why the left hates glen beck

[Vast LWC]

You bet yur ass I do sonny, and so do millions of others. We are the reasonable, thinking MAJORITY.

Proving my point. And no, you are not a "majority", not even in the ballpark. You're a minority of freaks and conspiracy theorists.

Glad I'm not sucking hind tit with you commie loving obama worshipers. You're about to be shown just how small of a minority you are next year. You're insignificant.

LOL. Good luck with that bud. Just because your type surrounds itself in a nice cozy bubble, and don't bother to speak to anyone who doesn't agree with you, certainly doesn't make you, by any means, a "majority". Perhaps you make up a "majority" of the nation's insane people...

ROFL.

 

[007]

I don't accuse anyone of lying unless I catch them in a lie I can prove.

I can, however, tell the difference between a comedian and someone with a serious news show.

 

[007]

You bet yur ass I do sonny, and so do millions of others. We are the reasonable, thinking MAJORITY.

Proving my point. And no, you are not a "majority", not even in the ballpark. You're a minority of freaks and conspiracy theorists.

Glad I'm not sucking hind tit with you commie loving obama worshipers. You're about to be shown just how small of a minority you are next year. You're insignificant.

LOL. Good luck with that bud. Just because your type surrounds itself in a nice cozy bubble, and don't bother to speak to anyone who doesn't agree with you, certainly doesn't make you, by any means, a "majority". Perhaps you make up a "majority" of the nation's insane people...

ROFL.

We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.

 

[Vast LWC]

I don't do sarcasm, and you contradicted yourself.

I made you back peddle, that's good enough for me. The rest of the board will read it. I made my point. Well.... YOU made my point FOR me.

You're as dishonest as your hero.

You posted only the first sentence of my post, accused me based on that sentence, and then accused me of "back peddling" which I did not do.

I mentioned "sarcasm" because the definition of sarcasm is to mean one thing while stating the opposite. Which would be an example of lying without specifically making a false statement.

Of course, that's not a concept someone like you would understand, as some of the words involved have more than two syllables.

Another example of lying without making a false statement would be a "lie of omission" which you should be quite familiar with.

 

[Vast LWC]

We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.

Psst, FoxNews considers John McCain to be a "liberal", when it convenient for them to do so.

According to you and your FoxNews buddies, the entire world outside your little echo-chamber is a bunch of "liberals".

So it's you, and a small percentage of the population of the US against the rest of the world.

 

[California Girl]

As a Liberal, I have no problem with Glenn Beck. He serves a purpose and makes a good living off his routine. I look at Beck as the John Stewart or Bill Maher of the right wing.
He appeals to a different intellect than Stewart or Maher but is still not a serious journalist. The problem is similar to Stephen Colbert where some people actually take him seriously

Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST. We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?

The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.

Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.

One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.

Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.

stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.

Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.

I agree with you, Pale. Glen is a great commentator. He absolutely tells it as he sees it, I don't always agree but his information is verifiable and he clearly states when he is giving opinion and when he is providing factual information.

He is just about the only person in the media now who actually does the job that journalists are supposed to do. But.... the left keep saying he's a journalist. He is not a journalist. He doesn't hold himself up as a journalist - he is a commentator and a fucking good one. We need more like him.

And..... the fact remains that he slammed Bush and the left held him in regard for doing so. Now because he slams their boy, they hate him. Double standard on the left.

 

[007]

I don't do sarcasm, and you contradicted yourself.

I made you back peddle, that's good enough for me. The rest of the board will read it. I made my point. Well.... YOU made my point FOR me.

You're as dishonest as your hero.

You posted only the first sentence of my post, accused me based on that sentence, and then accused me of "back peddling" which I did not do.

I mentioned "sarcasm" because the definition of sarcasm is to mean one thing while stating the opposite. Which would be an example of lying without specifically making a false statement.

Of course, that's not a concept someone like you would understand, as some of the words involved have more than two syllables.

Another example of lying without making a false statement would be a "lie of omission" which you should be quite familiar with.

Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.

If you can't handle being exposed like that, then watch what you say. Lying and then calling someone a liar looks pretty bad. But, I know you loony left, commie defending, liberal kooks are capable of just about anything. Lying is OK until you get caught. Well... you got caught. Not my problem. Clean up your game, or it'll happen again.

 

[The T]

We're going to find out pretty quick, aren't we skippy? All indications are you fringe liberal lefts are on your way out. Even your own party is sick of you.

Psst, FoxNews considers John McCain to be a "liberal", when it convenient for them to do so.

According to you and your FoxNews buddies, the entire world outside your little echo-chamber is a bunch of "liberals".

So it's you, and a small percentage of the population of the US against the rest of the world.

We true Conservatives don't need FOX NEWS to tell us what we have already sumized for ourselves. McCain is politically where the Democrat party was 20-30 years ago.

So what?

 

[Vast LWC]

Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.

Because you took it out of context, which is a "lie of omission". You're just going to keep on lying, aren't you?

You're just pissed because I was able to accurately explain how Beck lies through misdirection and leading questions.

