Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic]
August 27, 2009 6:19 pm ET
From the August 27th edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
E vil
C razy
K ook
Conclusive proof that wingnuts apparently have as many difficulties with basic English as they do with basic math . . .
Courtesy of Superpoop.
As evident from the ignorance displayed in your response, you have never seen the show. You are, in fact, blathering on based on CRAP spewed from other progressives attempting to discredit Glenn Beck.
Mr. Beck has repeated on each and every show for the past few weeks...the intent is NOT to be the "angry mob" that the left (and leftist media) are portraying. It IS in fact to become aware of what is happening, and have a voice.
In case the communists on this site have forgotten, THIS IS A REPUBLIC!!
Speaking up is all that **SHOULD** be required to make change. The Congress is designed to listen to the people. If the people are educated, and voice their opinion to their representative, then change will happen.
I have NEVER, EVER heard a conservative advocate the type of action you IMPLIED (but did not have the 'cojones' to say).
Progressives, I hope you have better answers than, "Uh Uh, You're wrong!"
Geez.
I don't know who's scarier ... a demagogue who exploits peoples fears with exaggerated, apocalyptic rants or the people so easily manipulated by him.
Do your kind a favor, and stop posting. You are embarrasing yourself. Go upstairs, and have mom cook you a snack before bed.
Like this one?
....all starbucks in jstephens' neighborhood should be warned...
Now now, jstephen . . . you're not trying to abridge someone's freedom of speech, are you?
People like us, jsteve?
We AREN'T the ones bringing guns to town hall meetings or shouting "kill him!" [referring to Obama] at campaign rallies . . .
I've never seen a group of people (such as the Repugnantcans) swallow the massive quantities of total BS as espoused from their "talking heads".
Most of the stuff is so ludicrous as to be totally unbelievable. I mean - "death squads"?? - you you idiots serious?
It is absolutely mind-boggling how the GOP can get its followers to vehemently protest against their own best interests. This will be enthusiastically written about by historians for decades to come!
You conservatives are the real cowards. I've never seen such a fearful bunch in my life.
Is this on a plaque on a wingnut statue somewhere? Was it supposed to be sarcasm? What the hell does it mean?
Well played, hick.
I will spell it out for the DUMBASSES like yourself.
In my original post, I provided the facts that Glenn Beck has repeated that the power to question your representatives is the most powerful tool we have.
In my original post, I provided the fact that Glenn Beck has repeatedly said violence will make you ineffective. I add that violence will only make you as STUPID as the left.
Hope that helps you. Try posting something that requires thought.
Like this?
Again, well played, hick
Priceless.
When you're in a hole, STOP digging.
Beck is using the rhetoric to feed the hatred that will feed the violence. He does it to make money monstly, but also to stoke fear.
And then he can say "but I said, NO VIOLENCE!" if something happens.
The expression is "hear hear", actually.
jstephens005:
[url= http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/08/04/armed-glenn-beck-fan-planned-national-guard-base-assault/]You People Will Fail Again[/url]
Who is this guy anyway (Glenn Beck), where did he come from? Why do people think what he says (which he admits himself repeatedly, that he cannot prove) is any good? I am beyond baffled...its like going to the store and seeing a neatly dressed guy telling you that if you follow him, he will show you the way to a pot of gold...would you not first ask him where the gold is for, what you have to do for it, if it is real and so on?
I am so so shocked that people buy this stuff, i really really am!
I also love how he called his "nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in poo poo" style defenses as "intellectually superior". These are the type of comments for which my old debate teacher would have sat him in the hall and flunked. Oh I should mention this was my 7th grade debate teacher.
Look, can we agree that if you are trying to make an argument about something and you are going public or telling the world about your argument, you should be able to back it up? If we can agree on that, then we can agree that Glen Beck doesnt have a lot of facts, he takes things out of context and translates, like anyone can what he hears the way he wants to hear it, which is fine...
...but saying that the US is in trouble because Obama has advisers who keep him connected to people/issues/unions/groups is somewhat a bit much.
