15 Whoppers Beck Did Not Get Fired For In 2010
In 2010, Glenn Beck repeatedly made up facts on Fox News show -- a barrage of lies that would force any credible news outlet to fire him. Media Matters counts down 15 of the most notable fibs that Beck told this year on Fox News, culminating with the biggest lie of all.
No. 15 The Fed Hoards Its Profits
Beck Complains That "Nobody" Is Looking To Recover The Fed's Profits. During a January interview with Sarah Palin, Beck discussed the Federal Reserve's 2009 profits, and claimed, "Exxon had their record profit a couple of years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. No one's having hearings on the Fed. Nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed. We can't even open the Fed's books." [Fox News, Glenn Beck,1/13/10, via Nexis]
REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]
No. 14 Tax Dollars Funded An Art Exhibit Actually Paid For By Private Donors
BECK: "And Then You Have The Tax Dollars Funding This Wonderful Art Display. It's Christmas At The Smithsonian." Beck said of an exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":
Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.
And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
REALITY: Smithsonian "Receives Public Funds" But "Does Not Use That Money For Exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:
The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.
[...]
As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]
No. 13 Obama Did Not Make Oil Spill "Our Priority"
BECK: Obama Did Not Prioritize The Oil Spill. Beck falsely claimed that Obama did not prioritize ending the oil spill in the Gulf:
BECK: What are we doing now with the spill? If this were really about the spill, we would first work on, what? Stopping this!
Before talking about energy and taxes and cap and trade or solar panels or saying, "Don't tell me that we can't fundamentally transform the country into solar panels and green energy." You would stop the oil spill. You would get a tourniquet. This should be our priority. But it's not. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/17/10]
REALITY: Obama Said "Make No Mistake: We Will Fight This Spill With Everything We've Got For As Long As It Takes." During an address from the Oval Office prior to Beck's claim, Obama stated: "But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy." [Remarks By The President To The Nation On The BP Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 6/15/10]
REALITY: Obama Had Called The Spill "My Top Priority." During an earlier press conference, Obama said: "Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred." He also said, " But here's the broad point: There has never been a point during this crisis in which this administration, up and down up the line, in all these agencies, hasn't, number one, understood this was my top priority -- getting this stopped and then mitigating the damage; and number two, understanding that if BP wasn't doing what our best options were, we were fully empowered and instruct them, to tell them to do something different." [Remarks By The President On The Gulf Oil Spill, WhiteHouse.gov, 5/27/10]
No. 12 U.S. Sending "Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars" Over To Europe
BECK: "Now We Find Out Through The Fed That We Are Going To Do Almost Another Trillion Dollars, Your Tax Dollars, Over To Europe." Discussing efforts by the International Monetary Fund to stabilize European economies, Beck said:
BECK: We also told you that the IMF would bail out Europe. Here we were on this program, oh, I don't know how many months ago. Watch.
BECK [video clip]: We're not only bailing ourselves out, Fannie and Freddie, but now we're trying to bail out Europe as well. The European Union, along with the IMF, is giving $1 trillion to Greece -- $1 trillion. The U.S. contributes 17 percent of the IMF funds.
BECK: OK. So, we told you that, and nobody really paid attention. Now we find out, through the Fed, that we are going to do almost another trillion dollars, your tax dollars, over to Europe.
We also found out that we have sent $3.3 trillion in our bailout, a lot of it went over to Europe, went over to France, went to Germany, Spain, et cetera, et cetera. And we're sending more. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 12/2/10]
REALITY: The WSJ Reported, "The U.S. Isn't Discussing A Larger International Monetary Fund Contribution To The European Rescue Package." The Wall Street Journal reported:
The U.S. isn't discussing a larger International Monetary Fund contribution to the European rescue package, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
European Commission officials have been discussing whether to increase the EUR750 billion rescue package as a way to handle possible sovereign debt problems in Spain and other countries. A bigger fund would likely include a larger financial contribution from the IMF, which now is committed to spending as much as EUR250 billion on euro-zone rescue loans.
(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal Web site, WSJ.com.)
U.S. Undersecretary of Treasury Lael Brainard is now in Germany discussing the Europe's plans to contain the euro zone's sovereign debt woes. A U.S. official said those talks don't now include a larger IMF contribution. [The Wall Street Journal, 12/1/10]
REALITY: AP Reported That A U.S. Official "Said That An Addition To The IMF Support Package Was Not Something That Was Being Discussed Currently." The Associated Press reported:
A U.S. official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because discussions were still ongoing, said that an addition to the IMF support package was not something that was being discussed currently.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did dispatch Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard, Treasury's top official on international matters, for talks with European officials. Brainard had meetings in Madrid with economic officials on Wednesday and was scheduled to be in Berlin on Thursday and Paris on Friday.
The U.S. "can't afford to let Europe implode," said David Gilmore of Foreign Exchange Analytics. But the reported statement by the U.S. official does not necessarily mean that the U.S. has already agreed to a deal allowing the IMF to contribute more money or that it will pony up more money for Europe itself.
Investors were relieved by the implication that the EU and the IMF might be assembling a larger bailout fund, Gilmore said, because of the threat of there not being enough funds for Spain, should it need a rescue.
A spokesman for the EU's monetary affairs chief Olli Rehn said he had not heard of talks about extending the EFSF fund. [Associated Press, 12/1/10]
No. 11 Beck Time Travels To 1995 To Show George Soros "Didn't Mince Words" In 2004
BECK: In 2004, Soros Called The Election "Not A Normal Election," And Said That "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply." Accusing financier and philanthropist George Soros of setting up a "shadow party" to interfere in the 2004 elections, Beck cited David Horowitz and Richard Poe's The Shadow Party and said:
BECK: A shadow party is not a political party, it is a -- at least not in a tangible sense. It works outside the normal electoral system. In 2000, Soros funded one-third of the shadow conventions. Do you even remember these? They were run by Arianna Huffington, the president's favorite source of news. And one of the lead organizers next to her was Jim Wallis, one of the guys who is campaigning against this program, surprise, surprise.
The idea was to parallel the Democratic and Republican conventions -- the shadow convention. Huffington said at the time, the message of the shadow conventions was, quote, "Not left or right, and the answers to these issues are not going to be found in the old ideas of the past. Clearly, the Great Society solution of top-down programs has failed." Top-down programs. "Instead, the answers could be found in the raw power," quoting, "of government appropriations." Wow.
But it was the next election cycle that truly launched the shadow party. In 2004, when Soros didn't mince words, he stated, quote, "This is not a normal election. These are not normal times." And, quote, "I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. And in periods of regime change, normal rules do not apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances."
By the 2004 election cycle, Soros' shadow party had shaped the Democratic message. Under Soros, the guidance of the shadow-party infrastructure had assumed the coherent shape by early 2004. They were seven extensively independent nonprofit groups, which included MoveOn.org that would help the Democrats. Really? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/09/10, emphasis added]
REALITY: Soros Said "I Do Not Accept The Rules Imposed By Others" And "In Periods Of Regime Change, Normal Rules Do Not Apply" In 1995 - Not 2004. Those comments are actually from the 1995 book Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve:
KRISZTINA KOENEN (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): You have been accused of playing by your own rules and changing the rules when it suits you.
SOROS: I plead guilty. I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
Look at the tremendous changes I have gone through on a personal level. Consider my career as a philanthropist. In the beginning, I avoided any personal involvement. I sought to remain anonymous and shunned publicity. Later, when the revolution gathered momentum, I accepted the fact I was deeply involved. After 1989, I actively sought to gain a hearing for my views. That alone was a major change. At the same time, I continued to abstain from doing business in Eastern Europe. Now, I have given that up to. The reversal from my starting point, when I dissociated myself from my philanthropy, is complete. I accept everything that I do, whether as an investor or as a benefactor as an integral part of my existence. And I am very happy about it because in a sense my whole life has been one long effort to integrate various facets of my existence.
There is a remarkable parallel in the evolution of my attitude toward philanthropy and my attitude toward making money. At first, I didn't want to identify myself with my business career. I felt there was more to me than making money. I kept my private life strictly separate from my business. Then I went through a rough patch in 1962, when I was practically wiped out, and it affected me deeply. I had some psychosomatic symptoms, like vertigo. It made me realize that making money is an essential part of existence. Now I am completing the process by doing away with the artificial separation between my activities as investor and as philanthropist.
The internal barriers have crumbled and I am all of one piece. It gives me a great sense of fulfillment. I realize that I cut a larger-than-life figure and I feel ambivalent about that. On one hand, I find it gratifying, but on the other, the sheer magnitude of my activities, both in business and in philanthropy, makes me uneasy. I must admit that I wanted it that way and I probably could not feel all of a piece if I weren't larger than life. It makes me somewhat abnormal and that is the source of malaise. Still, it is better to have abnormal accomplishments than to harbor abnormal ambitions. For the first 50 years of my life, I felt as if I had a guilty secret now it is out in the open and I am proud of what I have accomplished. [Soros on Soros, Pages 145-146, emphasis added]
No. 10 "Every Single American Who Invests" Earns More Than $250,000 Per Year
BECK: President Obama Proposed To Increase The Capital Gains Tax On "Every Single American Who Invests." Beck falsely said that Obama "sought to raise the capital gains tax, which affects every single American who invests, which -- I know that sounds like the big Wall Street fat cats, but if you have a 401(k), that would be you." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/7/10]
REALITY: Obama Proposed Capital Gains Increase Only On "Upper-Income" Earners. The White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000. [Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011]
No. 9 Rauf Is Not A "Peaceful Muslim" Because Someone Else Said Something Nine Years Ago
BECK: "Would A Moderate Imam, A Peaceful Imam Employ Another Imam Who" Said 9-11 Attacks Were "The Jews' Fault"? Discussing Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is a member of the board of trustees at the Islamic Center of New York and who is spearheading efforts to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan, Beck claimed:
Now, let me ask you this: would a moderate imam, a peaceful Muslim employ another imam who told an Arabic language Web site that, quote, "Only the Jews could have perpetrated the 9/11 attack." That kind of sounds like Jeremiah Wright, doesn't it?
And if Americans only knew that it was the Jews' fault, they, quote, "would have done to Jews what Hitler did," end quote. And that Jews, quote, "disseminate corruption in the land and spread heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism and drugs." Oh, that's the kind of moderate imam I've been looking for right there at ground zero. How about you? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/10/10, via Nexis]
REALITY: Comments Attributed To Muhammad Gemeaha. In October 2001, the Middle East Media Research Institute posted a translation of an October 4, 2001, interview that Muhammad Gemeaha gave to the website lailatalgadr.com:
Q: "Does this mean that the Jewish element played a role in igniting the flame of fitna (internal strife)?"