I notice you didn't address any of the actual points I made, you just attacked an out-of-context sentence.

ROFL. Anyone with half a brain can easily see through your BS, of course Glenn Beck viewers are not famous for having even that much of a brain.

 

[The T]

Again, can we try to grasp one simple fact. Glen Beck is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a SERIOUS JOURNALIST. We cleared this up with the clip from The View. He does not claim to be a JOURNALIST. He is a COMMENTATOR. Christ on a bike, what is hard about that?

The biggest problem with the US news media - we have no serious journalists left.

Who gives a fuck how you want slice and dice with your little name game. The fact of the matter is stewart and maher tell JOKES, Glenn Beck tells the TRUTH.

One thing I do realize though... is that if you hear a conservative tell the truth and it's something bad about your black messiah, you think it's a joke. If you hear a joke from one of your liberal comedians, you think it's the truth. You're whole thought and reasoning process is fucked up.

Glenn Beck = has show on largest and highest rated NEWS CHANNEL on cable, and has the second largest viewing audience in history.

stewart & maher = have shows on the COMEDY CHANNEL, and don't have a fraction of the viewing audience.

Most rational people know the difference between jokers and serious people.

I agree with you, Pale. Glen is a great commentator. He absolutely tells it as he sees it, I don't always agree but his information is verifiable and he clearly states when he is giving opinion and when he is providing factual information.

He is just about the only person in the media now who actually does the job that journalists are supposed to do. But.... the left keep saying he's a journalist. He is not a journalist. He doesn't hold himself up as a journalist - he is a commentator and a fucking good one. We need more like him.

And..... the fact remains that he slammed Bush and the left held him in regard for doing so. Now because he slams their boy, they hate him. Double standard on the left.

Exactly. Spot on! Of course Limbaugh too makes no bones about who he is and what he is doing, and it is about the same as Beck. But then we're told too, that Limbaugh is really running the Republican Party by the loons on the left.

How long do you suppose it will be before the Looney Left unseats Limbaugh, and replaces him with Beck?

Don't laugh, I see it coming...

 

[Vast LWC]

We true Conservatives don't need FOX NEWS to tell us what we have already sumized for ourselves. McCain is politically where the Democrat party was 20-30 years ago.

So what?

The point I was contradicting is that the poster considered himself and the rest of the Glenn Beck faithful to be some sort of silent majority in America, that will somehow sweep all of the "liberals" (AKA anyone who's not a Glenn Beck faithful) out of office next election.

And since FoxNews considers McCain, a centrist Republican, to be a "liberal" that would include all centrist Republicans.

 

[Vast LWC]

Exactly. Spot on! Of course Limbaugh too makes no bones about who he is and what he is doing, and it is about the same as Beck. But then we're told too, that Limbaugh is really running the Republican Party by the loons on the left.

How long do you suppose it will be before the Looney Left unseats Limbaugh, and replaces him with Beck?

Don't laugh, I see it coming...

So, just to be clear, the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist", is that "commentators" can lie without fear of reprisal.

Right?

 

[Vast LWC]

I ask that because, as far as I know, the definition of "slander" has not in fact changed in the recent past.

And neither Beck, nor FoxNews, has ever made a retraction for anything Beck has said.

Which means that both Beck and FoxNews are culpable for any claims of slander made against them, due to comments made by Glenn Beck.

 

[California Girl]

Your "first sentence" was where you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out.

Because you took it out of context, which is a "lie of omission". You're just going to keep on lying, aren't you?

You're just pissed because I was able to accurately explain how Beck lies through misdirection and leading questions.

I notice you didn't address any of the actual points I made, you just attacked an out-of-context sentence.

ROFL. Anyone with half a brain can easily see through your BS, of course Glenn Beck viewers are not famous for having even that much of a brain.

With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?

If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned?

And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact?

Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Beck doesn't lie.

He is dishonest though.

Just like Moore, Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow....


Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Vast LWC]

With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?

An excellent question. Historically, politicians who get into battles with major media sources tend to face political consequence for their actions.

Sometimes the consequence isn't even political.

For instance, in 1901 William Randolf Hearst's media empire, which had supported William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1900 against President McKinley, implied that the president ought to be assassinated. This was after McKinley and his allies had pretty much popularized the term "Yellow Journalism" in attacking Hearst.

McKinley was assassinated on September 6, 1901.

If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned?

Because Van Jones was one of the seeds of truth Mr Beck used to try a prove a larger lie.

Van Jones was in fact a Communist, which is a extreme political school of thought that is distasteful to a majority of the country. Not that anyone should be excluded from employment due to their political beliefs, but Van Jones decided to step down rather than cause controversy.

And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact?

I only resorted to ridicule, because the poster I was ridiculing was calling me a liar, based on an out-of-context editing of my post. Notice I am not using ridicule towards you, because you have not attacked me in this manner.

Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?

No, I have disliked Beck for quite a while. In fact I dislike all extremist, radical talking heads, be they Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

They all lie, usually without actually making any verifiably false statements. They lie through implcation, misdirection, and omission.