Let us assume for a second that you run a company, do you hire your family member with no experience on how to market your goods, or do you ask someone who knows something about marketing to do it for you or advise you on how to do it?
Most of the people that obama has as his advisers (or "czars" as Beck would prefer it) are professors, specialists and very capable people who have spent a bulk of their lives living and breathing the issues they are supposed to provide advise about.
Would you like Obama or any government to come to your neighborhood and tell you that you need a highway coming through it, without your input or the input of the community leader? I dont think so...i am afraid unless ther eis real eveidence of wrong doing from the Administration (the way they handle the economy is a matter of preference, not wrong/right, the way they are going about it has worked for some and has not for others, thats just life, its reaching a balance in the middle that is the ever on going battle everyone has faced on this earth for eons).
I dont support this or that with anything, but i am totally against throwing randomness out there like it was the God's honest truth, lets call what he says for what it is, wild accusations, i cannot scream to anyone in your neighborhood that you are a child molester just cos i see you like playing with kids, it is wrong and ill informed, it is not right to do it to your president either (this goes to if it was a liberal or conservative leader)
Oh, wait...its the typical half-ass progressive truth. Yes, Obama recieved more popular vote. BUT, he only received 365 electoral votes. WELL BELOW the 489 and 525 of President Ronald Reagan, the 426 of President George HW Bush, the 520 of President Nixon...
Of course there were more popular vote. There was MORE population! Duh. In 1980, the population was 227 million. In 2008, 304 million. For the intellectually challenged progressives, that's an additional 77 million people. With that, Obama was able to get an extra 12 million votes more than Reagan! Wow! And knocked it outta tha' park with 4 million more than the hated George W Bush.
I am very impressed with your logic.
Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electorial college.
So your throwing up electorial results as reflecting the popular vote is, as the saying goes, comparing apples and oranges.
Its late. Say goodnight Gracie.
What was your point again?
It was LACK OF POPULATION that caused John Sidney McCain and Simple Sarah to get only 173 electoral votes.
And all this time I though it was just the fact that not enough people liked 'em . . .
This sounds like you think because he tells you he doesn't want to inspire these idiots that he must be telling the truth.
Sounds more like:
"Now I'm not a racist or anything but these blacks...."
"I'm not a homophobe or anything but those gays are...."
Or how about:
"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
That last one sound familiar?
Dubious disclaimers don't absolve you of what you are actually saying.
"I have NEVER, EVER heard a conservative advocate the type of action you IMPLIED (but did not have the 'cojones' to say)."
You mean like those town hall crazies (including at least one with a gun) holding up Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote? What could they possibly mean other than "Democrats/Obama are tyrants that need to die?"
And did you forget all about that cop killer in PA? The one that had a big crush on Beck's ranting and thought the cops were going to take away his guns at Obama's behest.
And yes, I have been unfortunate enough to have seen Beck's awful shows (Fox and HLN). He's an admitted "dumb guy" that took one whopping theology class in college and dropped out. He compares everything and anything he dislikes to the Nazis and the holocaust. Why he has a show is beyond me.
BECK IS A MASTER THESPIAN IT'S A FACT. HE'S ALSO SMART. WAY TO SMART TO BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS. NOTICE HOW HARD HE TRIES TO ESTABLISH SOME KIND OF EMOTIONAL BOND AND REASSURANCE THAT HE'S ON THE SIDE OF HIS VIEWERS. HE SCARES HIS VIEWERS WITH LIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES THEN
CLEVERLY INSIGHTS VIOLENCE. HE'S VERY CLEVER AND DECEPTIVE, BUT I FIND HIM AMUSING.
What I saw on Beck's show was literally frightening to me.
Ranting incoherent innuendo and hate sprinkled with pictures of militant looking black men (presumably to scare the bigots who watch his show), followed by urgent calls to do something or the world will come to an end... I felt like I watching a modern version of War of the Worlds. There was simply no fact to his rants and plenty of fear mongering nonsense. I was honestly left with a fear in my gut that some of these militia types will watch this program and decide that he is talking code for civil disobedience and take up arms against law abiding citizens or worse the President.