Gamei'a: "The Jewish element is as Allah described it when he said: 'They disseminate corruption in the land.' We know that they have always broken agreements, unjustly murdered the prophets, and betrayed the faith. Can they be expected to live up to their contracts with us? These people murdered the prophets; do you think they will stop spilling our blood? No." "You see these people (i.e. the Jews) all the time, everywhere, disseminating corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs. [Because of them] there are strip clubs, homosexuals, and lesbians everywhere. They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world." "Now, they are riding on the back of the world powers. These people always seek out the superpower of the generation and develop coexistence with it. Before this, they rode on the back of England and on the back of the French empire. After that, they rode on the back of Germany. But Hitler annihilated them because they betrayed him and violated their contract with him." "We saw these Zionists, just one hour after the event, broadcasting on the BBC, the biggest media channel, that the Arabs, and particularly the Palestinians, were celebrating and rejoicing over the American deaths. [To do this] they broadcast a video from 1991, [filmed] during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But Allah thwarted them when a professor from a Brazilian university stated that the video was a forgery, because she had a copy of it. These people have a script prepared in advance, and they have the ability to fabricate events in their favor."
[...]
Q: "What about the American president's declarations that the war that the U.S. is waging is a crusade?"
Gamei'a: "Herein lies the danger. As President Bush said, this is a crusade against Islam and against Muslims, but the American people are innocent in this matter, because the war was planned falsely." "This war will destroy everything. This is [the kind of] war that the American president tried to avoid, when he [tried] to take back what he said. He went to the Islamic center in Washington and took back his words, but he did this only after he incited the souls and revealed what happened behind the scenes of American policy." "For this reason, I advise every Arab and every Muslim leader not to offer any aid whatsoever to the oppressing superpower [to help it] attack Muslims, because this is a betrayal of Allah and his Prophet..." "On the news in the U.S. it was said that four thousand Jews did not come to work at the World Trade Center on the day of the incident, and that the police arrested a group of Jews rejoicing in the streets at the time of the incident... This news item was hushed up immediately after it was broadcast... The Jews who control the media acted to hush it up so that the American people would not know. If it became known to the American people, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did! ..." [The Middle East Media Research Institute, 10/10/01]
REALITY: NY Times: Gemeaha Departed Islamic Cultural Center Of New York City Before Making Those Comments. The New York Times reported:
Three days after the terrorist attack on the United States, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, leader of a prominent mosque on East 96th Street in Manhattan, delivered a sermon in English to an interfaith audience calling for peace, healing and love among people of all religions.
Two weeks later, he suddenly moved his family back to Cairo, telling an Arabic-language newspaper that he left because his family had been threatened at their home on the Upper West Side. He sent a letter of resignation to the mosque.
His departure from the Upper East Side mosque, the Islamic Cultural Center of New York City, which regularly draws 4,000 Muslims for Friday prayers, comes amid questions about an interview he reportedly gave to an Arabic Web site on Oct. 4 saying that Muslims in America were being persecuted, that their children were being poisoned by Jewish doctors in American hospitals, and that ''Zionists'' in command of the nation's air traffic control towers aided the suicide hijackings. [The New York Times, 10/23/01]
REALITY: Conservative Author David Horowitz: Gemeaha Left ICC Before Comments. David Horowitz wrote:
Rauf is a permanent trustee of an Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) which his father founded in New York City. Until September 28, 2001 -- seventeen days after 9/11 -- the ICC employed Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who later would say that "only the Jews" could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, "they would have done to Jews what Hitler did"; and that Jews "disseminate corruption in the land" and spread "heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs." [DiscoverTheNetworks.org]
REALITY: NY Times: Head of Islamic Center's board was "outraged" by comments. The New York Times also reported that Mohammad Adbullah Abulhasan, "who heads the mosque's board," criticized the comments, saying they did "not represent at all the policy and the beliefs of the Islamic Cultural Center." A November 2, 2001, New York Times article further reported that Abulhasan was "outraged" by the comments, which he said "did not reflect the position of the mosque":
Ambassador Abulhasan said that he was outraged by the remarks and stressed that they did not reflect the position of the mosque. He said he had expressed his displeasure to Imam Gemeaha in a call to Cairo.
He said he told Sheik Gemeaha that the essence of what he said was wrong, was against Islam and was "against what you taught us." [The New York Times, 11/2/01]
No. 8 Soros Manipulated Congress To Introduce Energy Legislation Eight Years After Congress First Introduced It
BECK: Soros Manipulated Lawmakers To Pursue Cap And Trade. Discussing an interview with Soros that was published on November 24, 2008, Beck said:
BECK: Soros also heavily promotes green jobs and cap and trade. Also, days after Obama was elected, he called for a new energy bill. "I think this is a great opportunity to financially deal with global warming and energy independence. The U.S. needs a cap-and-trade system with the auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy that would be yet another federal program that could help us overcome the current stagnation."
Well, Congress introduced, but you stood up, and you said, "Uh, I don't think so." Hm-mmm. The audience started to resolve. Cap and trade failed. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Cap And Trade Has Been Debated In Congress For More Than 10 Years. Contrary to Beck's claim that Soros manipulated Obama to introduce cap and trade legislation "days after" he was elected, Congress has been debating similar proposals for more than a decade. [The Washington Post, 8/19/01]
REALITY: Obama Supported A Cap And Trade Bill During The 2008 Election. In fact, then-Sen. Barack Obama supported legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system while campaigning in 2008. [The Washington Post, 6/1/08]
No. 7 "Zero Warming For Over A Decade"
BECK: There Has Been "Zero Warming For Over A Decade." Beck claimed, "Cap-and-trade is the biggest socialist scam, totally discredited climate change industry and zero warming for over a decade. Zero warming for over a decade." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/23/10]
REALITY: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, And The World Meteorological Organisation Have All Stated That 2000-2009 Was The Warmest Decade On Record For The Globe.
- NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies: 2000-2009 Was "The Warmest Decade On Record." ["2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade," National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1/21/10]
- NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record." ["State of the Climate Global Analysis," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2010]
- Met Office: 2000-2009 "has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record." ["'Noughties' confirmed as the warmest decade on record," Met Office, 12/7/09]
- WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." ["2000-2009, THE WARMEST DECADE, World Meteorological Organization, 12/8/09]
No. 6 Obama's Trip To India Would Cost "Up To $2 Billion"
BECK: Obama's Trip To India Will Cost "$2 Billion." Beck falsely claimed that Obama's November trip to India "could cost up to $2 billion to make sure he's safe." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/4/10]
REALITY: White House Spokesman Matt Lehrich Called That Figure "Wildly Inflated." In a statement Media Matters for America obtained and made public the day before Beck's broadcast, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the figure -- which had been reported by the Press Trust of India -- had "no basis in reality." Lehrich also said, "Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated." [Media Matters, 11/3/10]
No. 5 Obama's "Fishing Ban"
BECK: Obama Wants To Ban Fishing. Beck said that a "report claims that Obama will no longer listen to the public as he tries to prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing on some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, and great lakes, even some inland waters. No more fishing." Beck also said, "How about a fishing ban? A fishing ban that would put jobs at risk in the middle of an economic crisis, but beyond that, you and your son being told you can't go there to fish! What the hell is happening to us?" [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/10/10]
REALITY: "Fishing Ban" Falsehood Debunked As "Absurd" Before Beck Promoted It. The day before Beck promoted the "fishing ban" claim, Charlotte Fishing Examiner.com columnist Jeffrey Weeks wrote:
In what may be the worst example of outdoor sports reporting in the history of America, ESPN has claimed that President Barack Obama is on the verge of banning recreational fishing.
ESPNOutdoors.com writer Robert Montgomery posted an article today claiming that the administration's decision to end the public comment phase of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force means that Obama is likely preparing to issue an executive order outlawing recreational fishing in America.
As a sportsman who covers fisheries management and politics I do think there are many issues surrounding the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and its eventual recommendations that all fishermen should be aware of and concerned about.
But to go from concern to suggesting that President Obama is about to ban fishing in America is the most absurd and irresponsible thing I have ever seen a major news outlet publish. There is not even a remote possibility that a standing president of the United States will outlaw fishing in America. [Charlotte Fishing Examiner, Examiner.com 3/9/10]
No. 4 The Brazilian Oil Conspiracy Theory
BECK: The Obama Administration Loaned Money To Brazil In A Plot To Enrich George Soros. Beck falsely claimed that the Obama administration was lending $2 billion to Brazil to benefit foreign oil interests at the expense of the U.S. economy in order to enrich George Soros:
BECK: I'm not sure if [Soros] knew that the administration would be making a $2 billion preliminary commitment for Petrobras, for Petrobras, for exploration, just days after he strengthened his investment. Isn't that weird? You see, he's got some connections here, but I'm sure he had no idea what was coming on the other side of the circle? No. It's probably just another one of those bad luck situations for Obama, because this doesn't seem to pass the smell test at all. No. Billionaire investor dumps money into a state-controlled Brazilian oil company; days later the American administration dumps $2 billion into the exact same company. What are the odds, Gilligan?
Let's go here. George Soros starts the Center for American Process with John Podesta. John Podesta, Center for American Progress, selects the Obama transition team. Soros buys $900 million in gasoline powered bras. Then, in a completely unrelated story, BP has their oil spill. But wait a minute, who's this guy? John Podesta. John Podesta is the guy who does all the lobbying for BP? Certainly -- I'm sorry, Tony Podesta -- certainly no relation to John Podesta, other than they're brothers. We'll have to come back to that one later in the show. So then Center for American Progress starts to make Obama policy. This one, we'll show you, laid out by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. One of the policies: cap and trade, which goes right to Crime Inc. and all of the Obama friends with the Climate Exchange in Chicago. That's weird.
Then Obama suspends the deepwater drilling at 1,500 meters. He says "Hey, hey, that's dangerous! Fifteen hundred meters, that's crazy." Petrobras is drilling at 2,777 meters. Obama knows it and loans $2 billion to Petrobras. Last stop, Petrobras shareholders get rich. Oh my gosh, we're back at the beginning: shareholder, Petrobras. Getting rich. You getting screwed. You see how this works? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/21/10]
REALITY: Bush Appointees At Export-Import Bank -- Not Obama -- Unanimously Approved Loan To Brazil. FactCheck.org called the claim "bogus," noting that the Export-Import Bank of the United States approved a "preliminary commitment" to Brazil to finance "their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services." At the time, "the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush." [FactCheck.org, 9/18/09]
REALITY: Loan Is "For The Purchase Of American Goods And Services." Politico's Ben Smith reported:
A spokesman for the bank, Phil Cogan, noted to POLITICO that the bank does not rely on tax money and that Palin's statement ignores the bank's central function: To lend money to foreign companies for the purchase of American goods and services.
