to do certain things, you're taking away their rights.

Ironically enough, what you're talking about is essentially a political fairness doctrine.

By the way, you can tell me when President Bush was in office when he went on MSNBC. Maybe he did, but I certainly don't remember him doing so.

 

[The Rabbi]

TBH, I have never really cared for Beck. However, his point is not without merit. Journalists who value an environment that allows them to continue to practice their profession are standing by while that environment is subjectively closed. There is a forest among the trees.

See, that's the thing about Beck, sometimes he makes really good points with merits. However, he then proceeds to destroy any sort of merit by making over-the-top rheoric, using lies or distortions, and basically taking whatever he can out of context to suit his ends.

Journalists environment are not being closed. As I stated previously, anyone in the Obama Administration being ruthlessly attacked by Glenn Beck still have a right to stand up and say their opinion. They still have a right to speak up and defend themselves. The things Beck is saying are outlandish if you have paid attention to him. The problem is, many people are believing some of his outlandish lies.

It ironically reminds me of a Jack Webb speech from Dragnet that has been used on here previously. At least a portion of it anyway.

"I don't think that we're telling you to lose your ideals or your sense of outrage; they're the only ways ever get done. And there's still a lot that needs doing and we'll hope you'll tackle it. You don't have to do anything dramatic like trying to come up with a better country, you can find enough to keep you busy right here. While you're at it, don't break things up in the name of progress, or crack a placket stick over someone's head to help them see the light. Be careful of his rights, because your property and your person and your rights aren't any better than his. And next time you may be the one to get it. We remember a man who killed six million people and called it social improvement. So hang in, don't try to build a new country, make the old one work. It has for over 400 years. And by the world's standards that's hardly more than yesterday."

And I'll wait for the irony of me using this speech to be said.

As I said, this issue is bigger than Beck. This is the first time in recent history that a major media outlet has been systematically shut out from access granted to all others (this is not the same as granting access while all others are not). Systematically applies as I cannot recall a recent president with so many crises on his plate ever paying so much attention to a single media outlet.

And, the other 'professionals' remain silent while this happens.

We have the most partisan as well as the most mendacious administration in history. I dont think Nixon was this hostile to the press.
Imagine if Bush had engaged in the same legerdemain, shutting certain journalists off from asking questions, publicly going after certain shows. The press would be screaming Stalinism.
But since it's Obama it's OK by them. Although even some of them, like Helen Thomas, get it.

 

[Modbert]

We have the most partisan as well as the most mendacious administration in history. I dont think Nixon was this hostile to the press.
Imagine if Bush had engaged in the same legerdemain, shutting certain journalists off from asking questions, publicly going after certain shows. The press would be screaming Stalinism.
But since it's Obama it's OK by them. Although even some of them, like Helen Thomas, get it.

Ignorance.

Besides, Helen Thomas was unhappy that Obama was allowing bloggers into the news room. People like her and those in the mainstream media do not want people outside their little clique to be allowed to ask questions. Because if they're allowed to ask questions, they may look bad in comparison for asking weak questions. Don't get me wrong, Helen Thomas is one of the best reporters out there. However, in that instance, she was wrong in my opinion.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Smart people recognize what Beck was saying. He was not casting himself as the victim. He was pointing out that efforts by the Obama Administration to suppress him, if successful, will be a loss for every journalist and opinion-giver. People who think that Beck somehow deserves to be silenced for his views are mistaken that silencing will end with him.

Stupid people think he was denying the Holocaust, trivializing the Holocaust, or making a comparison between himself and the Jews of 1930s Germany.

why use the "first, they came for the jews" thing then?

Because it perfectly sums up the idea that there is no "us" and "them". No "it's ok to do that kind of thing to them, but they would never do that to us."
History is clear that suppression is suppression. Once it gets started it becomes indiscriminate.

i lack the capability to follow your spin. i blame you.

 

[Si modo]

This issue is bigger than Beck. This is the first time in recent history that a major media outlet has been systematically shut out from access granted to all others (this is not the same as granting access while all others are not). Systematically applies as I cannot recall a recent president with so many crises on his plate ever paying attention to a single media outlet.

And, the other 'professionals' remain silent while this happens.

And it's someone right to go ahead and not speak to a news outlet. Simply because a news outlet exists, should they be forced to give an interview? Should Obama be forced to sit down with World Net Daily? Should President Bush have been forced to sit down with Rachel Maddow and answer whatever questions she damn well pleases?

You can say whatever you want about Obama or anyone else from the Obama Administration not going on Fox News. However, that is their right as Americans and as public officials to do so. The minute you start forcing people to go on certain programs or to do certain things, you're taking away their rights.

Ironically enough, what you're talking about is essentially a political fairness doctrine.

By the way, you can tell me when President Bush was in office when he went on MSNBC. Maybe he did, but I certainly don't remember him doing so.

I am not asking for any legislation on this.

I AM asking that our president and his staff not worry so much about one media outlet - I expect a hell of a lot more from him than whiney trivial bullshit. I AM asking for integrity and professionalism in journalism again.

Unfortunately, I doubt either of my expectations will be met any time soon.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ooooh, ok. They are supposed to wait until Fox has been destroyed and THEN recognize that the Government is out of order. See, I didn't know that bit. I thought we were supposed to defend our freedom while we have them and not wait until they are taken from us to get up off our asses.

I see now why liberals and the rest of us are so very different.

ja, ja.

first they came for l.k.eder, trying to silence the poor guy. i guess my name will be read right after glenn beck in yad vashem.

If they came for you, LK, I would be there to defend you.

that is so sweet, and empty.

 

[Si modo]

ja, ja.

first they came for l.k.eder, trying to silence the poor guy. i guess my name will be read right after glenn beck in yad vashem.