I am all for honest debate and political discourse, but in the end, we elect people to carry out the business of the people. Obama was elected by a majority of the people with an overwhelming mandate to reform health care. This IS still America after all. Bush got his tax cuts the citizens who elected Obama want Health Care Reform, and in the end- even you crazies will benefit when you get sick, you will be cared for without going bankrupt in spite of yourself!
what lies are you specifically speaking about? I DVR'd all week and he is using the Czars that have been chosen, their OWN words and deeds? How is using one"s written and spoken words lies???
There are many reasons to be upset with Mr. Beck's approach to informing the public but it has gone from being amusing to being almost irresponsible. If you watch his show, and forget he is an "entertainer", I believe he refers to himself as a rodeo clown, you can come away with the idea that President Obama is radical, white race hating, leftist, communist that is bound and determined to destroy the United States. Mr. Beck has become a somewhat toned down Alex Jones.
I wake up in the morning and go to work like I have for the last 40 years and the world I see before me is not the world Mr. Beck sees. I feel sorry for him if he actually believes the things he says. Of course this could all be just an act that drives his ratings up, which drives his salary up but maybe not, maybe he really believes what he is saying.
or you mean Oligarchy. you missed the C, let me see what word starting with C describes Beck...
Anyone with half a brain would know that Becky hates all the letter C stands for...Communism, Connecticut, Country, Constitution.
They are now the Konservative party
Also I'd like to add a couple more C words Beck doesnt like
Commuity Organizer
Character
snd of course Correctness
O'Reilly's lexicon: "An 'oligarchy' is when rich people run the country"
On his nationally syndicated radio show, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly defined the word oligarchy as follows: "An 'oligarchy' is when rich people run the country." O'Reilly unveiled this new definition in ridiculing a remark by rock icon Bruce Springsteen, who explained his opposition to President George W. Bush in part by saying: "I don't want to watch the country devolve into an oligarchy."
In fact, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines oligarchy as "government by the few"; a different word, plutocracy, means "government by the wealthy."
Do you realize that most Republicans would have to be sent to the Obama Camps for Wayward Americans for not knowing the difference
Those three are great liberals. Fighting for those of us who work hard and support our unions.
The more I see of his routine the clearer the picture is of the people who follow him.
If Bek, er Beck had done it, he would have spelled it "assme," because he only makes an ass of himself.
And what terrifies me now is knowing that there are so many people in this country that can make sense of this man's delusions.
Did he finally come back?
Found the missing "c."
I'd buy you a dictionary for Christmas, Beck, but it would just collect dust.
By the way Fox, that's some hard core 19th century technology.
He needs to buy one of those letters that are vowels..those C things.
L egislature
I s
G iving
A ll
R ighties
(C) razy
H eadaches
As always, the argument degenerates into bashing the messenger with no debate on the message.
The question here should not be "Does Glenn Beck misspelling a word make him an idiot?"
The question should not be, "Is jstephens an intellectual midget?"
The question should not be, "Are the vitriolic barbs being tossed by everyone else indicative of thier intellectual bankruptcy?"
The question SHOULD be, are the things Glenn Beck is saying correct?
From a purely factual standpoint, yes they are.
Philosophically however the answer is less clear. The way he ties them together, with the pretext of an insidious agenda, is difficult to believe and nearly impossible to prove. But the possibilies he raises warrant thought.
The positions of people like Glenn Beck will become more relevant as the administration continues to slip in their approval numbers. This is simply American politics.
But attacking Glenn Beck, or Jstephens, does nothing from the standpoint of advancing your agenda. Debate the message, not the messenger.
The nice thing about being in the middle, is that you get to see the truth. That being, that the two sides are so busy killing the messengers, that they never take the time to actually see if the messege makes sense.
We're just considering all the other wacky off-base junk he's said before.