"It has to be produced by U.S. workers," Cogan said. Palin's statement refers to "creat[ing] jobs and health benefits in the U.S."
"That's exactly what a purchase financed by the U.S. government would do," Cogan said.
In this case, Cogan said, the proposed loan would likely finance engineering services, sales of ships to service oil platforms, or drilling equipment. [Politico.com, 8/19/09]
No. 3 Ohio City "Hasn't Taken Any Money From The Government"
BECK: Wilmington "Hasn't Taken Any Money From The Government." Promoting his Fox News special in Wilmington, Ohio -- a city hit by significant job losses in recent years -- Beck falsely claimed, "this town hasn't taken any money from the government." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/22/10]
REALITY: Wilmington Had Received Millions In Stimulus Funds As of November 22, recipient reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that the city of Wilmington received at least $2.6 million in stimulus funds. [Recovery.gov, accessed 11/22/10]
REALITY: Surrounding County Received Millions In Stimulus Funds. As of November 22, 2010, recipient reports posted at Recovery.gov showed that Clinton County Ohio had received at least $4 million from the stimulus. [Recovery.gov, accessed 11/22/10]
REALITY: Wilmington Officials Asked For $63 Million In Stimulus Funds. Wilmington city officials confirmed to Media Matters that the city requested more than $63 million under the stimulus. State officials said that use of Medicaid, food stamps, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance have increased in recent years. [Media Matters, 12/15/10]
No. 2 Soros Was Responsible For "Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager"
BECK: "Soros Was Asked If He Felt Guilt At All About Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager. He Responded, No." From Glenn Beck:
BECK: There's a lot of meat here that I need you to do your own homework on and learn the truth yourself. But we want to find out a little bit more about him and who he is and where did he come from.
His childhood is shocking, traumatic. He grew up in Nazi Europe. Fourteen years old, he had to help the government confiscate the lands of his fellow Jewish friends and neighbors. He didn't grow up in a Jewish household. His mother was a strong anti-Semite -- George Soros' words, not mine.
But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Soros Said He "Had No Role In Taking Away That Property." In an interview with Kroft, Soros explained that he felt no guilt because he "had no role in taking away that property":
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. [CBS, 60 Minutes,12/20/98, via Nexis]
REALITY: Biographer Reported Soros "Collaborated With No One." In Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire -- a book cited by Beck during the program -- Michael T. Kaufman detailed Soros' reaction during the interview, as well as Soros' actions in Nazi-occupied Hungary:
While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.
This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Page 37]
No. 1 Fox Will Fire Beck If He Tells Lies
BECK: "[D]o You Really Believe That I Could ... Just Make Things Up And Remain On The Air?" Beck said:
What is it that we make up? I would ask you to just take a moment here -- do you really believe that I could -- or anybody here at Fox News could -- just make things up and remain on the air? No. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]
BECK: "If I Get Out Of Control And Start Leveling Baseless Charges ... Guess What Happens? I'm Fired." Beck claimed, "If I get out of control and start leveling baseless charges that can't be backed up, guess what happens? I'm fired. I lose my job. If Congress does the same thing, you lose your freedom." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/14/10]
BECK: "If I Were Making Up Lies ... Rupert Murdoch Would Fire Me." Attacking Soros on his show, Beck said: "If I were making up lies about you, I couldn't stay on the air. First of all, you wouldn't have to pressure. Rupert Murdoch wouldn't put me on the air. He would fire me." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/10/10]
BECK: "If I Was Inaccurate, [Fox] Would Have Fired Me Long Ago." Responding to groups putting pressure on Fox News because of Beck's rhetoric, Beck said:
I have nothing bad to say about Fox. They have left me alone. They have let me do -- they hold me responsible for what I say. They make sure that it's right and it's accurate. They do that. They - If I was inaccurate, they would have fired me long ago. Long ago. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 10/28/10]
REALITY: Despite A Litany Of False Claims, Fox News Has Not Fired Beck.
See Above.
He's called the President a racist. He's fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death. He's promoted books by notorious bigots. He's alleged that the government is overrun with revolutionary communists.
Glenn Beck is completely UNHINGED!
The Top Ten Ways Fox News Made An Ass Of Itself And/Or Its Viewers In 2010
You can't make this stuff up. Unfortunately, Fox can.
Nobody is listening to MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN etc....
....because people are tired of listening to pure left swinging broadcasts. Sure, FOX is right wing just as much as the previously mentioned networks are left wing, but at least you can hear an opposing argument on FOX.
As for Glen Beck, he is an American exercising his right to free speech and people are listening. You should ask yourself why they are listening.
Maybe you can get Mommy Obama to form a government program to subsidize lazy-brained people. Then you can get paid for not thinking.
Anyone who thinks progressives mindlessly follow anyone has clearly never heard the phrase "herding cats."
"Do you belong to an organized political party?"
"Oh, heck no, ma'am, I'm a Democrat."
Will Rogers
Besides, if i want to watch shows *when I want to*, a TV is about the LEAST useful tool imaginable, only slightly less so than a movie theater. I found this great thing, an internets, and it has my shows online, usually on the broadcaster's own website!
Of course Fox doesnt archive its shows online, so anyone watching beck is either doing it on TV, or doing it illegally (though I cant imagine theres many seeders..) Its weird that they woulddo that, when they even have their cartoons online. Its like they dont want anyone to be able to go back and be able to readily link to the clips, on their own website, of people saying things those people later said they didnt say.
But thats just silly.
But then, keeping your same opinion across multiple minutes and more than one line of thought has always been a liberal tactic.
Who told you?
Ever question anything that person says? Ever?
From the Free Online Dictionary:
in·tel·lect (ntl-kt)
n.
1.
a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.
hon·es·ty (n-st)
n. pl. hon·es·ties
1. The quality or condition of being honest; integrity.
2. Truthfulness; sincerity
NO.
Every day we stop Beck and his disturbed fans from torturing anyone who continues to insist there are four lights, is a day we win, and a day they lose. Its slow, but as is the case with such evil, attrition and lethargy take care of way more of his followers than WE need to worry about.
You can only maintain such idiocy, such insanity, for a small amount of time. Well, unless you form a religion of course. Which is exactly what Beck wants to do.
Odd that all these rightwingers support a man who thinks that, according to his religion, his next life will be as a new sort of God over his own universe.
I guess ants on jesus is more important to christians than ridiculous direct blasphemy by their hero. I know I shouldnt expect..sanity, but I keep hoping for it. And yet, I know that they will continue to scream and whine and thrash.
Death rattles are always so unpleasant. The rightwing knows this well, and yet they're losing any shred of dignity by clinging to their broken reality.
The right wing screams against a dawn that it cant stop, and this is what it looks like. The time of these dinosaurs has ended, and they know it. Let them cry, and scream, and simper. We've alraedy won, and they know it.
Sorry, Glenn Bleck doesn't do anything for free.
I ask myself that ALL THE TIME!
We don't get any kind of reporting on President Obama constantly calling out the Obstructionists in Congress, we get almost zero positive coverage on anything the president tries to do.
We get all kinds of negative coverage about how horrible the economy is doing, and not one so called news agency bothers to point out, even occasionally, that all these problems started lonb before President Obama took office, and right around when the Democrats took over Congress in early 2007.
Anyone who gives it any serious thought would realize that any legislation done by those Democratic Congresspersons coming into office in January of 2007 WOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF 2007, AFTER the beginning of this GWB Great Recession.
No "news agency" reminds us at all that the reason for the seeming increase in the deficit was mainly caused by the fact that Bush was CRIMINALLY keeping the war costs off the budget in order to make it seem as though he was fiscally sound.
When President Obama came into office, he insisted that these costs be included in the budget, so our deficit is actually the legitimate cost of running a freaking huge nation PLUS fighting two wars that we NEVER SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED IN in the first place.
MSNBC might slant the other way, but since I don't have MSNBC, I can't testify either way. Do they?
Are they constantly reminding their viewers that Bush lied to get us into Iraq?
Have they harped about how odd it is that Haliburton was given no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq? Do they frequently point out that Dick Cheney headed up that company before he became "vice" president?
Have they been reminding their viewers daily that President Obama has been trying since he entered office to make things better, and the Republican Obstructionists have stood in the way, forcing 60 Senate votes on every single issue that has come before it?
No other network has. Even when they do bother to report on a bill's failure, they barely mention how or why the bill failed. And make no mistake, almost every one has been due to Republican Obstructionism.
I would love to see some reporting on that. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
Also, the "liberal media bias" is mostly a myth perpetuated from a book in the late 1960's. The book gained fame under Nixon who was terrified of the media.
People listened to Hitler and Goebbels and others within the Reich. Americains are easily lead around i.e. Iraq/ Al-Queda connection was pure MYTH. WMDs another great myth. Mossad, Cia and MI-5 KNEW there were no WMDs.The real experts were silenced so Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld could profit from disaster-capitalism in Iraq, i.e Haliburton, Carlyle Group and Gilead Science.
People are easily lead around. Glenn Beck lies, speaks in half-truths and promotes fear. His"message" is repeated by the entire Fox news team. O'Riley, Hannity, Rove, Carlson, Doucey are simply talking heads for manufactured outrage and GOP talking points.
Can you name one single investigative piece done by Fox news. Stossel is only exception, but even he is coming under the spell of Darth Ailes. And he is really so marginal. Fox only "echoes" news stories that allow them to insert GOP talking points.
You never really hear an "opposing" view on Fox. Beck NEVER has anyone who oppose the narrative. Hannity had Colmes but that was problematic becasue Colmes corrected him all the time. O'Riley shouts down anyone who tries to insert a fact. " Nixon NEVER met Mao" O'Riley said on his show. Stragely, I have a picture of Nixon and Mao sitting together. O'Riley claims Fox never said there were "death panel".Yet I can find 40 or more VIDEOS of Fox news people saying there were death panels.
Fox is and will only be Propatainment. It is for empty headed people who feel they marginalized because " Things ain't like they use to be". They are trying to create a pliable group that they can lead around. I liken followers of Fox news to the Brown Shirts. Eventually, the night of long knives will occur, leaving them stunned and frazzled.
