why the left hates glen beck

[frazzledgear]

We don't hate Glenn Beck. We are amused by him for one reason alone, he appears to be nuts.

If you really believe that then it is incumbent upon you to show where he goes wrong in his analysis. But if you can't show where Beck goes wrong and you are simply resorting to name calling, do you really think that juvenile tactic of name calling somehow makes you CORRECT then? That actually works for you? He who calls the other guy the most names gets to win? For real? LOL Be sure to teach your kids that one too.

When you have nothing but name calling it only means your opinion has no foundation, it is useless to everyone and no one with any intelligence should pay any attention to it. It reflects the mentality of a child incapable of mature reasoning. If you can't show where he goes wrong in his analysis, either you know he isn't wrong and like most liberals can only hope resorting to name calling will make people less likely to watch his show or read his books; you have never even seen his show so you haven't a clue what I even mean by saying show where he has gone wrong in his analysis; you are just parroting what you have heard other liberals say who also haven't watched his show and sure don't want you to either; you really think satire skits about Beck on SNL and other shows are accurate portrayals of the guy so you don't even need to watch his show to form your OWN opinion. (In which case you probably also think Palin said she could see Russia from her house, right?)

In spite of Beck repeatedly asking someone of authority to step forward and point out where he has gone wrong in his analysis because he WANTS to be wrong, no one has. And the reason they don't is because they can't. Even though Beck has said no one in their right mind would want him to be right including himself, no one can tell him where he as gone wrong. But just because he doesn't WANT to be correct in his analysis does not mean he should just go ahead and doctor his analysis to suit his own personal preferences.

You know -like the global warming HACKS have been doing for years now?

I wish Beck was wrong in his analysis and I end up turning his show off at times for no other reason except I wish he were wrong. But for the life of me I cannot find the flaws in his analysis. He uses irrefutable proven facts and I cannot find any that contradict his analysis. He has his own unique way of presenting his analysis -but the liberals' contention that unique manner somehow proves he is just a crazy not worth listening to -is nothing but the CHEAPEST cop out to avoid a debate they know they can't win. Because he HAS the facts on his side -and they don't. If they had the facts on their side, they would rely on THOSE to counter Beck instead of childish name calling.

 

[Political Junky]

Hate him?

Beck is very good at what he does. Appealing to a simplistic love America but hate Americans viewership

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, as long as you keep deceiving, your comments here are irrelevant here. I realize that you can't think, but that seems not to stop you from posting.

Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.

But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.

You have trolled, you have baited, you have made insupportable statements, posted ad hom as well as personal insults, then you want to say that I did it. You have passed indeed the EIB Institute Certificate of Propagandic Subversion.

The point is that Glenn Beck jumped on Abu Ghraib. None of the other rightwing commentators did so. How can I find evidence that does not exist, the lack of existance itself proving my point.

You are guily intellectual bulemia.

If I have done any of what you have accused me, I'm sure you can point out the specific posts for which, if your analysis is justified, I will be happy to apologize.

I trust that you can support your opinion that 'none of the other rightwing commentators did so'? I must be getting really old because I absolutely remember quite thorough and lengthy discussions of that by every political/news commentator that I listened to or watched during that time. And none objected to the few perpetrators of the crime being prosecuted and convicted. So which of the rightwing commentators did not do so, and where is your evidence that they did not?

And again, what criteria are you using to justify your opinion that Beck was more forceful or adament about it than anybody else? I don't doubt that he did disapprove as I don't know of anybody who approved.

And I thought I wasn't worth your time to talk to?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

my theory: because he isnt a liberal

Because he is right

Because he cares and loves his country

You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same reason the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps I cannot think, but I can recognize baiting, trolling, making inflammatory or unsupportable statements, posting ad hominem, and personal insults, and know the difference between that and supporting one's opinion and/or making an argument from a rational perspective.

But since you consider my comments irrelevent, I would encourage you to continue to not address the points made and to scroll right over them.

You have trolled, you have baited, you have made insupportable statements, posted ad hom as well as personal insults, then you want to say that I did it. You have passed indeed the EIB Institute Certificate of Propagandic Subversion.

