CNN's Beck likened outrage against Tancredo to "re-education" policies of Soviet Union
On the December 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck said remarks by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) in a November 19 interview with right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com "liken[ing] Miami to a Third World country" have "touched off a wave of controversy" that allegedly resulted in "death threats" and the cancellation of a Tancredo speaking engagement in Florida. Beck reasoned that "you can disagree with Tancredo all you want. ... But threaten to assassinate someone because you don't like his point of view? That actually does sound something like you'd find in a Third World country." Then Beck drew a connection to "[p]olitical correctness," stating, "Political correctness has its roots in the old Soviet Union. ... [I]f someone was caught saying something that was out of line with Lenin's thinking, according to Trotsky, they'd be taken away for re-education until they were politically correct. That's where it came from. And that's exactly what's happening today in America."
Beck has himself ruminated on the possibility of assassinating a public figure. As Media Matters for America has noted, on the May 17 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
Further, as Colorado Media Matters noted, when Tancredo was asked to justify his claim that Miami was "a Third World country," Tancredo falsely claimed that Miami is the "murder capital of the world." In fact, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data show that of the 20 most populous cities in the United States, there are nine U.S. cities -- Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Phoenix, and Columbus, Ohio -- with a murder rate higher than Miami's:
|
20 most populous U.S. cities and Miami |
Estimated population in 2004- 2005** |
Murder and nonnegligent man- slaughter 2005 |
Murder and nonnegligent man- slaughter per 100,000 residents |
|
Baltimore |
641,097 |
269 |
41.96 |
|
Detroit |
900,932 |
354 |
39.29 |
|
Philadelphia |
1,472,915 |
377 |
25.60 |
|
Memphis |
678,988 |
137 |
20.18 |
|
Dallas |
1,230,303 |
202 |
16.42 |
|
Houston |
2,045,732 |
334 |
16.33 |
|
Chicago |
2,873,441 |
448 |
15.59 |
|
Phoenix |
1,466,296 |
220 |
15.00 |
|
Columbus, OH |
730,329 |
102 |
13.97 |
|
Miami* |
388,295 |
54 |
13.91 |
|
Indianapolis |
800,304 |
108 |
13.49 |
|
San Francisco |
749,172 |
96 |
12.81 |
|
Los Angeles |
3,871,077 |
489 |
12.63 |
|
Charlotte, NC |
677,122 |
85 |
12.55 |
|
Jacksonville, FL |
795,259 |
91 |
11.44 |
|
Fort Worth, TX |
613,261 |
60 |
9.78 |
|
San Antonio |
1,256,584 |
86 |
6.84 |
|
New York |
8,143,197 |
539 |
6.62 |
|
San Diego |
1,272,148 |
51 |
4.01 |
|
Austin, TX |
693,019 |
26 |
3.75 |
|
San Jose, CA |
910,528 |
26 |
2.86 |
* Miami ranks as the 45th
largest city in the United
States.
** City population estimates are from Table 8 on the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting website.
From the December 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Last month, Colorado Representative Tommy Tancredo touched off a wave of controversy when he likened Miami to a Third World country, mostly because of illegal immigration and a lack of assimilation. Tancredo was invited to speak at a Florida restaurant this past week, but his appearance was cancelled when the restaurant allegedly began receiving death threats. That's right, death threats.
Now, you can disagree with Tancredo all you want. Engage in that robust debate that makes us quintessentially American. But threaten to assassinate someone because you don't like his point of view? That actually does sound something like you'd find in a Third World country.
Political correctness has its roots in the old Soviet Union. I don't know if you know this. Back then, in the beginning of the Soviet Union, if someone was caught saying something that was out of line with Lenin's thinking, according to Trotsky, they'd be taken away for re-education until they were politically correct. That's where it came from. And that's exactly what's happening today in America.
tell it to coulter.
One has to wonder why they get any viewers at all...
Take your only base of voter support in southern florida (i.e. cubans) and call them a bunch of murdering morons who turned a once great city into a third world cesspool, thus ensuring that Florida will be a blue state next election.
To compare Tancredo's death threats against him with Beck's silly "ruminating" on Michael Moore is ridiculous.....and a perfect example of what Beck is talking about. Political correctness gone amok.
Anyone knows what Beck said may be a tasteless joke, but it hardly rises to the seriousness of Tancredo's threats.
Isn't Beck comparing some anonymous death threat (which the Miami police said may just be a hoax or not serious) to government sponsored re-education camps in the Soviet Union equally ridiculous???
What he is saying is how political correctness stifling real conversation and debate on many fronts in this country because people are so afraid to "say the wrong thing" or offend somebody.
Of course Beck uses an extreme example to make his point, but his point about the PC world we live in is valid and thought provoking.
"Political correctness has its roots in the old Soviet Union"?? This is the fireside conjecture of a dullard trying to make spurious connections b/w 'liberals' and murderous Soviets with their secret police, and all the horrible things that went with it, etc...? It's nonsense.
I, for one, am awfully tired of 'translating' Beck's inane statements into something of substance. You give him too much credit I think. Is that what he meant? I'm not sure Beck even knows.
after all to 'translate' beck's nonsense you really have to provide any real content also. glenn's musings are as information and content free as tommy-boys posts.
Says something ludicrous its just an extreme example that makes his point, apparantly that we OUGHT to be insulting and offending people, but MMFA uses an extreme example to make ITS point then its ridiculous and PC run amok. Yeah, we got it. OK when rightwing screechmonkeys do it, no one else gets to use the method.
I don't even understand your comparison, but just in case. Beck is a talk show host who spouts his opinions all day long, they are his opinions. MMFA is a fact based organization dealing with conservative misinformation.
I don't know where MMFA has called for anyone's death. What false equivalence is being pushed here?
Beck DID joke about killiing Moore. Now he is snivelling that some unconfirmed death threats against a bigotted rude Tancredo are somehow equivelent to rounding people up for their opinions. Beck is full of it MMFA called him on it. You think BECK stretching his attempt at a point is ok and MMFA stetching theirs, by your standards is somehow wrong. Its always ok for you when rightwingnuts do it.
Your hatred of anything Beck clouds any reasonable judgement you have about any word he utters. And your name calling of Tancredo indicates you have the same contempt for him.
When will you start to objectively view your political opponents rather than call them names?
With anyone criticising someone as hating them is stupid. I dont know Beck. I dont know what hate means to you but he is far to unimportant in my world for me to hate him. YOU just have this obsessive need to regurgitate the latest propaganda parrot talking points and that liberals are haters is the fad. As usual its ok for Tancredo to slander an American city but if I call him a bigot for doing so then I am the one doing something wrong. You are tireless in you quest to stop us from criticising your wingnut heros no matter WHAT they say but its all for naught. It isnt up to you to police how I make criticisms and you will NEVER accomplish it. The man made a bigotted statement. YOU are fine with that but get apoplectic when he is criticised for it. Stalin would have been proud to have an apparatchik of your tenacity working for him.