Hmmmmmm.... Let me think of a for-instance.....
Oh, this one comes to mind -- Obama is a Racist. He hates all white people.
And another one -- death panels.
So, for any message, we must consider the messenger. Once a purveyor of the message is caught in a fabrication, his messages are no longer taken seriously.
That's the price we all pay.
There is no point. He is a corporate shill of limited intelligence, appealing to the worst elements in his audience.
Is it a little creepy to you, how similar every example of this species of troll is ?
To come to this site and describe others as "pathetic" because they're able to recognize nonsense that you're fooled by is pretty rude. Comes off as attacking the messengers.
BTW, do you middle-of-the-road concern trolls work off of a template from some website? The cookie-cutter nature of your nearly identical "I'm above right or left" comments is insulting ( in that you expect anybody to fall for it) and hilarious (for the same reason).
By being in the middle, you don't see "the truth". You see what both sides present to you as their perception of the truth. What comes from that is an educated decision on what you believe the truth to be.
If you're thinking that what Beck says is "the truth", I think you're less in the middle than you believe to be.
Besides, if the messenger is flawed, how are we to assume the message isn't?
Edward Kennedy?
Drunk.
Womanizer.
Murderer?
Therefore we should ignore his ideas on Healthcare? Right?
Of course not.
Noone is perfect.
The message should be judged on it's own merits.
In many cases that's a good rule, but it's a terrible rule in many others: journalism and messages about the messenger, for example. When a con man says, "Trust me", for example, the message can't be evaluated independently from its messenger or author. When a journalist is discovered to have made up several stories in the past, there's greater reason to question that journalist's other stories.
In this case, what message was there that could be evaluated independently of Beck's on air persona? Beck didn't make any falsifiable claims, he didn't offer any testable hypotheses, and he didn't even express a consistent opinion about the country's relationship oligarchy: after pointing out that all the first letters add up to 'oligarhy', he then backtracks and says, "I don't know if we're turning an oligarchy or what we're turning into, but unless you ask 'why', we're gonna transform into something."
Beck's 'message' in this segment isn't something that can be fact checked any more than a poem or a piece by a performance artist could be fact checked. And keep in mind here that Beck isn't just a messenger -- he's also responsible for the message's creation. And it is perfectly legitimate to criticize an author for an incoherent message.
Nice trick if you can pull it off. And you can't.
What else starts with "C"?
That's right, the word "clue", which Mr. Beck doesn't seem to have.
Still the other bit where he is talking to some guy who worked for Carter and some clown from the heritage Foundation was more like what i expected. Beck's animosity is almost entirelyfact-free. He seems genuinely confused by his own allegations and insinuations. he says he's just asking questions, and I'm pretty sure that it's because he can't follow the thread of what hsi guests are saying. The feigned outrage that is the right wing commentator's stock and trade is usually just shtick (Limbaugh) or bad temprament (O'Reilly) but I think that Beck is really angry and confused. But then he's 'asking questions" about this civilian army (Americorp) that Obama wants and why it needs to be funded at a "half a trillion" dollars, the same as the military until someone sets him straight during the commercial break that it's, he says, 5 billion dollars but still... Again hilarious. so I'll watch Beck (in small doses) for a while, wondering could he really be that dumb?
For clarification though I will say a few things.
1. When I say Glenn beck is factually correct, I mean that the data he provides is verifiable. For instance, he alledges that several of Obama's advisors have radical, anarchist or leftist pasts. The fact is they do. This is verifiable.
The way he USES that information is where we start to go off the reservation.
2. Thank you for telling me that I'm not in the middle and that I use a "template" to post. I suppose in the strictest sense you are correct. I don't have a strictly centrist view of individual issues. I AM however split down the middle on where I stand on issues. On Defense and Spending I am right of center. On Education, the Arts and Social issues, I am left of center.
To return to the original point, we can dismiss Beck as a loon, but his ideas are what are important.