The point is that Glenn Beck jumped on Abu Ghraib. None of the other rightwing commentators did so. How can I find evidence that does not exist, the lack of existance itself proving my point.

You are guily of intellectual bulemia.

If I have done any of what you have accused me, I'm sure you can point out the specific posts for which, if your analysis is justified, I will be happy to apologize.

I trust that you can support your opinion that 'none of the other rightwing commentators did so'? I must be getting really old because I absolutely remember quite thorough and lengthy discussions of that by every political/news commentator that I listened to or watched during that time. And none objected to the few perpetrators of the crime being prosecuted and convicted. So which of the rightwing commentators did not do so, and where is your evidence that they did not?

And again, what criteria are you using to justify your opinion that Beck was more forceful or adament about it than anybody else? I don't doubt that he did disapprove as I don't know of anybody who approved.

And I thought I wasn't worth your time to talk to?

Why? Simple because no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck out of the gate on the Abu Ghraib affair. No evidence exists that contradicts my point.

You dithering merely reveals that you have conceded the point.

 

[Intense]

my theory: because he isnt a liberal

Because he is right

Because he cares and loves his country

You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.

You are such a ray of Sunshine!!! Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???

 

[Intense]

What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.

 

[Foxfyre]

What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.

Many in this forum continue to pile on Beck, call him all sorts of names or use uncomplimentary assessments to describe him, and accuse him of all sorts of offenses, but as yet nobody has produced any direct quotes in context nor have pointed to specific instances that support their criticism.

But you are quite right that though he, like any human, will occasionally miss the mark, his research and scholarship has produced some significant exposure of issues and activities that we as Americans should not tolerate and that we should condemn or demand that they be addressed. ACORN is just one of those issues. If we lose the ability to be educated about these kinds of things, the government will be able to do anything it wants to us with impunity. And we have essentially lost all our freedom.

But it is exposure of their apparent darlings like ACORN that has almost certainly made Beck and those like him 'enemies' and therefore targets of the current administration. And I suppose it is the largest reason that many on the left hate Glen Beck.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why? Simple because no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck out of the gate on the Abu Ghraib affair. No evidence exists that contradicts my point.

You dithering merely reveals that you have conceded the point.

You have yet to support your statement that 'no one else jumped anywhere on the Right near as hard as Beck. . . .' While you may be right--as I said I wasn't even aware there was a Glen Beck during that time--I have no way of knowing whether you are right about that. And so far you have declined to provide any kind of evidence for your opinion.

I do know that you are very wrong that others did not address that issue and did so in a quite focused manner. I have no way of knowing whether they did so as 'hard' as Beck did as I have no way of knowing how 'hard' Beck did it, but I don't know of ANY who thought what happened at Abu Ghraib should be tolerated by anybody.

So whether or not I 'dither', I have conceded no point to you whatsoever.

Have you located those posts of mine that support your statement that I troll, use ad hominem arguments, and engage in personal insults yet?

 

[Intense]

What Glen has accomplished with exposing ACORN and some of The Czars, surpasses all the rest, in his field. Whatever comes of Him, We remain indebted. After You come out of denial, You will come to accept this. That's part of the reason for this strong rejection.

Many in this forum continue to pile on Beck, call him all sorts of names or use uncomplimentary assessments to describe him, and accuse him of all sorts of offenses, but as yet nobody has produced any direct quotes in context nor have pointed to specific instances that support their criticism.

But you are quite right that though he, like any human, will occasionally miss the mark, his research and scholarship has produced some significant exposure of issues and activities that we as Americans should not tolerate and that we should condemn or demand that they be addressed. ACORN is just one of those issues. If we lose the ability to be educated about these kinds of things, the government will be able to do anything it wants to us with impunity. And we have essentially lost all our freedom.

But it is exposure of their apparent darlings like ACORN that has almost certainly made Beck and those like him 'enemies' and therefore targets of the current administration. And I suppose it is the largest reason that many on the left hate Glen Beck.

Remember that He also provides a Forum for Guests that would otherwise be censored out, The kind of People that the Ministry of Information Klan boycott.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

my theory: because he isnt a liberal

Because he is right

Because he cares and loves his country

You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.

You are such a ray of Sunshine!!! Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???

I'll save you a seat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.

foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.

foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.