I say Save the Whales.
speaks volumes about your intellect, Tommy....no offense, but many a time you come across as a...well,..., how do I say this...don't want to be shrill, don't want to be 'pc'...don't want to be too obtuse or too hysterical...well, then, I will just say it- you are dumb!
"What he is saying is how political correctness stifling real conversation and debate on many fronts in this country because people are so afraid to 'say the wrong thing' or offend somebody."
-----
When right-wingers complain about "political correctness," what they mean is they cant make bigoted, racist, hateful remarks any more without being called on it. They're thinking, "Oh, for the good old "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" days when minorities knew their place and didn't get upset (out loud) about bigots killing them for whistling at white women..."
A death threat is a death threat. Beck ruminated about killing someone to his nationwide audience. Ann Coulter threatened the life of a sitting Supreme Court Justice to a nationwide audience. And now someone made a death threat to someone for saying something stupid. There is no way to quantify a death threat. All are EQUALLY wrong.
You seem to want to excuse the words of these people whenever they cross the line. It's then that we have to realize that they're joking. The other times, when they're talking national policy, politics, etc. we have to take them seriously.
A good rule of thumb would be to never take any talking head seriously, from the left, right or center, unless they make a threat. Then they should be held accountable and face legal proceedings.
We have a nation that's been fed nothing but fear by the administration and the media for more than five years now. People have already suffered because of the media inflaming different groups to vent against other groups that they perceive to be "the enemy". People in the media need to be held accountable for their words.
Your response was beneath you Tom.
I never excused what Beck said, I was merely pointing it out in it's context. You failed to do that by comparing the two.
Of course people are responsible for their words, and some people say nasty offensive things all the time and you have every right to call them on it, if you choose.....but in the world of talk radio and chatfest TV, the more outrageous it is the more press it gets. It feeds off of itself.
But to compare some dopey radio host and the crap they spew on an hourly basis with far more serious death threats by an unnamed anonymous stranger is far worse. Beck's comments weren't cloaked in secrecy or investigated by authorities because they knew their intent and Beck didn't hide his identity when spouting off..........the same cannot be said for Tancredo's situation. And you know that.
Because THIS
Of course Beck uses an extreme example to make his point, but his point about the PC world we live in is valid and thought provoking.
Pretty much sounds like an excuse to me.
Tommy hit a nerve when he brought up PC.
Kryptonite, the Soft Underbelly, Vampire with a cross thrust in his face.
He often makes good points and just as often makes weak appologies for rightwing screechmonkeys. This was the latter. Are you ever going to post something with substance or is this jr High sniping all you are good for?
is your sniping and name-calling, then?
Also, learn the meaning of CONCISE and put it to good use. One does not have to run every point into the ground to contribute to discussion, does one?
Of my posts fluctuates wildly based on the posts I am responding to. YOURS BARELY inspire jr high level responses. When I SEE substance I RESPOND with substance. When I SEE snipinig I respond with sniping. Its all amusement for me
I thought you were saving the world, not doing this for recreation.
I'm disappointed.
I do other things to change the world, THIS is entertainment.
Well, Tommy . . . glad to know you're inside the head of Glenn Beck {now THAT'S scary} and know exactly what he's thinking . . .
So ODD how, whenever a rightwingnut noisemaker like Beck is "thinking" about killing Michael Moore, or Crazy Annie says the only question about Clinton is "whether to impeach or assassinate", its "just a joke", or "its taken out of context" . . . yet death threats against the GOP/rightwing are ALWAYS to be taken seriously . . .
If the authorities, or anyone who isn't blinded by their dislike of Glenn Beck, thought Beck was being anything other than facetious when he publicly, on his program, made the "threat" - they would have investigated it. As far as I know they did not. They took it for what it was, as did I.
So if anyone was in "Beck's head", it was not me - it was any and all law enforcement officials who apparently figured it out as bloviating hyperbole.........too bad you can't.
If the authorities, or anyone who isn't blinded by their dislike of Glenn Beck, thought Beck was being anything other than facetious when he publicly, on his program, made the "threat" - they would have investigated it. As far as I know they did not. They took it for what it was, as did I.
So it's okay for Beck to make petty death threats because nobody takes him seriously? What kind of standard are you using where it's OKAY to talk about murdering someone for disagreeing with you? May I remind you that some people, as frightening as it is, TAKE BECK SERIOUSLY, and actually LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS? Beck is like some Bizarro Spider-man: great power, great irresponsibility.
Where did I say it was OK to issue death threats? I said that some are taken with more seriousness than others.
Yes, some death threats are more damaging than others. But you're defending Beck's hypocrisy here, which is the same thing as saying it's okay for him to do it.
Death threats, even ones not substantiated, given TO rightwing bloviators must be taken seriously. Death threats made BY rightwing bloviators are NOT to be taken seriously.
Let's face it, Beck is the epitome of small minded, smarmy hatred. No doubt about it, especially after the crap he flung at Keith Elison, the first Moslem elected to the House of Reps.
With that in mind, consider Beck's odd and strangely passionate desire to strangle Michael Moore. Was he seriously passionate, even lustful about the prospect? Yes. Was he actually planning to do it? Probably not. However, if Thomas a Becket were around, he'd vouch for the danger posed by a venemous fool expressing a "wish" that his enemy be murdered. So now, when the very same kind of (possibly) idle threat is flung at one of Beck's heroes, Beck's denunciation of it is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Add in all of Ann Coulter's threats. Why isn't it a Soviet style attempt to threaten opponents? And isn't it absurd to consider Tancredo a victim of excessive government force when he's the one trying to use it?
Tancredo is using excessive government force because he strongly favors strict border control, of OUR OWN borders?
"isn't it absurd to consider Tancredo a victim of excessive government force when he's the one trying to use it?"
It's absurd to act like Tancredo is a victim of the government, when he is the government.
How is Tancredo the victim of goverment?
This is like the "who's on first" bit...
BECK is likening Tancredo to victims of Soviet repression. The difference being pointed out here is that it's TANCREDO who is advocating more forceful governmental control.
I have no clue what point you are trying to make here. What exactly is "TANCREDO who is advocating more forceful governmental control"? Explain please.
I am trying to explain wht you misread.
The point was made above that it is ironic that Tancredo is being likened, by Beck, to a victim of Soviet repression. The irony relates to the fact that Tancredo, Representative of Colorado in the U.S. Congress, is in fact a member of government, rather than a dissident.
I have no dog in this fight, I was just trying to explain to you what you seem to have misunderstood.
They are the ones who gave us warrantless wiretapping
To compare Tancredo's death threats against him with Beck's silly "ruminating" on Michael Moore is ridiculous.....and a perfect example of what Beck is talking about. Political correctness gone amok.