"...but at least you can hear an opposing argument on FOX."
If that were all there was to it, you might be correct, but it isnt. It isnt only about a political slant. faux lies, distorts and misinforms. True MSNBC is left leaning, but they dont lie and distort. They spend alot of time correcting faux. ABC, CBS and CNN are pretty much middle of the road. Yes, compared to faux, they are all left. Misinforming and distorting are company policy as outlined in emails from Bill Sammon.
"As for Glen Beck, he is an American exercising his right to free speech and people are listening. You should ask yourself why they are listening."
Who do you think had top ratings in Germany in 1936? Professional wrestling has higher ratings than NPR, does that make it a better news source? You are a dufus.
"What would he have to say to get fired?"
Roger you are a duche bag or Rupert kiss my booty baby.
Maybe, "Roger, I have some really good stuff, how many dime bags do you want?"
On second thought, I dont think these would do it.
Best line of the entire movie.
Never mind that he never provides any substantive proof for any of his tinfoil hat madness, it's enough that he's the only one talking about it.
I have a Facebook friend-of-a-friend who actually uses that as her primary argument. She goes between posting Bible verses and Beck/Teabagger stuff, and when anybody asks her for any explanation of her propaganda, or points out that the crap she links to is completely made up, she wraps it up with one of a couple of closing arguments;
Hmmmm, I guess they didn't tell you about this on PMSNBC LOL!
or
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, interesting that Glenn Beck is the only one reporting on this.
Lack of confirming sources has been made into a positive for the crowd that wants to believe Glenn Beck. Typing " Hmmmmmmm..." seesm to carry some clout as well, I see that from some of the beckbots here, too.
I have a Facebook friend-of-a-friend who actually uses that as her primary argument. She goes between posting Bible verses and Beck/Teabagger stuff, and when anybody asks her for any explanation of her propaganda, or points out that the crap she links to is completely made up, she wraps it up with one of a couple of closing arguments;
Hmmmm, I guess they didn't tell you about this on PMSNBC LOL!
To me this is the scariest thing about these lies! People are tricked into believing they are "Christian" by perpetuating them.
It makes me really sad. I read what Jesus says, and it does not even come close to what beck and modern repugs act like. :(
Your is a posseesive.
I know you do it on purpose because you do it all the time, but it is very annoying (especially to a former journalist/writer)
We can all then determine, based upon proper use of facts to back up arguments, whether someone is, in fact, thinking.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201012280001Roam through that thread, and note the lack of both facts and proper grammar exhibited by project21reps throughout.
I have to say, if the goal is to "dumb down" the conversation, he failed miserably. There were lessons on how to research, how to tell the difference between fact and fantasy, lessons about how right-wing websites are all on a feedback loop so that any fact-check from one leads to another, and eventually even back to the original site.
Pretty impressive, I thought. Hope he got paid well, one shouldn't have to take a drubbing like he took for free.
They carp on about how smart they are, how stupid progressives are, how smart beckie is, and then can't seem to get grammar right on almost any single post.
foghornleghorn misspells a word in a grammar lesson and will be attacked. wing-nuts misspell and use grammar incorrectly constantly and whine when someone points it out.
Hmmmm.
Some I have deleted but this one I've kept mostly for interest's sake. Keeping my finger on the pulse of the TP :)
So we set some ground rules - she insisted on no name-calling or foul language, and I only asked for honesty.
After a week or two, I hadn't done any cusisng or name-calling, but I'd busted her in a few dozen lies, so she not only "un-friended" me, but she completely blocked me.
She's since licked her wounds, and un-blocked me, but I'm being gentler with her.
I have to do that with my racist teabag sister in Georgia. I am not sure how she could have ever thought that I would find it acceptable, but she told me in mid-2008 that she "didn't want to see a n****r in the White House."
At one time, I would return all of her hate emails with line by line refutations, citing sources. Frequently it was as easy as simply hitting Snopes.
I had to laugh when that report came out (in early '09?) that said that they were unable to find any racism among Republicans in Georgia. The only way they could have done that is to have not looked.
Facebook has that "block" feature, I suppose designed to protect users from abusive people or stalkers. For the right wing nut, it's a convenient way to "disappear" anybody who insists on dealing in reality.
I have some church friends that send me the most hateful, bizarre, un-Christian e-mails while sandwiching them between Bible verses too. (Of course when I point that out the get all bent out of shape, un-friend me or send me to "newsbusters" to prove their point.) They also have literally thousands of e-mails that tell them not to trust factcheck.org and snopes. They are supposedly run by "librul" hidden societies to make right-wingers look bad. I wish they would stick to the Bible verses, especially the red print. Most of them just don't seem to see the hypocrisy. (Even when pointed out specifically) One last thing is that many of them are starting to post a Bible verse, then a "comment" below it. The comments are starting to sound like oreilly rant a few weeks ago about how Jesus would be against welfare. They are really getting into a lot of peoples minds and it is scary.
:)
;)
Arrogant Ignorance Is No Longer an Oxymoron -- It's a Growing Political Movement
I wish I had a buck for every Foxbot / Beck or Rush fan that whined here that having their gullibility pointed out is merely an unwarranted personal attack on them for having "a different opinion".
This is one of the most impressive accomplishments of the propagandists, and a key part of the dumbing down of the country, the idea that being confident and proud of ones stupidity and "feelings" is just as valid as being factually correct.
That recent email from the Sammon guy at Fox regarding Global Warming was a great example, where he directed "reporters" to never mention the facts without immediately adding that there are people who disagree with the facts.
I saw dozens of people at this and other websites defending Sammon. As they understood it, this was real, unbiased journalism, giving equal weight to science and those who have an interest in not accepting science.
And they alternate between hurt feelings and outright anger that anybody would treat the truth as any more important than fiction, as long as there are any people who believe the fiction.
Christian churches want "equal time" in public schools, except that what they mean by "equal time" is that only Christian mores and stories should be taught. Any suggestion that other faiths be given equal billing has been met with fierce resistance followed by whomever pushed for the Christian incursion backing off and claiming that they were forced out.
First, the argument against vouchers for private schools is that it will take money away from already struggling public schools. I am sure that, since you think that only the wealthy should get a decent education, you don't really care about that. Fair enough.
I'm not sure what "indoctrination" you are referring to, could you elaborate?
The agenda I speak of is the frequent demands that "intelligent design" be taught as an alternative to "evolution" as an explanation for man's existence.
Subtle things like the colors red and green, Christian colors both, must never be excluded (and never have, but it sure makes for a good Fox "News" story, doesn't it?).
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is the largest purchaser of school textbooks in the nation, and so sets the standards for textbooks across the country. The TEA board is made up of 5 Democrats, 10 Republicans. In its most recent "re-evaluation" of history textbooks, the board elected to largely ignore recommendations from the state's history teachers, and instead authorized a largely right leaning rewrite of history.
This is, if you ask me, the beginning of that "slippery slope" thing that "conservatives" seem to love to talk about.
Taxpayers, people who work for a living fund churches, this is true. Churches, in turn, pay zero taxes, and they send out a form for their donors to write the donations off of their taxes as well. I'm not exactly sure why that is. Wasn't Jesus himself pretty big on paying taxes? That's rich. I do not believe that people who make so much money and pay no taxes really should have ZERO say in how the country is run.
Taxpayers, people who work for a living fund public schools, and yet I keep hearing how abominable it is that the government gets involved in education.
Several years ago, somewhere in the DISD (Dallas Independent School District) a Christian group managed to obtain permission to use a high school classroom for an after school bible club.
If my memory is correct, this club was active for several years before a group of Pagans attempted to get the same treatment.
The battle surged, and the Christians backing the original club first attacked the Pagans as "Satan worshippers", and when that failed, tried to smear them as "fake religion".
When it was finally ruled that since the Christian club was allowed then the Pagan one had to be as well, the Christians backed off, pulled the club, and claimed to have been forced out.
Yes he is the perfect example. He is holding onto his ignorance no matter what.
Here's wishing all my evil liberal,commie,progressive,socialist friends a safe,healthy,joyous,blessed,prosperous New Year of struggle and progress. A toast to you! May the wind be always at your back and sun warm on your face.
"LOOK, something shiny!"
Also known as the "smoke and mirrors" style of debate.
Up has to be one of the best movies ever.
Have a wonderful New Year, rest up. It's going to take a lot on our parts to keep up the pressure for truth and liberal values.
I think we all want that.
I think we all want that, also.
Almost. Decent pay is a subjective term. What one considers decent pay may not be decent pay to the next guy. What do you consider decent pay, and do you believe that one should be paid based on their abilities only?
I think decent pay would mean that if my supervisor, who gets his raises based upon my and my co-workers' labor, gets a raise, so should we all.
Unfortunately, doughboy and Extremist and projdork and the other far-righties were not raised on the same American dream. They were raised on the dream that the wealth class should make ever more sums of money and pay less and less taxes all at the expense of the working class. It seems bizarre to me, but that is the dream they hold.
I'll get right down to business here: every good thing about our nation stems from liberalism. Liberals are always right; it just takes 50 years for conservatives to realize/admit it.
I challenge you to present any incontrovertibly "good" thing that exclusively comes from the conservative mindset.
Caring for those that are in need.
Here's wishing that the new year brings some common sense and honesty to the progressive (bowel) movement in this new year of our lord, 2011. Peace out.
So you clearly understand how 99 percent of people in this country think. I have felt this way since I was old enough for cognitive thought. There is only one truth and truth is supported by facts. Feelings and opinions have no truth without fact. I once told someone their opinion was based on BS. That was construed as "you think my opinions are BS". If the knowledge your opininon is based on is BS how valid can it be?
http://haleonline.com/psychtest/
Exactly, ONPR. While everybody has the right to their opinion, it's somehow been instilled in the stupid that all opinions are equal.
And I think you meant "ostensibly", not "ostentatiously", but that's the least of your problems.
Well, certainly kdork, you may feel free to dispute any fact presented. All you need is to do some reading, find some factual information that disputes something here, and present it in an intelligent manner. It is generally preferable for you to present your evidence in your own words, with links.
Think of it as practice for the papers they will want you to write in a few years when you get into high school.
Personally, I prefer facts that can be demonstrated to be true.
Don't presume to give me an English language lesson, as you are far outclassed.
Let me give you a leg up right off the bat, just to show how nice I am and how much I want to assist you to at least appear to be intelligent.
www.dictionary.com will help you out when those really big words confuse you.
