Glenn Beck smears Obama's 11-year-old daughter

[paperview]

Who in their right mind picks on an 11 year old to make political points?

Who in their right mind INVITES making their pickaninny a target by using the kid to score political points???????

"pickaninny"

wow. Classy.

Gee. I don't know why some right-wingers get pegged as being racist fucktards.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

To say you have a disagreement about whether the 'importation' and tax levied portion in that Clause of the Constitution being in reference to slaves is the equivalent of saying you have a disagreement with those that say the earth is a globe, or that cow flatulence is odoriferous.

It's one thing to be wrong, so often, and on so much, but I gotta say Lone-cell Logic, you break the barriers of spectacular! when it comes to being wrong.

What a hoot.

So now you're going to change the scope of your argument. How convenient.

In post #348 you stated that Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 is about slavery, now you seem to be saying that only a "portion" of it relates to slavery. Ok, if that's true then what does the other "portion" speak to? Specifically the "migration" portion.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

Do you recall how this whole subject came up?

I'll remind you. It's because of Glenn Becks remarks.

And here is what you said: "I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves."

Yes, it does. I have shown it with a myriad of citations from the Founders own words and debates at the time.

I have shown that the reference was to the $10.00 Tax levied on imported persons was a direct reference to the slaves.

I provided you with 28 different links which explain it - and STILL - your logic is reduced to one cell.

Holy crap. Why do I even bother Arguing With Idiots.

You stated Article 1 section 9 Clause 1 is about slavery. But now you're focusing on one aspect of the clause, the importation portion, while ignoring the "migration" portion. And I still maintain importation does not exclusively mean slaves when even in this day and age people are imported into this country for their labor. Can you explain the "migration" portion of Article 1 section 9 Clause 1?

 

[paperview]

^^ Could there be any more evidence of Lone-cell Logic's stupidity than the idiocy displayed above?

<just shakes head>

 

[Lonestar_logic]

^^ Could there be any more evidence of Lone-cell Logic's stupidity than the idiocy displayed above?

<just shakes head>

That's what I thought, you got nothing.

 

[Avatar4321]

^^ Could there be any more evidence of Lone-cell Logic's stupidity than the idiocy displayed above?

<just shakes head>

Why yes. There certainly could be more evidence. And he has regularly provided evidence on this board that he is not stupid. I think the consistency of the latter evidence outweighs any evidence you think shows otherwise.

Of course, you could actually try to discuss the matter, rather than name calling and insults.

 

[Nik]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

 

[paperview]

^^ Could there be any more evidence of Lone-cell Logic's stupidity than the idiocy displayed above?

<just shakes head>

Why yes. There certainly could be more evidence. And he has regularly provided evidence on this board that he is not stupid. I think the consistency of the latter evidence outweighs any evidence you think shows otherwise.

Of course, you could actually try to discuss the matter, rather than name calling and insults.

I DID attempt to discuss it. I provided quite a bit of evidence and sources to back up what I said. He would have none of it. He dismissed it.

In case you missed it, this was my post to him:

=========
THIS is what Beck said:

Reread the clause again. IMPORTATION is referred to in regards to the tax:

"...but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Now, follow me. Read only the bolded words if the language is too tough for you, Lil' Logic:

[SIZE=+3]Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Document 15[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]26 July 1788[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] <-------------------!!
Elliot 4:100--102 [/SIZE][/FONT]

Mr. J. M'[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Dowall[/SIZE][/FONT] wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Spaight[/SIZE][/FONT] answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on.

Mr. M'[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Dowall[/SIZE][/FONT] replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure; for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised.

When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately; but the states of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider, then, what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil? No, sir, we do not.

For if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every state to continue it forever. They may or may not abolish it, at their discretion. But if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress declare so, whether particular states please so or not; surely, then, we can gain by it.

...
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Spaight[/SIZE][/FONT] further explained the clause. That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term.
The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT] added to what he had said before, that the states of Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the war, and that they wished to supply the loss.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Galloway[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different from the people to the north. We want citizens; they do not. Instead of laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty to encourage foreigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires the utmost consideration.

The property of the Southern States consists principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery altogether, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to bring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send them to? It is impossible for us to be happy, if, after manumission, they are to stay among us.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished slaves, did not approve of the expression slaves; they therefore used another, that answered the same purpose.

The committee will observe the distinction between the two words migration and importation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who come into this country as free people, or are brought as slaves. But the last part extends to slaves only. The word migration refers to free persons; but the word importation refers to slaves, because free people cannot be said to be imported.

The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who migrate.