So when does Beck get carted off to be "re-educated"?
that he's ever been educated, which is doubtful.
it seems to me that many times when a right wing idiot makes a stupid statement tommy says they are being funny but if its left wing its taken seriously just an observation
Beck gets PAID to make death threats.
Death threats = wrong? Wow, Glenn. Never looked at it that way before. Thanks for clearing that up for both myself and the unwashed the cable masses .
But, Glenn....who exactly has been hauled away into PC re-education?
Conservatives have been "debating" how the PC crowd is stifling the debate for years now. They're so stifled by political correctness, they've can't stop talking about it on tv and radio.
Wow, PC really is keeping them down.
that the threat against tancredo was unsubstantiated ("his appearance was cancelled when the restaurant allegedly began receiving death threats"). Can't let that stop a good illogical rant against the non-existent problem of "political correctness" though.
Everyone knows how the open border, pro illegal immigration folks feel about Tancredo's tough stance against surrending the sovereignty of our country......so death threats against him would not be a big surprise.
They may be unsubstantiated, but I would imagine he would have reason to feel more threatened than Michael Moore did against Glenn Beck.
...the open border, pro illegal immigration folks...
Who? I wasn't aware that anybody favored illegal immigration besides immigrant smugglers.
La Raza, for one. Not to mention the millions who took to the streets last May 1 to rally. There are plenty of groups who push for open borders.
I looked at La Raza's website. Looks to me like they advocate changing immigration laws so that more people can immigrate legally. That's not being "pro illegal immigration."
Of course they don't publicly advocate it on their website, but listen to anything they say - they never even use the term illegal - it's all just immigrants to them. Look at the legislation they push in CA.
You can believe what you want, but to think they don't want open borders is naive.
What do you mean by "open borders"? Do you mean no immigration laws at all? I didn't see any evidence of that either.
Do they only let you know about these schemes (pro-open borders, pro-illegal immigration) when you've reached a certain level of membership?
I said believe what you want about La Raza. They are for open borders, no borders at all. There is no distinction regarding illegals to them.
Call them up and ask them about their membership requirements, if you are interested.
I thought maybe you could substantiate your comments, but I guess you can't. That's cool, you can believe what you want.
And you can believe that no groups in our country advocate open borders.......it's just a nonissue. That's cool.
I just don't know of any.
threats to this country's borders, and to put blinders on rather than see those who are for open borders... here's one you'll accept. George Bush! He is a closet open border guy. Google North American Union.
Tommy says "I don't care what the facts are, I don't care what the group says they stand for... I believe it and thus it must be so.
I can see why you spend your time trolling liberal websites.
Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly.
After all, you take La Raza at their word, then I would suppose you do the same for groups you disagree with?
I think it was Rusty that made the argument about AFA (which is Wildmon's organization, rather than Dobson's Focus on the Family).
I'm going to let him defend his own argument.
Rusty did not bring it up. I brought up Focus on Family as an analogy to La Raza and how some groups publicly say one thing, yet privately work towards more devious ends.
We may be getting lost in the weeds viz. Focus on the Family. Does Focus on the Family, La Raza, or MMFA for that matter have a different agenda in private than it has in public? I would want to see evidence of it, regardless of whether I agree with the group in question or not.
I don't like to see my allies slandered, and I don't want to waste my time fighting the wrong people.
From Tommy: Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly.
From Focus on the Family website: God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
Considering they are claiming to speak for a God whose holy men would often have multiple wives, and are using their God to make a thinly veiled anti-gay-marriage statement, I'd say that's an open display of vitriol.
[link to www.family.org]
If you believe that Focus on Family is very clear and upfront about what they really want and advocate publicly, then fine.
I've given more evidence for Focus on the Family's open agenda than you've given for La Raza's secret agenda.
"Go to the Focus on Family's website and see if they display their vitriol against gays so publicly."
That's ridiculous. Nobody on Focus on the Family has EVER displayed any kind of vitriol against gays. You think that opposing gay marriage and gay adoption is displaying vitriol against gays? If so, then I guess you believe that a majority of the American people display vitriol against gays. There are some organizations that display virtriol against gays, but Focus on the Family isn't one of them. They are as mainstream as they come. You should provide some proof next time before making such baseless and ridiculous assertions.
This topic is not about gay marriage or Focus on the Family. I only brought it up as an analogy to other groups who aren't so public on their websites or in their literature as to what their intentions are.
If you believe that F on the F has no vitriolic characteristics against gay people, that is your take. I stand by what I said.
As someone once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
I'm simply saying that you should provide some proof before you make statements like that. Do you have any proof that F&F is vitriolic against gays?
Never had an opportunity to say that before...
But let me just say this - these are the antonyms for vitriolic? Flattering, good-humored, kind, nice, sweet, warm.........would you associate any of these characteristics with F on the F towards gay people?
then I'm a mentally ill, a S*l*u*t that canot keep a relationship together, AIDS is a gay disease and I'm going to hell... Oh yes and I'm just picking this life style for fun (because people are so nice) and I can be changed through aversion therapy.
Sounds rather sweet in the way they put it on thier site because there really only concerned about trying to help me.
Focus on the Family takes the position of "hate the sin, love the sinner." They believe that homosexuality is a sin because of what the Bible says about it, but they believe that we should show love towards homosexuals and show them that there is a better way to live. They have never demonized homosexuals personally. They have always stated that God loves everybody equally, even if he disagrees with the particular lifestyle that homosexuals to live.
Meant, choose to live
The Bible says all sorts of things. Why isn't F on the F so "vitriolic" in their "hate the sin" on this, just one example of many. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
Good point. I hate it when these groups use the bible to justify their bigotry and when they proclaim to love the people they work tirelessly to oppress. There are many many beautiful things in the bible, but some of the practices of biblical times were barbaric and scary and were born out of ignorance. Our biblical ancestors were still evolving and there was much of the world they didn't understand. Answers to the mysteries of life which include sexuality have been slowly discovered by human kind. Unfortunately it takes some of us much longer to discover and or accept new information when it's revealed. Those people are drawn to groups like Focus on the Family. They say that God loves homosexuals he just doesn’t approve of who they sleep with. I assume that in the after life that ALL of us will transition from the earthly carnal beings that God created and into spiritual ones anyway. Moreover, I can’t imagine a God up on high spending his time peeking into bedrooms. The God I love can’t be that petty. I feel sorry for the Focus crowd. It’s odd to be that obsessed with what two consenting adult strangers choose to do with their body parts. But I must admit it makes me furious when these bigots attempt to impose their bigoted will on others with phony smiles and words of love.
Could these threads be any harder to read? Let's keep replying until only one letter will fit on a line...
in the Age of Grace.
that is.
They dont REALLY advocate it but with your amazing mind reading powers you have deduced that they DO advocate it. Not what they SAY which is more liberal LEGAL immigration standards. I ssseeeee.
can blame unfettered illegal immigration on anyone but themselves. They have been the majority in congress and the senate for the PAST 12 YEARS.