Jake can't seem to admit that he has provided no evidence at all to support his statement re Glen Beck being the only right wing commentator to come out in condemnation of Abu Ghraib and has ignored repeated requests to define "forceful" or to support his contention that no other right wing commentators condemned Abu Ghraib.

Foxfyre, has only reported what she remembers of her own experience of that period and has not speculated or offered any kind of opinion one way or the other on who was the most forceful in condemning Abu Ghraib.

Further, Jake has not backed up his claim that Foxfyre engages in trolling, baiting, ad hominem, and/or personal insults.

There is no wiggling necessary to know who lost this argument, and so far, it isn't Foxfyre.

 

[Intense]

You have lost your damn mind. The left hates Glenn Beck for the same the smart people on the right hate him. He is a douchebag who lacks the capacity for abstract thought.

You are such a ray of Sunshine!!! Are You going to the Klan meeting tonight at MSNBC???

I'll save you a seat.

They won't like me there. Probably hang Me on a Cross and Fire Me Up. Say High to Mathews for me and Olberman.

 

[Intense]

foxfyre can't admit that the lack of evidence on a subject is evidence that such (other right wingers jumping immediately and hard on Abu Ghraib atrocities) does not exist.

foxfyre's continued wiggling merely demonstrates ff has lost the argument.

Jake can't seem to admit that he has provided no evidence at all to support his statement re Glen Beck being the only right wing commentator to come out in condemnation of Abu Ghraib and has ignored repeated requests to define "forceful" or to support his contention that no other right wing commentators condemned Abu Ghraib.

Foxfyre, has only reported what she remembers of her own experience of that period and has not speculated or offered any kind of opinion one way or the other on who was the most forceful in condemning Abu Ghraib.

Further, Jake has not backed up his claim that Foxfyre engages in trolling, baiting, ad hominem, and/or personal insults.

There is no wiggling necessary to know who lost this argument, and so far, it isn't Foxfyre.

Jakes just over compensating. He's sensitive, so We won't talk about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jakes just over compensating. He's sensitive, so We won't talk about it.

Jake's probably pretty okay when he hasn't cornered himself in an indefensible argument. But I guess sooner or later we all manage to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that foxfyre's lack of evidence is the evidence for the argument that only GB on the right attacked Abu Ghraib atrocities from the beginning. You can't post anything from the right other than GB right from the beginning. Keep wiggling, ff, but you are caught on the hook and can't get off.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that foxfyre's lack of evidence is the evidence for the argument that only GB on the right attacked Abu Ghraib atrocities from the beginning. You can't post anything from the right other than GB right from the beginning. Keep wiggling, ff, but you are caught on the hook and can't get off.

Why? You're the one who said Beck attacked Abu Ghraib from the beginning and nobody else did. I'm not the one who said that. So you are the one who should come up with evidence and so far you have none. I took no position on that whatsoever because I wasn't there and I don't know.

And you are the one who said he was the only one. And you haven't backed that up with anything either. You haven't even proved your claim that Beck said anything about it much less that anybody else didn't. You certainly haven't proved that he was any more forceful about it than anybody else nor will you explain what you mean by 'forceful'.

I don't have any reason to think Beck didn't denounce the scandal at Abu Ghraib and you have no reason to believe that nobody else did. I don't know whether he was more 'forceful' than anybody else and neither do you.

So why don't you admit that you were talking about your impression at the time and admit that you don't know whether he was the first, only one, or the most forceful, admit you can't support your personal insults directed at me, and we can drop this whole stupid argument altogether.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because there is no evidence that anyone else of the right immediately attacked it and attacked it hard.

I was very proud then (and still am) of Glenn Beck's integrity on this issue.

You are wiggling, ff, but you are on the hook, and you can't get off it. Accept it, and let's move on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because there is no evidence that anyone else of the right immediately attacked it and attacked it hard.

I was very proud then (and still am) of Glenn Beck's integrity on this issue.

You are wiggling, ff, but you are on the hook, and you can't get off it. Accept it, and let's move on.

I'm moving on, but not because I'm on any hook. I accept that you have no evidence for your claims re Beck, your claims re anybody else, or the insults you directed at me personally. Check, game, match. Do have a nice evening.