I further beg leave to say that the gentleman is mistaken in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of slavery. Is there any thing in this Constitution which says that Congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those slaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it, that after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is another circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in Congress to restrain the states, in the interval of twenty years, from doing what they please. If they wish to prohibit such importation, they may do so. Our next Assembly may put an entire end to the importation of slaves.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Founders' Constitution[/SIZE][/FONT]
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, Document 15
[SIZE=-1]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s15.html
The University of Chicago Press[/SIZE]
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2372457-post350.html
==============
He never even countered this lengthy post of mine, except to say pooh!
or in his words "I disagree..dumbass." And you have the nerve to say "you could actually try to discuss the matter, rather than name calling and insults." What a fucking joke.

 

[paperview]

He actually had the audacity to claim importation in that Clause of the Constitution does not refer to slaves. I'm sure he never even glanced at my citations I provided in another post:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

EVERY CITATION BELOW IS A LINK:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Thomas Jefferson, Bill to Prevent the Importation of Slaves, 16 June 1777

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Pirate v. Dalby[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Records of the Federal Convention[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Tench Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution, Fall 1787[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

5.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A Federal Republican, 28 Oct. 1787[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

6.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 3--4 Dec. 1787[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A Countryman, 13 Dec. 1787

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Luther Martin, Genuine Information, 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]9.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Joshua Atherton, New Hampshire Ratifying Convention, 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]10.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in South Carolina House of Representatives, 16--17 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]11.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 18, 25--26, 30 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]12.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 281--82, 22 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]13.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Consider Arms, Malichi Maynard, and Samuel Field, Reasons for Dissent, 16 Apr. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]14.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 15 June 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]15.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 26 July 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]16.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison, Import Duty on Slaves, House of Representatives, 13 May 1789

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]17.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]House of Representatives, Slave Trade, 23 Mar. 1790

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]18.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 290, 1803

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]19.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]John Jay to Elias Boudinot, 17 Nov. 1819

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]20.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison to Robert Walsh, 27 Nov. 1819

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]21.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Walter Lowrie, Senate, 20 Jan. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]22.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison to James Monroe, 10 Feb. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]23.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Charles Pinckney, House of Representatives, 14 Feb. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]24.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Gibbons v. Ogden

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]25.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Antelope

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]26.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Kent, Commentaries 1:179--87, 1826

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]27.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Hunter v. Fulcher

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]28.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1327--31, 1833
=================

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2372497-post351.html

Any one with a smidgen of intellectual honesty - or even two cells of logic would evaluate the information and conclude the facts in evidence are overwhelmingly against him.

Will he admit he's wrong? Of course not.

That, my friends, is the fantastical nature of the creature that goes by the name of "Lonestar Logic."


[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Beck never said that "he alone showed video " or "that only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos".

What he did say was " That video, you’ll hard pressed [sic] to see it in America from media outlets besides Fox. Nobody seems willing to show that."

Another example of left wing idiots making shit up.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Again payperdipshit is only focusing on ONE aspect of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the Constitution and failing to explain the "migration" portion of it. If in fact the Clause was all about slavery then why would "migration" even be mentioned? Show me one instance where slaves migrated to the US prior to ratification of said document.

 

[paperview]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Gawd, that was funny.

Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart





Though Glenn Beck claimed on his show that out of everyone in the media, only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Jon Stewart last night pointed out that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and others had all showed the footage before Beck's program aired.



"This could mean only one of two things," said Stewart. Either "Mr. Beck lives in a cloistered world of paranoid delusion that is impervious to a priori evidence that contradicts his worldview."


But the more likely scenario, according to Stewart, is that "Glenn Beck has become so powerful that his wise words can be acted upon retroactively."
Watch:






Thanks for that Nik.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Gawd, that was funny.

Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart





Though Glenn Beck claimed on his show that out of everyone in the media, only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Jon Stewart last night pointed out that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and others had all showed the footage before Beck's program aired.



"This could mean only one of two things," said Stewart. Either "Mr. Beck lives in a cloistered world of paranoid delusion that is impervious to a priori evidence that contradicts his worldview."


But the more likely scenario, according to Stewart, is that "Glenn Beck has become so powerful that his wise words can be acted upon retroactively."
Watch:






Thanks for that Nik.

Another example of a left wing idiot believing what's said on a comedy show.

It's probably where most of you idiots get your news.

 

[paperview]

Again payperdipshit is only focusing on ONE aspect of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the Constitution and failing to explain the "migration" portion of it. If in fact the Clause was all about slavery then why would "migration" even be mentioned? Show me one instance where slaves migrated to the US prior to ratification of said document.