Bush is biggest offender of them all.
and amen. They deserved the @$$-kicking they got for that alone, amonst other reasons.
here over the past year or so, that have gotten all over posters who have pointed out that we need to control our borders, especially during the time that the Minutemen were the "topic de jour" for a period of time. If they are/were against illegal immigration, they are/were doing a darn poor job of explaining that position.
That it didnt stop him from making rude and insulting remarks about a major American city, but of course you KNOW that its his policies NOT his rude and offensive behavior that has people mad at him. Tancredo is a boor, a churlish and rude man Beck is an idiot whose re-education camp remark is pretty much par for the course and about average on his stupidity scale.
Tancredo is absolutely correct on his stance against illegal immigration. Your childish name calling is what is rude and churlish.
Are only relevant in this context because YOU decided THEY are what caused the anger and not what he said. Which apparantly you have no problem with. Its OK for an elected official to publicly call Miami a third world country, no bigotry there, but I am somehow crossing the line for stating that this kind of rhetoric is rude and churlish. THAT is namecalling not demeaning a major US city. You have zero credibility on the namecalling subject, for somereason its only us anonymous posters on a website that are guilty not those spewing it to national audiences
Miami does resemble a third world country, that's not bigotry or rude churlish rhetoric, it's a fact. Since when is telling the truth demeaning? Just more of solon's typical moonbat logic.
Because YOU and Beck say so. No, its a rude slander and bigotry we all know he is snivelling about furriners and non whites. See just because YOU are also rude and churlish doesnt make ME a moonbat.
How pathetic. A congressman making an appearance at a restaurant.
Maybe someone was dissatisfied with the meat-loaf special.
among commoners. Even trailer trash.
It's called disagreeing with someone.
Isn't it interesting how certain positions are characterized as "Politically Correct," and so removed from the spectrum of reasonable debate?
Pot, meet kettle.
key words and phrases cause the head to tilt (almost imperceptibly, but tilt, nonetheless). The eyes glaze, and rote regurgitation of righteously indignant chastisements come spewing forth.
It mostly comes from rightwingers
Beck is absolutely right here. There is a new faction on the left that has the goal of stifling free speech for anyone with a conservative view point. Media Matters is part of that new faction. They post so called "politically incorrect" comments by prominent conservatives and try to get them off the air. They create petitions to try to get conservatives off the air for merely expressing their conservative views. They also want to put the fairness doctrine back in place to try to try to silence conservatives. This is a new brand of liberalism that is trying to do away with the 1st Amendment. It is very scary and frightening. It's political correctness at its very worst.
of the Fairness Doctrine, it doesn't "silence" anybody. It requires both sides of political issues to be aired.
As for stifling free speech, why don't you check out your compatriots over at the American Family Association. They are all about suppressing speech they disagree with. [link to www.afa.net]
They have the right to advocate, and so does MMFA.
"They are all about suppressing speech they disagree with."
Not necessarily that, but they want to force the major networks to pull any material that they find objectionable. I don't agree with this faction of conservatives. I consider myself more of a libertarian in regards to these kinds of issues. I think that people should have the right to choose what they want to watch on T.V. without government intervention, and those that are 18 or older can decide for themselves what kind of material they want to look at on the internet. However, these social conservatives at least aren't trying to stifle political speech. The link that you provided provided no examples of them trying to stifle political speech.
on how you define "political." Is "political speech" limited to what politicians and candidates say, or does it more broadly include anyone's speech about political issues? I think the latter.
In that respect, AFA does seek to suppress political speech. It calls for people to boycott companies (like Ford) who sponsor media that isn't sufficiently pro-"family" (usually by not being sufficiently anti-gay).
They also screamed about NBC airing "The Book of Daniel," which AFA considered anti-Christian, until several affiliates pulled the show.
So that's not "scary and frightening"? But what MMFA does is?
First of all, I don't see how calling for a boycott is stifling anyone's free speech. They aren't calling for any type of government intervention in that case. Also, this particular case has nothing to do with political speech. Ford has been giving some of their profits to homosexual organizations, and the AFA is merely urging Christian conservatives not to buy Ford products. This in no way stifles free speech. This is something that is being done privately. The AFA is not urging the government to get involved.
"They also screamed about NBC airing "The Book of Daniel," which AFA considered anti-Christian, until several affiliates pulled the show."
Again, I don't necessarily agree with what they did here, but how was this show an example of "political speech?" Are you trying to say that anything that is anti-Christian is liberal and anything that is pro-Christian is conservative?
was not really political speech. It doesn't matter though. The distinction between political and non-political speech is only important when we're talking about the government restricting speech. Here, as you pointed out, we're talking about private action.
AFA's efforts to punish companies that don't toe their "pro-family" line is intended to influence how those companies spend their advertising dollars, which in turn influences what is expressed in the media. Boycott companies who advertise in, for example, gay media -> companies pull advertising from gay media -> no more gay media.
That's fine, it's their right, but you have to admit they are attempting to stifle speech.
They aren't calling for any type of government intervention in that case.
Neither is MMFA.
The Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past by Presidents of both political parties to try to silence those that have opposite political view points. Before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, no opinion talk shows were allowed to air on the radio. If the fairness doctrine never would've been repealed, then conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity never would've been allowed on the air. But I guess that's why you love the Fairness Doctrine so much. You can't compete in the market place, so you have to have the government come in to try to make it even.
It's wrong for the government to force a radio station to carry liberals who are unpopular and nobody wants to listen to. If they were forced to carry these liberals, the liberals would eventually have to quit their talk shows because very few people would actually listen to them. With no liberals left on the radio stations, the radio stations would not be able to air conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity, because in that case you would have conservatives with no liberal balance. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to air "neutral" commentators in place of partisan commentators like Limbaugh and Hannity. This would stifle the free speech of conservatives.
I thought the whole media marketplace was dominated by liberals, with the exception of the brave few rebels like Hannity and Rush. That's what the righties are always screeching. "Liberal media! Liberal media! Booga booga!"
Now you say there's no liberal viewpoint in the media?
Which is it?
There's hardly any liberal view points on talk radio. That's what I was talking about. That's one form of the media that the conservatives actually dominate. T.V. and the print press is a different story. The television media leans left and the print media is hard left. Also, many television personalities claim to be neutral when they are in fact liberal. Dan Rather is one obvious example. Another example is Keith Olbermann. He claims to be neutral, but he bashes conservatives on a regular basis and is obviously part of the far left. At least conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity admit who they are. The liberals on television try to disguise themselves as being "neutral" and "centrist."
1. "Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past by Presidents of both political parties to try to silence those that have opposite political view points." 2. Liberal talk radio is unpopular.
It would be helpful if you didn't conflate the two.