"You believe that only because I disagree with most of what you have to say." You must have a PhD in philosophy or logic. I can tell because you are a genius.
Let me respond to the first one, though.
How is this true?
End of the year, Beck and Rush on vacation, nobody to really talk about right now.
And apparently for the one bit of the article you do choose to respond to, you can't even be bothered to quote a full sentence, and your only response is "how is this true?"
"just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."~George Costanza
;-)
So no, the only cause Glenn Beck is advancing is Glenn Beck, and at the expense of his audience's grasp of the facts. If most of them knew the extent to which he was putting them on, he wouldn't be making tens of millions every year.
I have always found it very difficult to believe that anyone could be as stupid and hateful as folks like Rush, Glenn, Sean, etc, without it being a front. I think they all realized a long time ago that the charicature that they portray will make them insanely rich, and they run with it.
I don't really think Glenn Beck is any more like his radio and tv persona than Alec Guiness was Obi Wan Kenobi.
The sad thing is, there are a whole lot of people who base their entire political ideology on this kind of scripted buffoonery.
Even if we are offering only opinion, we should do our best to be well informed and truthful.
I won't name any names, but there seems to be some folks who don't think that being informed and truthful is worth the effort.
"Alcohol - the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
or
"I just want to make this clear, I thought the cop was a prostitute."
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Now of course you do mean my celeb look-a-like is George Clooney**, right?....yours of course is George Costanza. Don't get that confused. Ha!
**Miz Julia will verify this....maybe ;-)
On topic...I've never actually seen Beck's program in it's entirety. I've tried to watch it, but the guy irks me. Too dramatic one minute. Clownish the next. And it's hard to take his pontifications seriously let alone believe them.
REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]
see? if you read the whole thing you can see where it's true. the fed makes money, buts it into the treasury fund and it is then used to pay for the things the people want.
you really need to work on your reading comprehension. until you get that figured out you will just be seen as another mindless rube for your masters to manipulate.
I don't particularly like the federal reserve in concept or in practice. However, despite my dislike the amount of power they wield, they did not do what Glenn Beck claims they did.
Let me frame it with a simple, two-sided, black and white partisan argument, because that's all conservatives seem to be able to understand:
-Someone claims "Mitch McConnell was born in North Korea and is secretly plotting to install himself as Dictator."
I don't LIKE Mitch McConnell, and I might feel good about believing such an outrageous claim, but with only a few seconds of research I can learn it's not true. Someone who continued to make these kind of claims would very quickly lose credibility with me.
-someone claims "Mitch McConnell" tried to attach unpopular riders to the 911 first responders bill, and then tried forcing cloture.
Well now, that's actually true. You can debate the merits of the riders. You can debate whether or not he was trying to simply scuttle the bill. You can debate whether or not it was smart politics or abuse of procedure. But it's a debate about FACTS.
Whether or not you like Glenn Beck or not has nothing to do with the truth. Whether or not you like the Federal Reserve or not does not change what has actually happened. The longer you sit in your rigid partisan "my side-their side" box, the longer you will continue to be another uninformed follower.
peck gives the impression that the fed makes more money than exxon and implies that somehow the"gubmint" is using those profits to give bonuses to gubmint workers. that's a lie. the fed takes that money and gives it back to the treasury for use by the government (you know, the people).
so you see? there is no reason to investigate the fed unless you think maybe they are skimming some of those profits for their personal gain.
There is every reason to investigate the Fed. Read the financial statements and tell me that their is no reason.
I bet you can't. So far you have just told us that they should be investigated. Without parroting popular right wing talking points, explain it.
OK, please link to the financial statements, point out which pages or items you are referring to, tell me what I might be looking for and your detailed reasons on why there should be investigations.
Simple enough.
(I like to read rense.com for real good conspiracy information, by the way)
First off, SOMA holdings and consolidated VIE's are of great concern.
What about SOMA and VIE?
I am neither an accountant nor lawyer which I might need to be to decipher that document and find the information you seem to think anyone could see just from that dry financial statement. But you seem to have some "inside" information on this, so if you could give that to me, I would appreciate it.
(To just give me those vague "items" and expecting me to just know what you mean is like me asking you to log into my UNIX box and find me my important files)
Please try to give me some actual information I could use so I can try to find out what you are getting at.
yes
point out which pages
No
or items you
yes
are referring to,
tell me what I might be looking for
no
and your detailed reasons
no
on why there should be investigations.
no
6 things asked for, 2 delivered. I would fire an employee that was that lax...... :)
Read the financial statements.. scrrratch
Read the financial statements.. scrrratch
Read the financial statements.. scrrratch
Read the financial statements.. scrrratch
On the day that President Obama signed the HCR bill into law, I had a remarkably similar conversation with an old friend who claimed to have read through the entire bill six months previously. Every claim he made, I went to the actual bill and refuted. And with every refutation, I got the reply:
You obviously haven't read the bill. Read it and we can have an intelligent discussion.
The hell of it is, I have known the guy for years. I know that he at least wasnt stupid 15 years ago.
Must be something in the water.
Might want to see about getting it some CPR if you do.
Investigating an agency or institution is all well and good, but the process works best when you investigate first, then reach your conclusions from the information you gather. Beck does away with all the tedious legwork and fact gathering to present you a conclusion that is vague enough to be difficult to pin down, and "truthy" sounding enough to make you angry.
You, projectile, extremist, all of you wingers seem to be like an old style LP with a huge scratch, and you just keep going around and around, playing the same line over and over again.
You ask a question and someone answers you with facts that you don't like or that don't fit your paradigm as an answer, so you seem to do a Max Headroom style headbob and ask the same question again. Oh, you change the wording a little, as if no one will notice that you have asked the exact same question, but it is painfully obvious that you are lost without your programming.
I truly wonder if you guys are all the same person, or if you are simply drones, brainwashed and programmed with the conditioned responses that your masters want you to give.
I imagine that you sit in front of your computer with glazed eyes, a silver thread of drool hanging from your chin as you automatically type the same things over and over, modifying only little, cutting and pasting from a few "authorized" websites to "back up" your arguments.
Do they give you good drugs? Are you fed well? Is there "harmless humping" between friends?
That is the number of people polled that want stronger health care reform, overturn of DADT, out of Iraq, SALT treaty passed etc. That means a majority of the country is FOR doing the right thing. That is what I want to deal with. Not a rabid, vocal minority putting in extreme government.
Oh, I see, you refer to the recent election, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, things like that.
Um... we ALL lost, dude. You just don't know it yet. It's really probably ok though, in 2 years, when all the magickal fixes the newly elected guys promised haven't appeared, we will do the same thing to them that we did in November.
I called this back in late 2008, when I said that the Republicans didn't have any incentive to see the economy recover.
End of the year, Beck and Rush on vacation, nobody to tell me what to think now.
There, fixed that for you.
What's the matter, can't find any other sources of conservative "misinformation" to pick on?
Well, doughpro, you are partly right. The "other networks and NPR" often times parrot the right wing media narrative that Fox News creates. The other networks often are as lazy as Fox when researching news items. The other networks often drop stories that reflect badly on advertisers and parent companies.
Doughpro, try for one minute to think outside of the "everything is a two sided partisan argument" box. This article (which you probably didn't read) focuses on SPECIFIC lies that GLENN BECK told. It has nothing to do with "other networks and NPR". Most liberals do not tune in to "other networks and NPR" the way a Fox news viewer tunes in for marching orders and to be told what to think. We tend to have a healthy bit of skepticism for ALL media outlets these days.
I do, for the most part, but how can you ask this of me when it is pretty obvious that the opposite is practiced in here?
Why do I see no evidence of that in here?
For more on his background and rise through radioland try "Common Nonsense" by Zaitchik.
If you are truly a fan of the man then surely you will take the time to do a little research. Well, actually, it's been done for you, you just have to check it out of the library.
Really, how can you not hear him continually contradict himself? He'll even do it WITHIN the same show! That's the part I don't get, how people like you cannot hear that....
After numerous run-ins with MMfA, among others, at which employer did these idiots' stupidity all eventually land them???
We tend to have a healthy bit of skepticism for ALL media outlets these days.
Then doughpro1604643 says
Why do I see no evidence of that in here?
If someone makes an general statement and wants others to believe it, he will provide "evidence," which consists of indisputable facts, which by logic and rules of hearsay lead to the general statement proposed earlier. For example, MMFA makes some general statements in this article about Beck that are backed up by things that Beck has said and videos and audio clips of him saying it, or written pieces from him.
Many people who come to this site are skeptics who want evidence, and since the evidence is indisputable for the most part, there is little to be gained by discussing it. On rare occasions, MMFA makes mistakes, but those are usually minor, unlike many other things that MMFA quotes about Beck and that it backs up video and audio.
Occasionally, the discussion gets a little bit on the giddy side, with some of us ascribing gleefully lack of intelligence to those who would either say or believe some of the things MMFA quotes from far right sources.
Earlier, for example, MMFA quoted sources that said that Obama was going to give Manhattan back to Native Americans. I responded something like "What's wrong with that? Let's just give it back." But, I admit that I lied and don’t think that was a good idea. And no one here thought to comment.
Since you say that you see little or no evidence of skepticism here means that you may not have read enough. We do not challenge people for saying that the earth is round, because the evidence for that general statement is overwhelming. We don’t question each other when someone comments that Beck is an idiot. We do ask for evidence when someone makes a statement that appears a bit on the wild side. If you see no evidence of skepticism here, as you assert, you probably have not looked far enough for any.
You may have noticed that some have been skeptical of your remarks, for example. Some people are skeptical of your “cognitive ability.” But he provides no evidence, assuming that your thoughts as you wrote them are enough information to cause a reasonable person to challenge your intelligence.
The statement was made that you are a “Beckbot,” with no definition of the term and no discussion, and “whatever Beckie says is the gospel truth.” That remark shows a little bit of disrespect for Beck and makes an observation about you, which you do not deny. There are some non-skeptical remarks and giddy exchanges that would have no place in a very serious dialogue. What the heck, who says we have to be serious all the time?
All you did was say "I know you are but what am I".
-WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I POINTED OUT YOU WERE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE.-
Your mind has been completely absorbed into the right wing partisan black and white thinking machine. You simply cannot think for yourself anymore, and can only project. You cannot respond to reasonable arguments, only project and reflect.
I'm not saying turn off Fox news and other right wing media and become a liberal...you obviously don't hold liberal progressive values and that's okay. However, you should turn off Fox news and other right wing media and try to escape this mental prison you've put yourself in.