We could just as easily dismiss Bill Maher as a loon. After all, Bill Maher said that although the majority of Americans oppose the current healthcare reforms proposed by the administration and congress; we should simply drag them along and force the reform.
So here is a "left-wing" nut advocating the forcible implementation to social policy in complete disregard for the voting public.
We could call him a loon and ignore what he is saying, but to do so would be to lose sight of the reality behind the hyperbole.
I for one prefer to believe that though their passions sometimes cloud the delivery, neither is "crazy" and both deserve to have their ideas debated, not simply derided.
Have a great weekend.
I e-mailed G.Beck. He asked me to, (previous clip). I used the word, "oligarchical," in text. I imagine G.Beck clicked his dictionary tool bar, and typed it in. He liked it. Not remembering how to spell it, while evangelizing fear, he was focused on the punchline: Y. A man running in a dark room, thinking not to stumble, will crash. G.Beck will not look beyond the bounds of his salt. Is he still on the job?
When the wise disagree, wisdom is the outcast. Fine, we have not evolved, on average, to the point of conscience, less wisdom. It be it.
Shall we idle in discourse, or action that speaks?
Addsum,
Ronin Kannushi.
So he messed up. I haven't re-read this comment yet and there's a good chance I mis-spelled something. If laughing at somebody mis-spelling a word on national television is what this thread's all about then I'm all for it. But honestly it has nothing to do with politics. If someone on MythBusters (just off the top of my head), or some other non-politically based T.V. show did the same thing, my mind wouldn't immediately jump to "He's a conservative!", or "He's a liberal!".
But if you only wish to spew hate on people, which both sides on this site do so almost 100% of the time, then I'll let you know I'm only 15 years old. Fire away.
First of all, Beck's mistake isn't a typo in a website posting or in an email. This is supposedly a serious analysis on a supposed "news" channel, part of a series Beck is claiming asks some serious questions about the president.
Do you think this is ad-libbed? Do you think it's safe to assume that Beck plans in advance what he's going to do on a national tv show?
What does that say, to you, about his accuracy or attention to detail ( or possibly his competence or sanity)?
I'm not trying to be insulting or condescending to you because of your age, it's just that many here follow the antics of these propagandists, and have a several -decades head start on you. Certain things are just understood, and don't need to be spelled out with every thread.
Another point is that the word beck was trying for, "oligarch", isn't supported at all by his meaningless questions. It could be argued that the last presidential administration was much closer to an oligarchy than this one.
Yeah, this item is having a laugh at Beck, but it's not the same as making fun of an off-the-cuff typo. It's just a recent example of a long string of incoherent, nonsensical attacks by Fox News, among others, against Obama.
So he messed up. I haven't re-read this comment yet and there's a good chance I mis-spelled something. If laughing at somebody mis-spelling a word on national television is what this thread's all about then I'm all for it. But honestly it has nothing to do with politics. If someone on MythBusters (just off the top of my head), or some other non-politically based T.V. show did the same thing, my mind wouldn't immediately jump to "He's a conservative!", or "He's a liberal!".
But if you only wish to spew hate on people, which both sides on this site do so almost 100% of the time, then I'll let you know I'm only 15 years old. Fire away.
Loser
Extremely retarded
Natural born lying
Neanderthal
Bloated
Epileptic
Crappy Spelling
Keester
I still havent seen answers to why Van Jones is in the White House!
Can any of the Liberals tell me why we have 43 Czars? When BHO starts to close down the internet I guess we will always be able to
reach this website.
The answer is simple: because he was hired as an advisor.
If you're over 60 - get ready for pills to help you "end your life".
If you make a profit - get ready for 60%+ taxation - doesn't matter if you make $250K of less.
If you don't believe your rights are about to disappear than you are in fact blinded and only the truth will set you free.
Please go beyond MSNBC, CBS and ABC - read the bills, listen to both sides - here's Obama's next crisis after OBAMACARE.
Illegal Aliens - democrats needs votes they lost their senior votes -this is the next crisis.
When will you wake up?
God bless and I pray for truth!