Your first point is a mess: first, what is your evidence that this even occurred? It seems counter-intuitive: how do your silence dissent by REQUIRING that dissenting viewpoints be aired. Some clarity here would help.
Your second point is on more solid ground, though the liberal talk radio in my town has so many ads I can barely listen to it. Would the fairness doctrine mandate one hour of, say, Rachel Maddow for every hour of Limbaugh?
"Would the fairness doctrine mandate one hour of, say, Rachel Maddow for every hour of Limbaugh?"
Yes. The Fairness Doctrine would require that every form of media be fair and balanced according to the government's standards of what fair and balanced is. Thus, when you have a liberal Democrat as president, you are going to have a liberal media, because what a liberal considers to be fair and balanced is farther to the left than what a centrist or conservative considers to be fair and balanced. The opposite is true as well. If you had a conservative Republican as president, you would have a conservative media, because what a conservative considers to be fair and balanced is farther to the right than what a centrist or liberal considers to be fair and balanced. Thus, the political ideology of the media would shift as the balance of power in the White House shifted. I think that we are much better off letting private networks decide what fair and balanced is, rather than the federal government.
Also, I just remember reading that Presidents of both parties used the Fairness Doctrine to silence commentators. I can't remember exactly where I saw that at, but I'll try to find it.
"I think that we are much better off letting private networks decide what fair and balanced is, rather than the federal government." -td
Because the federal government is of the people, by the people, for the people and private networks are of the profit, by the profit, for the profit?
Sorry, my friend I'll take people over profits everytime.
BTW, the fairness doctrine only requires a portion time for rebuttal not equal time.
There was always political talk on TV. All the fairness doctrine would do is demand equal time for opposing viewpoints. Rush would be required to either have opposing views aired on his show or the network would have to allow the other side to be presented at another time. I understand why you guys are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. Our ideas are better and the only way the Rush's of this world can push THEIR agenda is with totall conformity of message. NEVER hear the other side.
"I understand why you guys are afraid of the marketplace of ideas."
Uh, no were not. Our country has the market place of ideas right now. Television and radio networks put the commentators on who get the best ratings. If you think that the commentators on the radio and T.V. are too conservative, then that means that you are losing in the marketplace of ideas. People simply don't want to listen to liberal commentators. Just look at how unpopular Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are.
When someone says that since WE own the airwaves and it should provide a public service then BOTH sides should be heard. As for your silly assertion we are losing in the marketplace of ideas it cannot be supported. This venue or that cannot tell the story. Maybe liberals dont like the concept of advocacy TV or Radio. Plenty of liberal books do quite well. And THEY arent being propped up by bulk sales by billionaires like Richard Mellon Schiafe. Conservatives didnt do to well in the last election. Over time we are movin toward less bigotry and more tolerance. More individual freedom. It looks like we are winning the war of ieas.
There is no free speech aspect to who is and who ISNT qualified to speak on OUR airwaves to national audiences when MMFA calls for conservatives to be ARRESTED for spewing their hatespeech, lies and blatant stupidity get back to us. That is unless the first amendment allows ME to put up a liberal billboard in YOUR frontyard or I am being denied MY free speech rights by MSNBC not letting ME espouse my opinion on the airwaves.
Once again, you don't own anything except your T.V set. If you don't want to listen to a particular commentator, then change the station to something different. Nobody is forcing you to watch something that you don't want to watch. The government has absolutely no right to regulate political speech. That is blatantly unconstitutional. These private networks like Fox News, CNN, CBC and others do not receive any money from the government, and the government has NO right to regulate what they can say.
The public airwaves are just that. I don't think that there is an unlimited right to broadcast whatever, just because you own a transmitter.
Note that I am not signing on unrestrictedly to every opnion presented in this thread - I am still working out my own opinion. I do object to the idea that people with the most money get to dominate the public discourse and if we don't like it we can just turn the TV off.
Fox News ran at a loss for years, so I don't buy "marketplace" of ideas. The invisible hand got a big help from Rupert Murdoch's millions.
FOX News, CNN, CBC, etc. do not broadcast over the public airwaves - they're cable networks. They aren't using a public resource like the broadcast networks are, and are subject to far less regulation. That's why you see stuff on Skinemax that you would never see on CBS.
That was dumb. Sorry.
And I dont believe it is correct. The FCC also regulates cable. It is also considered a public trust
[link to 209.85.165.104]
The FCC’s main duty is to manage the public airwaves. Their regulations affect all varietiesof broadcasting, telephone, cable, cell phone, and satellite companies. The FCC issupposed to ensure that broadcasters who use the airwaves, free of charge, are servingthe “public interest” in return
I agree with Solon!
You're right, the FCC regulates cable. However, cable and broadcast are regulated differently in some respects - for instance, allowable sexual content and profanity. That's all I meant.
I'm out of here for the holidays. Merry Christmas all!
I actually meant CBS and not CBC. Sorry for the confusion.
You repeating this wont make it true. WE DO OWN the public airwaves they are a public resource, this is NOT in dispute. Just because you refuse to accept the reality because you so prefer the delusional fantasies you have made up in your head will never MAKE them reality. N0 one wants any regulation of political speech. And you are flat out wrong as you usually are. The are EXPLOITING a public resource to make their money that gives the government every right to demand they provide a public service and to regulate them. Just because you have no idea what you are talking about wont change that.
Please see Rusty's comment concerning the public airwaves. You are mistaken.
NO I AM NOT. Even IF cable were different which according to the FCC they are not, TD made a blanket statement that the government has NO right to regulate the airwaves at ALL. This is plaingly wrong. There is NO DISPUTE that the airwaves are a public resource which IS owned by the public. As per usual it is YOU who are wrong. I am sure by now you are used to it.
Please, give me a break. Conservatives have been whining about "political correctness" for years. What is so sad is that they've been imposing their own brand of political correctness through their culture war and their mindless jingoism following 9/11. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.
When Christofascists force a Grocery Store Chain to stop carrying a major fashion magazine because it's "offensive", or try to ban Harry Potter from school libraries, what do you call that? Religiously Fanatical Correctness?
Nerzog, if you had a show like beck's and used the word "Christofascist" on a regular basis the network would yank you right off the air because you'd be offending the viewers' delicate sensibilities. Yet beck goes on the air day after day to an international audience, smearing everybody who isn't a right-wing Christian American, and he claims his speech is being restricted by "political correctness." I wouldn't expect him to see the irony, though.
**Yet beck goes on the air day after day to an international audience, smearing everybody who isn't a right-wing Christian American...**
WTF are you talking about? Beck doesn't SMEAR anyone. To smear one's reputation is to make someone look like someone they are not, or to lie about them as in libel or slander.
Beck poses facts on the air and openly invites those he disagrees with to discuss the issues with him on the air. If he disagrees with someone he presents the situation, what the other person said (using quotes when possible) and then expresses his own opinion.