Oh who am I kidding. All of this would require some intellectual honesty on your part, and honesty seems to be something akin to kryptonite, as far as you are concerned.
Dough would walk up on a murder scene, see someone he didn't like laying there dead, with a note from Beck confessing to the crime, Beck footprints, fingerprints, a surveillance tape showing Beck killing the guy, and he would still claim not to see any evidence linking Beck to the crime.
Right-wing Pavlovian response. Come up with something original or get out.
I know that Fox has fired at least two people for trying to tell the truth, and then a Florida appeals court found that Fox had no obligation to actually tell the truth, despite billing themselves as a "news organization".
Did you have some examples of reporters getting fired from
?
Still waiting. See here is that intellectual dishonesty I was referring to in that post above. You throw out an obvious lie and then when someone asks for your proof, you simply pretend like you can't see the request. You are a fraud and apparently, judging by your love of the lie, a Satanist as well.
I know, it has only been two days. With your monstrous intellect (and I mean that you are in the Boris Karloff Frankenstein monster league of great intellects) two days isn't even enough time to figure out how to type anything into a Google searchbar, is it?
I know why you haven't answered: it is because, despite everyone piling on you, you apparently do have the capacity for shame and you are deeply ashamed that you uttered (typed) something that was not only false, but stupid as well. Don't sweat it, dude, just admit that you were wrong, correct yourself, and move on.
I googled "journalist fired for telling the truth". The only non-Fox firings that come up are people who claim to have been "telling the truth" about their bigotry, usually by denigrating an entire group or ethnicity. They admitted to being bigots on the air or in print and lost their jobs for it.
This kind of "telling the truth" won't get a "journalist" fired from Fox. Telling the truth about a sponsor will.
Who was it that you said lost?
And, that site has infinitely more credibility than any site you have presented as "backup" to your false, bigoted claims. It is based in fact, and provides evidence to support its claims, all simple things to do if one's claim is credible. But, even those simple tasks are far beyond your extremely limited abilities.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=fox+fires+reporters+for+telling+the+truth+about+milk&aq=1v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=c341562a61b59af3
As a matter of fact, it isn't. It was just the one that put the most information together in one place. Pick one of the plethora (www.dictionary.com) of sites. I am sure that you can find at least one that you would consider to be credible.
Is it wrong to enjoy pounding the back of projaculator's head against his locker so much?
If so, I haven't noticed you defending that false statement with any instances either. You go to the same Church of Satan the Lie as he does, I take it?
I have someone at work that still makes a big deal about Ms. Pelosi demanding a luxury jet to fly her and her family and friends to and from San Francisco. Every time her name comes up, he goes off. I have showed him several times that even the White House debunked that but he still wont let it go. To me, that makes his lies worse, that people will hang on to them for YEARS despite being proved over and over again as lies. They will ignore the lies just to hate the opposition.
This is so typical of right wingers and their willingness to buy any story that reinforces the vilification of their "enemies" without evidence. It also illustrates their unwillingness to admit they were fooled by partisan media, no matter how much evidence refutes their claims.
Here is a clue, Becktard:
If you wouldn't constantly fuel the hatred of your listeners, maybe it wouldn't have been necessary, for security reasons, to prevent Pelosi from having a stop on her flights to and fro.
My New Years resolution is to subsist entirely on a casserole of wheat,sugar,corn,oil,and coton. It seems to be pretty good brain food, judging by gman's thoughtful and well-supported comments.
None of these folks seems to have the working parts to be able to discern truth from opinion, let alone fact from fantasy.
Sure, they can cut and paste blind articles like a kindergartener fingerpainting a wall, but to ask them to even read what they cut and paste is stretching their abilities. If any of them were required to actually research and confirm any of their "facts" their heads would explode like the Martians in Mars Attacks.
I would pay good money to watch that, but it wouldn't help any with the discourse.
gman could have more concisely related the identical concept, however, by including the spaces he left out, and omitting out the rest.
I guess that makes SpongeBob more trustworthy than anyone on Fox. (which is true, by the way)
I have NEVER understood why Fox supporters use this as an argument to explain WHY they support Fox. It always makes me think of the old "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
Formula teen slasher/gore films tend to make more money then serious independent dramas and documentaries. Therefore they must be better films!
Sexy pop idol songs sell more then jazz and classical/orchestral albums, so they must be better musicians!
Reality shows draw more viewers then historical and scientific documentaries, so they must be more informative!
We live in a dumbed-down corporate consumer culture, so it's no surprise that sensationalism and outrage driven Fox news does well on cable. It also helps that it is included in every basic cable package.
Can we please stop with the "ratings=truth" argument? Unless you want to admit that you think all forms of popular culture are inherently better then less popular intellectual fare.
Excuse me while I pull out my tiny violin for FauxNoise.
If liberals stopped watching SpongeBob their ratings would not be as good and you know it.
And, they only have one response when they're trying to use humor to make a point:
That's why it's so hard to tell when they're trying to be funny, and also why their attempts are doomed to abject failure.
;0)
During the healthcare reform uproar, they were outspoken cheerleaders for tea parties all over North Texas, among other things.
I guess it depends on the affiliate. The local St. Louis Fox station if pretty fairly balanced but; you can certainly detect the change in tone when the cut to Washington and one of the Fox talking heads.
I really love it when I watch a speech from the President on the PBS station, then turn over to the Fox station to see reaction, and it is literally like we watched two different speeches.
Then KTVU was sold to Cox Broadcasting which went through cashflow problems due to overleveraging. Budgets were cut to pay for debt, even though ratings and revenue were solid. News director retired. Senior reporters either quit, retired or weren't renewed due to pay reductions. New hires were far less skilled and didn't have journalist experience. The "retirement" of Randy Shandobil as political reporter and Dennis Richmond as anchor were significant.
The current news director is a "if it bleeds it leads" police blotter guy. It's lazy and cheap news filler that only requires a camera and a race to the scene of the crime with voice over by the anchor. It costs a lot less than journalists tracking down a 10 stories a week each with a camera op and perhaps an intern in tow.
The KTVU news hole is pretty middle of the road, although the didn't take the time to dig into healthcare story, they didn't tilt it.
However, when they run FauxNoise stories the tilt is amazing. It's obvious from the second sentence in a 90 second story that you're getting propaganda and opinion, even in hard news. Then there's the bimbo look of FauxNoise people and the sycophant approach to reporting GOP talking points verbatim.
(Or maybe you meant that Woodrow Wilson had some American Citizen interns on his staff?)
No need to link to actual proof, just let me know who you think Woodrow Wilson interned. (Or Interred)
Do you think we are so stupid that we can't refer back to your proffering of the same stupid claims that were effortlessly debunked only a couple of days ago?
You must believe that we are as stupid as you, because only someone debilitatingly stupid would think he could get away with the same lies that were presented and shot down only days ago.
THANK YOU! I've been trying to get that point across for YEARS.
That's funny stuff raht thar!
You didn't do that, and couldn't do that in this case, because what they're saying Beck said was incorrect actually IS incorrect.
Ratings do not equal truth. Sorry. Ratings don't even equal quality of what is being shown.
How many times does this have to be written to you guys?
Wheat prices are indeed higher now than they were not too long ago, but they are far from their historic highs (seen here. Where was Beck back in March 2008 yelling about wheat prices?
Same thing for corn. Not highest ever.
Oil again, still not close to top prices.
Sugar on the other hand, is at an all time high. Do you know why though? Bad weather in the countries that typically produce sugar, which means, when the weather starts cooperating again, prices will go down. Doesn't mean we're going to be out of sugar anytime soon. Especially if India comes through in putting more sugar into the world market, which it forecasts it will do in 1st quarter of 2011.
Cotton, also high. Why? Prices are going up because cotton demand during the recession has been lower than normal. Also, new crops were decimated by bad weather again (flooding in Pakistan and China and bad producing weather in India). Also, when prices started to rise, speculators took an interest (in order to make more money) cotton, and that made the price go higher due to greater interest.
What are you going to stock up on?
What lies are MMFA publishing again?
Beck is just preying on people being scared. Again.
Sorry, was bothering me.
Monetary changes, resource usage and developement, technology, etc... all are global in scope now. I hope that we elect another progressive president. One that had a vision of the future, not one who is trapped in past glories.
I want my president to understand science, rather than just faith. I want a president that isn't a blind patriot, but one devoted to this country but aware that we are not perfect. I want a president who understands that diplomacy isn't just used to end wars, but to prevent them.
It is "We the People" not, " We the Corporations..."
We live in capitalist economy, but a democratic society. The economy is to serve the people, not the other way around.
Unfortunately, we do not have a legislature that is willing to look at anything past who "wins", politically speaking. I certainly hope that the American people are smart enough to see that, and vote accordingly.
Some of the posters here, such as you, give me hope. Posters like abnob, doughie, squawks, and others fill me with fear that the anti-intellectualism of the right may have done irreparable damage to this great country already, and we may very well be in the last throes of collapse.
Unfortunately, the "Conservatives" on the Supreme Court first saw to it that corporations were included in "We the People" and then elevated them beyond that when they gave them carte blanche to purchase politicians, even without disclosure.
MLB - Yankees or Red Sox
NFL - Patriots
NHL - Red Wings
NBA - Lakers
by congero6189599 (December 30, 2010 1:52 pm ET) 5
Oh and lets go Yankees!!! #28! I just had to add that. What think jeter2?
lol.
Uh...wait, so...if someone doesn't like the Twins, then denies liking the most popular sports teams when you accuse them of it, they are being redundant and acting like a typical democrat?
This is a joke post? You and congero are just funnin' right?
SQUIRREL!
Survival Seeds.
Apparently, he is stocking up on stupidity and cowardice.
What is it with you conservatives and horrible compositional skills lately. That screed was almost painful to read, aside from being fact-free.
Is it just me or has it been worse recently?
Who are these people that follow his "end of the world" prose?
Better yet, after all his ranting and raving: "WAKE UP!!! The Government is out to get you!!--Big Brother is out to get you!!--George Soros is out to get you!!---PETA is out to get you!!---Obama himself is out to get you!!"--what are you supposed to do with THAT??? He never says "because of this, do this"--it's always: "this is happening! Wake Up and WAKE UP YOUR NEIGHBORS"--but to do WHAT exactly???
BUY his 8/28 Book? BUY his BECK UNIVERSITY diploma? BUY his FUSION magazine?? BUY Food Storage? BUY 9/12 Chotch-kess? BUY his horrible books? BUY his home YARD SALE items from UPILLAR? BUY his religion? BUY his wife's weight-loss program (gotta love THAT new one--shamesless 2x) Better yet, BUY GOLD??? Always SELLING SELLING SELLING!!!!