 

[Vast LWC]

And, by the way, the only reasons Beck felt comfortable attacking Bush are:

1. Bush was already a "Lame Duck" and was at that point a drag on the rest of the Republican party.

and

2. The Republican party had already in general abadoned Bush, and was allowing Bush to do the dirty work that needed to be done at that point governmentally, so they could deflect the tarnish from things like the Bank Bailouts away from themselves.

 

[The T]

And, by the way, the only reasons Beck felt comfortable attacking Bush are:

1. Bush was already a "Lame Duck" and was at that point a drag on the rest of the Republican party.

and

2. The Republican party had already in general abadoned Bush, and was allowing Bush to do the dirty work that needed to be done at that point governmentally, so they could deflect the tarnish from things like the Bank Bailouts away from themselves.

Keep beliving this.

 

[California Girl]

With respect, if Beck lies so very often, why hasn't anyone sued his ass?

An excellent question. Historically, politicians who get into battles with major media sources tend to face political consequence for their actions.

Sometimes the consequence isn't even political.

For instance, in 1901 William Randolf Hearst's media empire, which had supported William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1900 against President McKinley, implied that the president ought to be assassinated. This was after McKinley and his allies had pretty much popularized the term "Yellow Journalism" in attacking Hearst.

McKinley was assassinated on September 6, 1901.

If it's misdirection, how come Van Jones resigned?

Because Van Jones was one of the seeds of truth Mr Beck used to try a prove a larger lie.

Van Jones was in fact a Communist, which is a extreme political school of thought that is distasteful to a majority of the country. Not that anyone should be excluded from employment due to their political beliefs, but Van Jones decided to step down rather than cause controversy.

And, if you are on such solid ground, why do you have to resort to insult and ridicule instead of reasoning and fact?

I only resorted to ridicule, because the poster I was ridiculing was calling me a liar, based on an out-of-context editing of my post. Notice I am not using ridicule towards you, because you have not attacked me in this manner.

Quite simply, the left is pissed because they liked Beck doing what he did when it suited their agenda. Now that he's calling their Administration out, they're pissed. So NOW he lies. He didn't lie during the Bush Administration but he does now. What changed?

No, I have disliked Beck for quite a while. In fact I dislike all extremist, radical talking heads, be they Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

They all lie, usually without actually making any verifiably false statements. They lie through implcation, misdirection, and omission.

Van jumped because he had to. He didn't resign for the greater good, he quit and ran because he knew - and Obama knew - that his position was untenable. He is still a communist - at least I have found no statement from him ever distancing himself from those beliefs. Now, for the record, if he had honestly stated his position when he joined, then that is one thing. He, however, tried to hide his communist ties and that is not acceptable.

It is important to recognize the difference between a journalist and a commentator. If a journalist lies, that is not acceptable. Commentators, on the other hand, voice opinion and debate, during which, there are going to be statements and opinions that can be misconstrued or twisted.

Back when we had journalistic standards of integrity, it was easier to call these people out and we had far fewer issues. These days, with 24hr news, the internet etc it is impossible to maintain any standard of integrity, and with anyone able to say anything - whether it is true or not - I think that is to the detriment of society generally. It is now so hard to actually evidence anything to any degree of certainty that we may as well not bother looking for facts.

 

[Vast LWC]

Van jumped because he had to. He didn't resign for the greater good, he quit and ran because he knew - and Obama knew - that his position was untenable. He is still a communist - at least I have found no statement from him ever distancing himself from those beliefs. Now, for the record, if he had honestly stated his position when he joined, then that is one thing. He, however, tried to hide his communist ties and that is not acceptable.

As far as I know Van Jones never made a statement claiming to not be a Communist. As he was not running for office, the question was not presented to the public.

To whom would he have "honestly stating his position" when he joined? Should he have made some sort of general statement in the media pronouncing his political beliefs simply because he was hired as an advisor?

It is important to recognize the difference between a journalist and a commentator. If a journalist lies, that is not acceptable. Commentators, on the other hand, voice opinion and debate, during which, there are going to be statements and opinions that can be misconstrued or twisted.

Back when we had journalistic standards of integrity, it was easier to call these people out and we had far fewer issues. These days, with 24hr news, the internet etc it is impossible to maintain any standard of integrity, and with anyone able to say anything - whether it is true or not - I think that is to the detriment of society generally. It is now so hard to actually evidence anything to any degree of certainty that we may as well not bother looking for facts.

2 problems arise here:

1. The lines between "Journalists" and "Commentators" blur when the networks hosting them do not specifically make statements like "The views expressed in this commentary do not express the views of the station", and the name of the station is Fox News. The name of the station is not in fact "FoxOpinion Channel" and by not retracting statements made in their shows, they imply a tacit agreement with the information contained therein.

and

2. Obviously there are many, many people, "Pale Rider" being a prime example, who take the word of commentators like Beck as fact, not opinion. And FoxNews does nothing to discourage this.