Give us an example of someone he has smeared. If you can't provide concrete evidence, your opinion is meaningless and uninformed. NOT a slam, a fact based on a potential lack of facts. Prove me otherwise.
Jimmy Carter is a "waste of skin." - glenn beck
That's an insult. A smear is an attempt to discredit someone.
The reason nobody is stupid enough to use the word "Christfascists" on any network is because the term is nothing but inflammatory, with no factual basis, and would offend nearly 80% of the country. The person using it would probably be off the air in no time, not because they were yanked, but due to low ratings.
What does that have to do with what I was saying? I was pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the righties who whine about "PC" but are so quick to take screeching offense at anything they deem "Christian-bashing."
Nerzog, if you had a show like beck's and used the word "Christofascist" on a regular basis the network would yank you right off the air because you'd be offending the viewers' delicate sensibilities.
***********************
I was just disagreeing with it.
there's no "political correctness" or "religious correctness" problem at all, then. The free market is the sole arbiter of who gets to speak on TV.
Please inform glenn beck so he can stop his whining.
Miami, much of the Southwest, Texas, California, AND far TOO many other locals WITHIN OUR *United States* BORDERS do look and sound like Third World Countries.
But saying as much--even though it's the TRUTH--drives the PC crowd wild. Tough.
Come here LEGALLY. Assimilate [this INCLUDES learning to speak English].
Those that come HERE to the US only to *recreate the country* they left behind should think about going back to wherever that was.
IF I want to experience a Latino OR any OTHER country's culture I'll hop on a plane and go visit there.
WHY should Americans feel like they are visiting a foreign country when they visit Miami? Or any other American city??
Now you can all blast me as being an xenophobe if you'd like. I don't really much care.
BUT could it be I'm simply just someone who'd like to have American Culture preserved? Oops that's probably not PC ;-)
I thought the right was all about freedom.
Why is anyone who comes to this country not free to speak the language they want to speak, or have whatever cultural identity they choose?
You are 100% that they have the freedom to do that very thing. The problem that a growing portion of the US population is tired of is that some people enter this country and then demand that their culture be recognized and catered to at the expense of other cultures. Do NOT tell me that English as a Second Language is an expression of freedom. It is a blatant catering and enabling of a different culture. Where are the French, German, Japanese, Chinese et al classes for little children? THE DON'T FRIGGIN EXIST! Why? Because those countries are not flooding our borders, demanding attention, inconveniencing LEGAL citizens or sending back revenue to their homeland.
In blue collar speak, I'd like to be able to get through the drive through at Taco Bell and have the person at the register get my damned order right and be able to carry a conversation with me.
Do you think raising the Mexican flag over a school or post office is acceptable? Do you think that groups of Mexicans that live in the US that plainly and openly state that they want to "reclaim what was theirs" are trying to simply exert free speech? If you do you are a moron plain and simple.
"The problem that a growing portion of the US population is tired of is that some people enter this country and then demand that their culture be recognized and catered to at the expense of other cultures."
-----
How dare the Irish block major thoroughfares all over the country with their St Patrick's Day Parades.
Yeah, good point.
Moreover, who exactly is "catering to" Latino culture in this country? I live 20 miles from the border, and you'd be better off swearing in public, or farting, or God forbid smoking in public, than speaking with a noticeably Latin accent.
English is right up there with Arabic and Korean amoung the very hardest languages for a non-native speaker to learn. Those of you who took it in with mother's milk and Sesame Street... have a heart, would you?
"Moreover, who exactly is "catering to" Latino culture in this country? I live 20 miles from the border, and you'd be better off swearing in public, or farting, or God forbid smoking in public, than speaking with a noticeably Latin accent. "
WHAT?!?!?!? =8-|
I live in San Antonio, a place I would consider pretty close to Ground Zero as far as immigration goes. It's not Pharr or Brownsville, but it's pretty close.
"English as a second language" (ESL) is common in elementary schools in Texas. It is for students that don't know enough English to make it through elementary school. Why? Maybe their parents haven't learned enough english to teach their kids? Did we offer these classes in German, Italian, et al back in the early 1900s when we had major immigration going on? NO. Foreigners entered the US to become Americans and seek the American Dream, not to preserve their old way of life. Offering ESL classes is a welfare attitude... don't motivate people to get work. Give them money for staying home instead. It delays the inevitable. It's like passing on the student that can't read to the next grade... they'll fix it next year. Pretty soon someone that can't read is graduating high school.
Back to catering:
In addition to Spanish dedicated classes in schools, we have billboards galore all over town that are solamente en espanol. The local Best Buy has EVERY category of product, every section listed in both English and Spanish. Forms for everything are automatically printed in both English and Spanish. That's catering.
Try finding a job with the city or in local government and someone that speaks only English will be turned down to someone that speaks fluent spanish and broken English (whether or not the job description requires Spanish)
Schools here celebrate Cinco de Mayo with parades, all-day festivals, etc. I actually hate Cinco de Mayo because it glorifies Mexico's victory over the French. Since I'm of European decent it is not a day of celebration for me.
Furthermore, thanks to the flood of illegals into Texas every border county and large city in the southern have of TX now requires addtional immunization shots for students before entering school. Living in Dallas our shot records were fine... moving south required that our kids get more shots. (not necessarily a catering issue, but a direct response to the presence of illegals)
Insurance costs are higher here than in northern cities of Texas due to the larger number of uninsured drivers (most are Mexican drivers). My bill went up $200/yr just for moving here.
As to people in your town 20 miles from Mexico, perhaps the reason people get upset if you have "a noticeably Latin accent" is that they are tired of it in their face all of the time. Tired of the "we want our country back" attitude that a growing Mexican contingent is saying; tired of the strain on hospitals for delivering babies for free or attending to gunshot wounds for free.
BUT, I can't convince you so I'll end my rant. You are apparently blind to reality.
and just how many of our tax dollars do they expect us to spend teaching Gaelic for all these years?
A really limp analogy, Shaklee!
limp analogy, Easy.
I don't get your riposte. Are we spending too much in tax dollars to teach Spanish to immigrants (I thought they knew it already)?
Or is it teaching English as a Foreign Language that you object to? But you want them to speak "our" language, right?
Ask your doctor if a free sample is right for you...
because you don't realize how many of your hard-earned dollars are spent subsidizing imported language and culture. Nothing wrong with other languages, other cultures. To preserve and honor them here has always been encouraged.
But subsidizing other cultures and languages is ridiculous.
I want Gaelic classes. My Mom is an immigrant from Ireland.
Sure... throw a holiday out there to distract from the real issue. Be careful using sarcasm around here, Beck tries it and gets flamed on a regular basis.
And speak any language you wish...WITHIN the PRIVACY of your own home and with your friends & family. BUT do NOT expect the US to accommodate you in PUBLIC.