If they came for you, LK, I would be there to defend you.

that is so sweet, and empty.

I have yet to see any point to your input in this thread. Empty, indeed.

 

[L.K.Eder]

If they came for you, LK, I would be there to defend you.

that is so sweet, and empty.

I have yet to see any point to your input in this thread. Empty, indeed.

the problem is at your end, darling.

 

[Si modo]

that is so sweet, and empty.

I have yet to see any point to your input in this thread. Empty, indeed.

the problem is at your end, darling.

Some folks are satisfied with going through life as insignificant. Some are also satisfied going through life with low standards in professionalism. Mediocrity is not my goal. Your mileage obviously varies.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I have yet to see any point to your input in this thread. Empty, indeed.

the problem is at your end, darling.

Some folks are satisfied with going through life as insignificant. Some are also satisfied going through life with low standards in professionalism. Mediocrity is not my goal. Your mileage obviously varies.

pretentious priss' pretzel logic does not impress this mediocre moron.

 

[Modbert]

I am not asking for any legislation on this.

I AM asking that our president and his staff not worry so much about one media outlet - I expect a hell of a lot more from him than whiney trivial bullshit. I AM asking for integrity and professionalism in journalism again.

Unfortunately, I doubt either of my expectations will be met any time soon.

I doubt they are worrying about Fox News. How much effort do you think it takes to not go on the show and send out someone who's job it is media relations to handle this?

Asking for integrity and professionalism in Journalism is like asking to go back to the 50's. It's a nice idea, cute concept, but it won't happen. Why? Because of people like Glenn Beck. People like Glenn Beck have showed that it doesn't matter what you say, or do, or even if it's right. As long as you are dramatic about it and fast with the facts then you will get ratings and therefore lots of money.

If you really want to blame anyone though for our current situation in politics which leaks to Journalism then you have to blame George H.W.Bush, Roger Ailes (President of Fox News), and Lee Atwater for the Willie Horton Ad. That was one of the first and best examples of where this all started with being fast and loose with the facts.

 

[Si modo]

I am not asking for any legislation on this.

I AM asking that our president and his staff not worry so much about one media outlet - I expect a hell of a lot more from him than whiney trivial bullshit. I AM asking for integrity and professionalism in journalism again.

Unfortunately, I doubt either of my expectations will be met any time soon.

I doubt they are worrying about Fox News. How much effort do you think it takes to not go on the show and send out someone who's job it is media relations to handle this?

Asking for integrity and professionalism in Journalism is like asking to go back to the 50's. It's a nice idea, cute concept, but it won't happen. Why? Because of people like Glenn Beck. People like Glenn Beck have showed that it doesn't matter what you say, or do, or even if it's right. As long as you are dramatic about it and fast with the facts then you will get ratings and therefore lots of money.

If you really want to blame anyone though for our current situation in politics which leaks to Journalism then you have to blame George H.W.Bush, Roger Ailes (President of Fox News), and Lee Atwater for the Willie Horton Ad. That was one of the first and best examples of where this all started with being fast and loose with the facts.

C'mon, Dogbert. His own staff spends time discussing ONE media outlet. BHO himself has done so, too.

Why is this triviality so important to you? I expect more from him. I expect more from journalism, too.

By defending both, I must assume that your expectations of both are much lower.

 

[Modbert]

C'mon, Dogbert. His own staff spends time discussing ONE media outlet. BHO himself has done so, too.

Why is this triviality so important to you? I expect more from him. I expect more from journalism, too.

By defending both, I must assume that your expectations of both are much lower.

I expect more from both as well. However, I am not as idealistic about the way things are as some people. I still have my sense of outrage when it comes to the condition of Journalism today. I first wanted to be a Journalist in high school but later changed my mind due to the piss poor condition of the profession. (That and the lack of jobs in twenty years.)

I'm more realistic about matters today such as this. I expect more from people like Glenn Beck, Barack Obama, Fox News, etc. However, you don't always get what you want. If I got what I wanted from Obama, then we may just have a Liberal President.

As for his staff, that's his staff. They can discuss whatever they want. I have yet seen it to affect how much he working on other issues. Especially on some of the issues where he can only do so much and the rest is up to Congress. However, expecting the Cowardly Lion (Harry Reid) and Scarecrow (Pelosi) to get anything done is like waiting for Haley's comet.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am not asking for any legislation on this.

I AM asking that our president and his staff not worry so much about one media outlet - I expect a hell of a lot more from him than whiney trivial bullshit. I AM asking for integrity and professionalism in journalism again.

Unfortunately, I doubt either of my expectations will be met any time soon.

I doubt they are worrying about Fox News. How much effort do you think it takes to not go on the show and send out someone who's job it is media relations to handle this?

Asking for integrity and professionalism in Journalism is like asking to go back to the 50's. It's a nice idea, cute concept, but it won't happen. Why? Because of people like Glenn Beck. People like Glenn Beck have showed that it doesn't matter what you say, or do, or even if it's right. As long as you are dramatic about it and fast with the facts then you will get ratings and therefore lots of money.

If you really want to blame anyone though for our current situation in politics which leaks to Journalism then you have to blame George H.W.Bush, Roger Ailes (President of Fox News), and Lee Atwater for the Willie Horton Ad. That was one of the first and best examples of where this all started with being fast and loose with the facts.

C'mon, Dogbert. His own staff spends time discussing ONE media outlet. BHO himself has done so, too.

Why is this triviality so important to you? I expect more from him. I expect more from journalism, too.

By defending both, I must assume that your expectations of both are much lower.

I dont care about Obama. I dont care about Fox. I do care that the rest of the media think this is about Fox and not about them. I want to see them stand up and say, we don't like Fox but the administration has no business launching attacks on one news outlet or on one personality just because they don't like what he says.