You still didn't look at any of the links did you?

Pretty damn obvious you didn't.

Review, for those new to the audience:

What was your hero Beck talking about? Why did he highlight the "ten Dollars each Person" part?

BECK: That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here.
!!!!!!

Holy Shit.

Again, I don't know why even bother with you LL. You show not one redeeming quality in your attempt at debate.

 

[Nik]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Beck never said that "he alone showed video " or "that only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos".

What he did say was " That video, you’ll hard pressed [sic] to see it in America from media outlets besides Fox. Nobody seems willing to show that."

Another example of left wing idiots making shit up.

Nobody seems willing to show that. Except for ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Univision. So who exactly was he talking about when he said "nobody seems willing to show that"?

Please be specific.

 

[Nik]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Gawd, that was funny.

Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart





Though Glenn Beck claimed on his show that out of everyone in the media, only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Jon Stewart last night pointed out that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and others had all showed the footage before Beck's program aired.



"This could mean only one of two things," said Stewart. Either "Mr. Beck lives in a cloistered world of paranoid delusion that is impervious to a priori evidence that contradicts his worldview."


But the more likely scenario, according to Stewart, is that "Glenn Beck has become so powerful that his wise words can be acted upon retroactively."
Watch:






Thanks for that Nik.

Another example of a left wing idiot believing what's said on a comedy show.

It's probably where most of you idiots get your news.

Do you have any evidence it was not factually correct? Or are you just making shit up now?

 

[paperview]

Nik: Stewart even made up the actual footage from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS...don't you understand? lol.

This is Lone-cell Logic you are dealing with. Trust me. He can't debate his way out of a paper bag, but he so looooves him his Beck God.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Glenn Beck lie? Never.

Jon Stewart Debunks Glenn Beck's Claim That He Alone Showed Israeli Flotilla Raid Footage (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Beck never said that "he alone showed video " or "that only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos".

What he did say was " That video, you’ll hard pressed [sic] to see it in America from media outlets besides Fox. Nobody seems willing to show that."

Another example of left wing idiots making shit up.

Nobody seems willing to show that. Except for ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Univision. So who exactly was he talking about when he said "nobody seems willing to show that"?

Please be specific.

Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it?

seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Again payperdipshit is only focusing on ONE aspect of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the Constitution and failing to explain the "migration" portion of it. If in fact the Clause was all about slavery then why would "migration" even be mentioned? Show me one instance where slaves migrated to the US prior to ratification of said document.

You still didn't look at any of the links did you?

Pretty damn obvious you didn't.

Review, for those new to the audience:

What was your hero Beck talking about? Why did he highlight the "ten Dollars each Person" part?

BECK: That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here.
!!!!!!

Holy Shit.

Again, I don't know why even bother with you LL. You show not one redeeming quality in your attempt at debate.

I don't need to look at ever single link you provided to know that they and you are focusing on one part of the clause. Why do you insist on ignoring the "migration" portion of it?

 

[Nik]

Beck never said that "he alone showed video " or "that only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos".

What he did say was " That video, you’ll hard pressed [sic] to see it in America from media outlets besides Fox. Nobody seems willing to show that."

Another example of left wing idiots making shit up.

Nobody seems willing to show that. Except for ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Univision. So who exactly was he talking about when he said "nobody seems willing to show that"?

Please be specific.

Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it?

seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.

Oh, I see. So because Glenn Beck is too stupid to, oh I don't know, watch the shows he is going to generalize about, that makes it A OK then, eh?

Maybe next you can argue about what the definition of "is" is?

It is completely 100% clear he was saying that nobody else was showing the videos. Except they were. Thats a lie.

But have fun keep trying to spin this. God...its scary if you actually believe the shit you are saying. Hopefully its just out of ego or some crap.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Gawd, that was funny.

Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart





Though Glenn Beck claimed on his show that out of everyone in the media, only he would show footage of the flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Jon Stewart last night pointed out that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and others had all showed the footage before Beck's program aired.



"This could mean only one of two things," said Stewart. Either "Mr. Beck lives in a cloistered world of paranoid delusion that is impervious to a priori evidence that contradicts his worldview."


But the more likely scenario, according to Stewart, is that "Glenn Beck has become so powerful that his wise words can be acted upon retroactively."
Watch:






Thanks for that Nik.

Another example of a left wing idiot believing what's said on a comedy show.

It's probably where most of you idiots get your news.

Do you have any evidence it was not factually correct? Or are you just making shit up now?

Yes listen to what Beck actually said then read the damn article you posted. It is not factually correct. Beck never made the claim that the article states he made.