IF someone chooses to come live in the US, then they should make the EFFORT to learn the customs & language of our country.
I can understand... It's a vital part of succeeding in the US and should be encouraged (not forced)...
What customs are you referring to?
assimilating as Americans, and then hating the next group of immigrants who dare to sully our shores. I'm a second-generation Italian-American like Tancredo... not proud to say there are a lot of guineas like me who agree with him.
Suck-up, kick-down. Time-honoured American customs like that.
how much of your hard-earned bread is being spent subsidizing the Salad Bowl instead of the Melting Pot that has worked just fine as a concept up til recently.
But saying as much--even though it's the TRUTH--drives the PC crowd wild. Tough.
The "PC crowd"? You mean Jeb Bush? He's the only one I heard complain.
A QUOTE FROM JETER:
BUT could it be I'm simply just someone who'd like to have American Culture preserved? Oops that's probably not PC ;-)
Hi Jeter, PAT BUCHANNON is your man. Seek him out and read his new book. I tried to get a link for you but his Website is out of order again. But if you register at this site you can get his book, "State of Emergency" for free.
https://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/SingleBookJoin.asp?sour_cd=sb082az&prod_cd=c6947
Pat has your concerns. Even though our country prides itself on being home of the free, Buchanan like you wants to stop the people of color from staining his white Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. He's concerned about whites losing their grip on our government.
I can just imagine his horror if Obama was our president. I see Obama as a refreshing change from the usual white male standard. Sometimes I wonder if Pat would have felt more secure in a situation where blond hair and blue eyes were the standard to be preserved and protected.
A country like Hitler's Germany, where they were brutal in their efforts to preserve the favored German culture.
In my heart of hearts I'm hoping and praying that my USA does not become another Nazi Germany that exterminates the undesirable cultures.
Is that what your advocating? I sure hope not. That IS what Pat wants. He came right on out and said it in his book. He's not calling for ethnic cleansing. At least I don't think he is.
To rid yourself of the other wonderful cultures that are part of our great and free country, maybe you could consider getting your own private island.
There are some great German areas in Texas that I have had the pleasure of visiting. I would never live there though because I enjoy all the great cultures of our free country.
I'd simply IGNORE a post like yours, BUT I'll bend my own rules and reply.
Nice how you *cherry-pick* one sentence. How you IGNORE the rest of my 2 posts that CLEARLY have nada to do with your INSULTING response.
So I'm what? A bigot? WHY? For having the AUDACITY to suggest that people come HERE to the US LEGALLY and make the EFFORT to ASSIMILATE and LEARN English? You have a problem with that?
Look numbnuts there is NO reason that I or any other American should need a translator when visiting a US city.
Both sets of my Grandparents [now deceased] came here from Italy. They NEVER were able to pick up the phone and be told they could press a key to hear the message in Italian. They kept their language & culture alive within their own home and among friends & family. They NEVER expected to be ACCOMMODATED by the English speaking population of the US. They learned English and assimilated. AND didVERY well in EVERY respect.
IF I should decide to move to Italy don't you think it would behoove me to TRY and learn the language & customs? To assimilate? If not, then I'm gonna be a very lonely guy. And probably find it tough to find work and be confused by my surroundings on a daily basis
How dare you even SUGGEST that Pat Buchanan speaks for me.
You wrote:
"Pat has your concerns. Even though our country prides itself on being home of the free, Buchanan like you wants to stop the people of color from staining his white Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. He's concerned about whites losing their grip on our government."
Go ahead dumb a#s SHOW me WHERE I suggested such a thing??
Sammy boy I've been posting here a lot longer than you, and the regs here KNOW I'm nothing like you are IMPLYING.
When I come across posters like YOU, I make a note to myself to IGNORE any further communication.
So copy & paste THIS post...keep it as a souvenir. It's the one & only time I'll give you the time of day.
Hey Sammy your computer could use an overhaul!
Thanks for distancing yourself from Pat Buchanan. If I misunderstood your post I certainly apologize, but I'm including it here to make sure I'm not cherry picking as you said I was.
I did not call you a bigot, I simply asked you a simple question, based on what your post was about.....Do you support Pat Buchanan's call for a white USA? Some of my best friends support him and they are still my friends. We agree to disagree and move on.
Here's You Post:
THIS subject makes my blood boil...Miami, much of the Southwest, Texas, California, AND far TOO many other locals WITHIN OUR *United States* BORDERS do look and sound like Third World Countries. But saying as much--even though it's the TRUTH--drives the PC crowd wild. Tough. Come here LEGALLY. Assimilate [this INCLUDES learning to speak English]. Those that come HERE to the US only to *recreate the country* they left behind should think about going back to wherever that was. IF I want to experience a Latino OR any OTHER country's culture I'll hop on a plane and go visit there. WHY should Americans feel like they are visiting a foreign country when they visit Miami? Or any other American city??
Now you can all blast me as being an xenophobe if you'd like. I don't really much care. BUT could it be I'm simply just someone who'd like to have American Culture preserved? Oops that's probably not PC ;-)
• - JETER2 / Tuesday December 19, 2006 03:01:52 PM EST
Sammy: It sure looks, smells and sounds like a duck. Hey, it's your right to want your rules applied to newly arriving citizens. But like anyone else in this free country, they can speak Pig Latin if they want to.
Our country does not force the German Towns in Texas to speak English? And when I visited there I respected and enjoyed experiencing a different culture than my own. I am proud that our country has all of the various cultures.
If I'm not correct about your position being similar to Pat Buchanan's, I hereby extent my full apology.
And By The Way your wrong. I don't have NumbNuts. And what do you mean about my Computer? .. Happy Holidays
Apology accepted, and I apologize for the name-calling. Not my USUAL style here. But every hundred posts or so I let loose with a nasty word or two IF someone has ticked me off. Some of what you wrote I was greatly offended by..
However, I think I can understand how you might get the wrong impression of my attitude regarding THIS topic. While I do believe that everyone who chooses to live in the US SHOULD make the effort to assimilate & learn English, perhaps the way my post came off did sound harsher than I meant it to.
Since you don't have "numbnuts" I'll take that to mean you MIGHT be Samantha?
You post as SamsComputer, so that's why I said your computer might need an "overhaul"...just me being a wise a#s. Sorry about that.
Happy Holidays to you too Sam :-)
GOOD GOD PEOPLE!
Glenn Beck discusses real-wrold political topics and includes COMEDY! SATIRE! IRONY!
SATIRE!
COMEDY!
IRONY!
HELLOOOOOOOOOO? McFlyyyyy?
Please drop the hate blinders for just ONE FRIGGIN MINUTE and try to listen to something in CONTEXT! I can't believe some of the whining left-wing bullcrap that passes as intelligent thought on this message board. I stick around only to understand what the Left thinks... I find great amusemet at times with the latest headlines that MM emails out. People, please wake up and smell the roses, the coffee, or whatever else will knock you back into reality.
that beck is often joking, although his jokes aren't very funny. Still, they are identifiable as jokes.