He does this to cause a panic without stating the goal.....
"But don't miss tomorrow's show and I will explain MORE."
Such a HUCKSTER! And these poor people BUY it?? WHY??????
Sorry for the rant! Had to get that off my chest !
My city soundly voted down a $5.00 a month tax to keep the libraries open. So they closed 5 of them. Only two libraries in a city of several hundred thousands!
When I asked my neighbors why they would vote against their own self interest when they were complaining about the closure, they said it was on "principle". (They complained about the closing of the local branch, then told me they voted against the tax....... how stupid is that?)
What principle says greedily keep a little money for myself so that everyone in my city suffers? I wish they would move and we would get responsible neighbors that want to improve the neighborhood and city instead of starve it, then complain about it!
UGH!
I LOVE LAMP!
LAVA LAMP!
However, all I have to say is, just ask your sister if it works. ;)
so look it up. give me the real definition. and prove how dumb you are.
Enough of the drunken at your keyboard spam please.
oh wait.... robots don't cry or laugh
Happy new year y'all!
Do you frequently insert a non sequiter to attempt to change the subject when you have had your ass handed to you with facts?
will you please enlighten me with facts? After reading the top of this page I am not sure either are telling the truth.
Glenn Beck says something.
Washington Post or New York Times writes something differently.
Media Matters takes both stories.
Media Matters Pawns Glenn Beck off as false, and Washington Post/ New York Times off as truth.
The Reality is everyone posting on this site has zero idea of what is truth and what is false. Otherwise we would not be posting anything.
Sure there are some claims above made by Media Matters that are very compelling, and even makes me wonder, WONDER, if Glenn Beck is lying. The problem is that no ordinary citizen knows who is pulling the strings, so believing either one would make me a very weak person.
In some of the cases mentioned above, like the trip to India, the White House has to refute the claim because they know if they were to leave it alone or confirm it there would be an outrage in the citizen population. However, if you believe the White House in this instance, then why didn't you believe the White House when they said WMD's were in Iraq, could it be because at the time it was a conservative White House and Liberal outlets said they were lies? Or are you some highly ranked CIA agent and know for a fact they were lying? I am going to assume the first scenario.
The George Soros piece is also very controversial, read Tivador Soros' (George's Dad) book Masquerade:
Dancing Around Death in Nazi-Occupied Hungary. In this book there is a part where Tivador claims that George helped the Nazi's take land. So I guess you have to decide who is lying, business man George Soros, or his father who, to me, has no reason to lie.
See now I know how all of you donkeys are going to take this. You are going to call me a wingnut or a beckbot, say that I am trying to defend Beck, or in some arrogant way try and make fun of my intelligence for disagreeing with you. None of that matters to me though because I said at the beginning that there where Beck claims that I could see as being lies, I am not ignorant like the rest of you seem to be.
But to any rational person that is truly independent, that comes on here and reads posts, they will see all of you as the robots, because all of you say the same things and believe everything media matters tells you.
I do not care what all of you are going to say to this post for the simple fact that when this world does go down the drain, because at some point it will (you are ignorant if you don't accept that), I am not going to be lost like the rest of you because I do not let people's claims run my life like Media Matters' does all of you.
Again, I am going to end with this so it is very clear to you donkeys, I DO NOT AGREE WITH BECK ON ALL OF THE CLAIMS HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE.
Glenn Beck's claim that Obama's India trip could cost "up to two billion dollars" came from nowhere but his wazoo. Originally, an Indian newspaper said the trip would cost $200 million dollars; White House and Pentagon officials said that figure was wildly overblown. If I told someone I made "up to two hundred thousand dollars a year" when I never made more twenty thousand, would this strike you as at all dishonest?
Btw, refusing to acknowledge evidence doesn't make you independent minded or "skeptical"; it means you're the opposite.
The government secretly spends $80 trillion researching the power of voodoo. Go ahead, prove that I'm lying.
This really shouldn't be as difficult as it apparently is for you.
Beck may have been wrong, but he didn't make up the figures, as MM and you claim. That would make you and MM what? Liars, but your own definition, would it not?
I don't like being an ass (well, maybe I do little bit), but if you had read either my post or the article, this would have been quite clear.
So Glenn Beck did not make that up, the Indian newspaper did. Assuming the White House wasn't lying.
Actual cost of most presidential trips is between $3 million to $5 million / per day. This is easy to access if you bother LOOKING.Current trip costs are never issued until months after trip for security reasons.
Reporting something you read without vetting the source is simply bad journalism. It is propaganda when done deliberately. Glenn Beck and Fox do this all the time. Speaking in half-truths is simply irresponsible, unless your goal is to disinform people.
I can pull headlines from daily Arab news papers that claim, " Mossad triggers earthquake in Turkey with satelite weapon" ( actual headline). As a responsible academic I would question the validity of the claim and the source. I would not report it and I certainly would not propagate the myth.
Fox is the GOP disinformation network. They are not journalists, they are involved in a new form of disinformation called " Propatainment".
They do no real investigative journalism, they have used Wikipedia as sources, they apparently do not know how to use lexus/nexus.
O'Riley stated Fox had never claimed there were death panels. He said he had the best research team in journalism. The reality was Fox had made multiple claims that there were death panels. It was even claimed on his own show.
O'Riley also claimed Nixon never met Mao Zedong. His guest told him he was wrong, then O'Riley shouted him down. Funny there is a famous picture of Nixon and Mao sitting together.
When O"Riley was on Tim Russert with Paul Grugman. O'Riley told Grugman " Do your own research". This is Bill O'Riley, telling a Noble Laureate in economics, he need to do his own research. It was too funny.
I can go through each Fox personality and show you how each is spreading disinformation.
Again, Fox is a tool for the taskmasters on the right...Fight the Lords of Illusion.
Many Americains want to be sheep, Fox loves this. Project, Absolute,Why, Mentalgiant and others are simply enslaved to their dogma.
SQUIRREL!
Um... we actually went to war over that, remember?
We sent a bunch of our young men into Iraq, some of them never to return home, to find and remove those WMD's your "conservative" President Cheney told us were there.
HOW MANY DID THEY FIND? And I don't mean 15- or 20-year-old defunct gas grenades buried under a basement.
I am uncertain how it is that you figure that a 14-year-old tagging along with his guardian, attempting not to appear Jewish (for fear of being killed for that heinous crime), could be responsible for the actions taken by his guardian. Who, by the way, also would have been killed, or at least persecuted, for non-compliance.
Have you ever googled any of Beck's claims? Try it, really. It seems that all of his claims are backed up by a conglomeration of websites that feed off of each other for confirmation. Almost always, confirmation of a Beck claim will loop right back to Beck himself as the proof that he is right.
Nice try though, and I am impressed that you almost sounded intelligent in your post.
The problem is, you have shown in the past that giving you facts and proof have no effect on your "thinking".
Done any "harmless humping" with any of your buddies lately?
1. So how much did the trip actually cost? Does anyone besides the Government REALLY know?
2. How many WMD's did they find? Does anyone besides the Government REALLY know?
3. Yes I place responsibility on him, because he helped.
1. A lot less than your idiot prophet suggested it did. My guess would be probably less than any of Bush's trips, simply based on the world's hatred of Bush. Mostly, outside of terrorists, the only people that hate President Obama are folks like you.
2. Are you stupid? If they found any WMD's, they would have paraded them to the USA and the rest of the world IMMEDIATELY, if only to say "in your face, doubters". If nothing else, at least that would validate going to war against a country that did NOTHING TO THE USA.
3. Never mind, you ARE stupid.
John Boehner, the incoming Speaker of the House, the most powerful Republican in Washington, and a man who in a matter of days will be second in line for the presidency, has twice had an opportunity to introduce himself to the American people.
And on BOTH occasions, HE CRIED - A LOT.
"It's FULL-BORE CRYING," said interviewer Leslie Stahl. "It's NOT just a little tears AND he does it A LOT."
"This is not exactly the first impression you want to make to the American people," said Republican strategist Ed Rollins. "YOU NEVER SAW NANCY PELOSI CRYING".
John Boehner Cries. Again. A Lot....
While I hardly lean all the way Repugnican on anything, I almost agree with them on illegal immigration, guns, and the death penalty. There are other places as well.
I do not agree with them on the idea of screwing real American citizens in favor of corporations, which seems to be a huge thing with the Obstructionist party. Has been for a long long time, but it seems to have gotten a bit more rabid since around January of 2009.
Not sure why, but I hear it has something to do with a black man breaking into the White House.
Have you ever received a job from a poor person?
the multinational corporate suits don't care about their employees, but the small businesses do.
A good read about the poor and jobs is "Anybody can do Anything" by Betty McDonald. It's about her family getting jobs during the Depression.
How do you keep that job?
If the person becomes rich?
When that person does not grow their business to actually make a profit, will they keep you employed?
In order for a business to succeed someone has to become rich. No business stays in debt.
My recommendation - ask your Dad.
If trickle-down was real, you'd hire more people when aunt Elsie dies and leaves you some money. But we all know that's not true.
Rush fill-in Williams: Each "American should have one vote, plus one additional vote for each $20k he pays in income taxes"
Limbaugh fill-in Williams says government can force businesses not to discriminate because "they have guns"
Limbaugh fill-in Williams asks caller: "Why don't you want child labor?"
Limbaugh fill-in Williams downplays discrimination, equates it with being discriminating in choosing wife
Rush fill-in Williams tells caller: "I believe in keeping wives under control"
Rush fill-in Williams warns of "tyranny" of salt regulation in processed foods
Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]...
Pearlene Just posted quotations from a man you apparently admire for his business savvy, and you call that "smearing?"
Just so we're clear: in your analysis, "smearing" = directly quoting?
I'm a mechanic. Yes, I have received plenty of jobs from "poor people". Frequently, I take a huge hit when I give big discounts to a customer who honestly cannot afford repairs that they desperately need.
Usually in those cases we barter, so that I get goods or services that I can use in return.
And no, that bartering has never included "harmless humping".
Home schooling, probably.
YOU ARE SUCH A BIGOT!!!!!
Oh, and I realize I am not clever with that response, the problem is that you aren't aware of your own lack of cleverness.
Drunk idiots and trolls rarely are...and we are all either laughing at you, or shaking our heads in pity for you.