In this particular instance, though, it sounds like he was trying to make a serious point.
When he calls Carter a wase of skin. When jokes about killing Micheal Moore. When he demands an elected Congressman prove he isnt a terrorist. Hello MORON. It isnt funny. Talking about murdering people is only funny to those who are soulsick. What is the joke? Satire in case you didnt understand the concept is saying the OPPOSITE of what you mean in order to show how ridiculous it is NOT saying what you mean in an offensive way.
if you don't find him funny your just wrong.
Your not entitled to your opinion and you must find his generalizations about ethnic and non-Christian religious groups and smears on individual people hilarious! If you don't then there must be something wrong with you or you have no sense of humor. Stop trying to suppress Glen Beck's free speech already.
Freedom of what? Beck ranted at New School graduation speaker Jean Rohe: "Shut up! Shut up! Shut Up! I can't take her!" Tuesday, May 23, 2006 4:22PM
Man this one is really funny Beck on "blowing up" Iran: "I say we nuke the bastards" Friday, May 12, 2006 4:03PM
This one is a real gem too.. CNN hire Glenn Beck renamed nukes "climate-control devices," suggested bombing of Venezuela Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:13AM
It's unkind to show him up. : (
"Please drop the hate blinders for just ONE FRIGGIN MINUTE "
-----
You first.
How do their actions differ from their rhetoric?
I guess I can ask this question regarding both groups.
Ok, is Beck's repellant drivel outraged expression of deeply felt unease with ethnic differences, or SATIRE, COMEDY, IRONY?
Just so I can tell the wingers without a scorecard, y'know!
Beck combines factual news reporting with editorial views as well as comedy, satire, irony et al. To take him literally is as smart as taking the Bible literally.
Perhaps you should actually try WATCHING the show on M-TH to see what it's about. Honestly, with an open mind, try listening to what he has to say. If after doing so you honestly feel that he is disingenuous or a smear tactiction, so be it. At least give it a try first. That's all most people that support him are asking for.
I gave Air America a try. I love Al Franken's humor and intelligence, yet I can disagree with his politics. The same for John Stewart. To paraphrase from a Lib Icon "Give Beck A Chance" :-)
He's mean. Too mean.
Did I even MENTION Beck? Nope.
THOSE opinions expressed in MY post are, well...MINE.
Hope that clears things up for you. Not really sure WHY you couldn't figure it out by yourself...
You merely rephrased Beck's rant . . . which left me confused as to whether your take, or cannon's, should be my view of wingnuttery.
POST BY: - COMMONSENSE / Monday December 18, 2006 01:11:32 PM EST...
You said, "...just another of the multitude of Conservative Pundits who are all very damaging and divisive to our country." According to the dictionary: "divisive - adjective - tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people: the highly divisive issue of abortion." Therefore, according to your logic, we should never debate issues where people's opinions may differ because that would be damaging to our country. Continuing down your logic path; the only way to avoid disagreement and hostility, or divisiveness, would be for everyone to automatically agree with you. Therefore, your ideas, opinions and statements are not divisive and therefore good for the country. All voices should be silenced because they are “damaging”. Sounds a bit like fascism to me. Once again from the dictionary: “fascism – noun - (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.” Besides smacking of fascism there is the shadow of bigotry: “bigotry – noun - bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” I hope the irony of hypocrisy is not lost on all who may read.
Sam I Am: Thanks again Common. I enjoyed your post. Very good one. Here's my response to it:
Your dictionary is correct on the definition of Divisive. The Conservative Pundits ARE in FACT, dividing our country by promoting disagreement and hostility between the peoples of our country in a hateful and unfriendly style of false information. With the Pundits being replaced with truthful news reporting on the issues, I am hopeful that we would more easily come to a consensus on those issues. Hopefully, as a result our country would not be so split apart as it truly is. So I'm for a lively debate.
Now I know you don’t agree with that but, guess what, I Don’t care. It’s you right to disagree.
Then you defined a bunch more words for me that lied about my character. You concluded that I want everyone to be like me. NOPE. I like freedom and diversity. You Conservatives are the ones trying to clamp down on our freedoms and diversity’s.
Again you don’t agree, and I don’t care because I honor your right to be wrong.
That’s why your Republicans got thumped, because you guys were wrong. The voters wisely saw thru all the smoke and mirrors of your Pundits and kicked you clean out of power. Now your all sour grapes and attacking an independent voter like me.
Here’s Your Take On Me:
COMMON: “Sounds a bit like fascism to me. Once again from the dictionary: “fascism – noun - (in general use) Extreme Right-Wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.”
Sam I Am: OK Now Stop!.........Isn’t this more about EXTREME RIGHT-WINGERS like yourself. When you attacked me you in fact attacked yourself. Your the Right-Winger here, not me. Without even knowing it you were attacking yourself. I’m sorry but that is very amusing.
But wait!.........If I may borrow your dictionary for a moment. I see the word NOTICE. Now I’ll give you some of your own medicine. If you look up under the subheading PHRASES, where you can see phrases very much like these: “Put Republicans On Notice” or “Serve Notice on The Republicans.”
That’s right, the voters have given you Republicans your NOTICE to vacate the House and the Senate. The voters are the “Decider” and they voted for the Democrats. Many of my Republican friends also helped vote you out.
I appreciated you comments. They are very original and creative. Thanks Again.
I forgot to mention that BECK is a major contributor to the dividing up of our country into Two Camps. One against the other in a relentless struggle for control.
are and always have been the carpetbaggers promoting class consciousness and class struggle, hate the rich, etc. etc.
When Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill was asked just who the rich were in those days (this has been going on since Cain and Abel, folks), he said "$50,000 a year on and up"($125,000 in today's dollars). The next day he said the rich were those making $100,000 and up.
So the first group escaped a lynching. And O'Neil wanted their vote.
The point is that politicians using envy as a springboard is as old as the hills.
With all due respect (as Beck would say before insulting someone) how can we take him seriously on matters of history when he apparently believes all that Mormon mythology?
because they STILL let this idiot have a show....I mean, COME ON!!!! Beck is a bad person and should be FIRED by CNN!!
Not only should he be fired, but he would have never been hired if CNN's objective was to deliver quality news and information on the important issues we face today.
But quality is not the goal! They need a shock jock to compete with the other news outlets. And if Beck is more shocking than the competition then CNN wins the ratings war.
Here's a blurb from a similar story (from Netscape and The New York Times) about Christian Warriors:
Student who complained about proselytizing teacher gets… News
– A student who complained after his history teacher used class time to proselytize to his students, tell a Muslim girl she was going to hell, and that Evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific has received at least one death threat. The student tape recorded the teacher's statements on eight different occasions.
Huh. Soviet style Christians anyone?