I would feel pity for you if I cared enough about you to.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/big-brother#ixzz19oo6ZlPU
This one I would particularly like a response to. Especially since you stole an already stolen post without bothering to vet it. I vetted it for you and it failed miserably; almost every item in your post was bogus.
How about this one?
Oddly enough here are only two of several posts where research served to hand you your head on a platter and you failed to respond.
You provided only plagiarized screeds as "support" for your phony, made-up claims, and then ran away like a scared rabbit when someone like curiousindependent challenged you on your poor copying-and-pasting skills.
You can go on believing you handed us our asses. As I stated before, the fact that you believe it proves that it isn't true.
You prove yet again that you can't even understand the sites you copy from, especially when they do not bolster your claims.
Well, not your actual ass so much, but what comes out of it.
If all the comments stuck to legal ideas of evidence, none of what you say contains merit. Even in this forum, where we are not altogether serious, your post cannot be taken seriously.
-Soros: It's pointless to try to argue with you on this. Beck, and by default Horowits, lied about the date when Soros made his "rules don't apply" comment to make it sem as he was attempting to rig the 2004 election, when he founded Americans Coming together with the hope of beating Bush. The "Soros took land form the jews" has been explained far too many times. All in All, Beck has said enough to classify for a defamation suit..
Better spend a few hundred $$ on the stocking-up paraphernalia (which will cost you far more than any increase in prices will, duhhhh)
BWAHAHA! Good point.
Beck will often say the following:
-"When we come back I will blow your mind with what I am about to say"
-" Could I say this if it were not true"
-" They don't want you to know this"
-" I am going to let you in on a secret"
The other thing he uses is his chalk board/ backdrop. The idea here is to have a picture of one of his"enemies" with some evil historic figure, e.g. President Obama with Stalin and Hitler, Van Jones with Karl Marx. Soros with crashing stock market, etc... This is a common propaganda technique. Joseph Goebbels used this technique with nazis propaganda,e.g. Jews with pictures of rats, etc... The idea is to cause a conscious link between the two items being viewed i.e. President Obama with fascism or nazism or stalinism, etc...
I haven't tested this one yet but I bet it holds true alot of the time. When GOP members are on Fox, I bet the sides of the screen are patriotic flags waving and when it is someone opposed to the GOP it is less patriotic or very plain. This is just a hunch.
I've said it before, Fox and the GOP want people to be afraid. It makes it easier to manipulate people. It allows them to spend $800 billion/ per year on defence. It allows them to justify two wars that coast a combined: $360 million dollars a day. There is always another threat looming: China,Iran, Russia, some non-state actor.
Do not allow the Lords of Illusion to keep you in fear.
I've always thought his extensive use of the chalkboard was used more to propetuate to his viewers the notion of him as "teacher," thus giving him an authority he does not have or earned.
He did not graduate from college, but I get the feeling that he gets a feeling of "authority" that comes from using a chalkboard (juvenile, I know) -- it solidifies his role as "professor," and the viewers as "students," craving his information and hanging on his every word.
He obviously PERSONALLY identifies with the preceived authority the chalkboard provides him, and now even SELLS "chalkboard" relating items on his website.
Quite pathetic, actually......
I can't remember does he use a pointer with the chalk board? I am not sure I stomach watching more of his stuff.
"DOES NOT WANT TO STAY AFTER CLASS TO CLEAN OF BOARD!!!"
I also like the "chat with experts".
I like the way he can't even look the camera in the eye when he is spinning his lies. One of the things an investigating officer will look for in an interviewee is the inability to maintain eye contact.
Everyone has their own unique "lie focus", meaning that when someone is telling a lie, they will subconsciously look at a certain point while telling it. I have noticed that Beck's is apparently a little down and to the right. That is where he points his gaze as he pauses, presumably while he "contemplates the great secrets he is about to reveal".
Of course, that could just be where his cue cards/teleprompter is.
"Do not allow the Lords of Illusion to keep you in fear."
Well said. There are things we should be fearful of: growing old and infirm without a support system, being unable to put a decent roof over our heads, unable to make an honest and decent living regardless of our education, race or ability, not enough money to put enough healthy food on our tables, and not being able to help those who need our help the most - the old, the young, the sick.
It is easy to rant about every conspiracy; be it, the communists, nazis, unions, muslims, or whatever enemy (old, or new) Fox News can dig up.
The real enemy are those who refuse to see and celebrate the progressive legislation that have protected then needs and human rights all.
I want to live in a society where I can trust that the humanity of all is respected, and protected.
That will not come from fearmongering. It comes from an understanding of what "We the people" really means.
I still can't believe that people oppose working together for a better world. But hey..I'm originally from Canada.
If the lobbyist were gone more positive legislation would occur.
It seems that the only people who don't like President Obama are terrorists and Republicans.
Oh, sorry, that was redundant, wasn't it.
I know some Beck fanatics personally, and the look on their faces when Glenn's "truth" gets torn to shreds by actual facts. It's at that point that they act like parrots; "Glenn couldn't say it if it wasn't true!".
Darwin had one of the most revolutionary ideas ever. He is one of my favourite thinkers.
Others include: Maimonides, Plato, Aristotle, Tolkien, Hitchens, Dawkins, Orwell, Jefferson, Karl von Clauswitz, Machievelli, the various writers of the Bible, Jim Morrison, Bob Dylan, Hume, Einstein,Freud, Maslow, Theordore Hertzel, Asimov etc...
Man being alive is awesome!!!
Ohh..and I love walks on the beach too...
What IS dangerous is that such a large segment of our population are naive (or just plain stupid) enough to believe his crap. What the right wing and their corporate owners DO NOT want is an educated citizenry able to read and think for themselves.
However, I find Sarah a bit dim. Perhaps the hotness you experience is actually your pants on fire?
Your immaturity and ignorance is spectacular!
By the way, there are a lot of other places to find beautiful women to become aroused over outside of politics. I hear the internets are full of pictures and videos of such women. Mature adults support women in politics because of their insight and beliefs, not because of how they look.
Basically, I demand a searchlight, you have settled for a 20 watt (dim) bulb.
That one made my morning. Thanks, and Happy new year.
And by the way, saying a girl is hot does not mean I would date her.
Also, curiousindependent liberal, you do not demand anything other than a woman with a mind as easily molded as yours.
If all we had to do was look at her, she would probably be considered attractive. But since she is the way she is, (i.e all the above) there is no way I could find her attractive in any way.
UGH!
Congrats. Just under the wire, but I think this may be a contender for the most incoherent wingnut attempt at a "thought" for the year.
We'll see you at the Wingy Awards. In the meantime, try to come up with an explanation of what he hell you meant by this.
I know that there is very little chance that you will understand this, but I am going to try anyway.
If she is low on the end of the looks spectrum, no one would find someone LOWER than her attractive. You really have to go up. So your claim that we must find some ugly women to be attractive suggests that you think Simple Sarah is below them on the spectrum.
She is easy on the eyes, but that isn't all that goes into an assessment of beauty. There must be at least some intelligence.
And, while she is extremely flexible physically, she is a devout Christian, despite my attempts to deprogram her. Truly, though, as long as she follows the red-print words, I am not bothered. She gets extremely pi$$ed when I point out the many contradictions and female-bashing passages though, so I tend to stay away from them.
Whoa. I was thinking the same thing. Look for the Adam's apple, whydoesnt! If she has an erection, that is not a woman. I mean, whatever you enjoy is fine with me. Just be aware.
And, in fairness, I have found (in my previous single life) that stupid people can have good sex as well. So, I would not dismiss all of Palin's good looks just because she is a dimwit. I wouldn't want her for a companion perhaps, but she is good looking. Stupid people need love too!
Congratulations! You have reached a new benchmark of bottom feeding trolldom (or in your case...troll-dumb)!
If I were to call my neighbor a cracker, would that be racist of me?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
"Every week we don't pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.''
"We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans.""
"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class."
If you work really hard, Beck might hire you to do his research and find him more chalkboards.
Companies ,like Haliburton, will not release the cocktail they use to drill. The normal method of disposal is to get it to evaporate on the drilling site. A fair number of the chemicals used are known carcinogens. The number of leaks that have contaminated the local water supplies is growing. Once in the water supply, the water can no longer be used as potable source of water,
Actuall, most of the jobs you claim Bush's tax cuts created were in the houseing market, financial area and in the military industrial complex.. We lost over 10 million jobs under Bush's economic system.
Also. tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. This is basic economic theory. The tax cuts that create jobs are one's focused on corporate growth. The most prosperous times in americain history, the tax on the highest earners was elevated e.g. Eisenhower 90%, Nixon 71%...Clinton 42%. With Reagan came the myth of Tax cuts equals growth.
Supply side economics was a myth. Reagans former economic advisor has called for this neocon myth to cease. We need to incraese taxs.
MMFA so wants Fox to be a legit news outlet that it hurts. Facepalm x 1000.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HfuwNU0jsk0&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HfuwNU0jsk0&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
As for Beck, he certainly is strange, and I'm glad that you like him. There's a man for every woman, as they say.
Happy New Year.
The only charge MMFA appears to be making is that Beck frequently makes statements that fit with his ideological template...but that simply aren't true....and then they painstakingly point out when and where.
So if you have a correction to make (which I doubt) you can make it. Good luck on the snipe hunt.
Which of Beck's words aren't his? I'm sorry I don't have your faith. Don't hate people you don't know because they aren't part of your cult. That's how reasonable but deluded folks do evil things.
And I mean actual proof, not some diatribe you lifted from a poster somewhere who lifted it from someone who lifted it.
And please, this time at least research what you steal, to make sure it is valid.
Ah, who am I kidding, you are too afraid to respond.
Rationality is boring compared to conspiracy theory and doomsday preaching. "Judging by how many people are tuned in" is a horrible measure of "interest", because it tells you nothing about what kind of interest. Porn is pretty popular, and by your way of thinking, that would mean that porn movies should be taken seriously as potential grounding for good politics.
Have a Save, Sane, and Happy New Year. I'm back to watching a Marx Brothers marathon on TCM. I'm about to open a bottle of Korbel!
MMFA still thinks that Fox News is a news outlet. Hey, here comes a clue: It's not.
MMFA has a habit of saying things like "Gosh, Fox isn't doing a very good job of reporting the news."
It's a bit like saying "This crescent wrench is terrible at drying my laundry!"
What I haven't missed are the ads claiming that Fox is "Fair and Balanced", "We Report, You Decide".
I think really that you are dancing on the head of a pin, trying hard not to believe facts. If you want to imagine that at the age of 14, George Soros was taking land away from fellow Jews rather than trying to stay alive, I'd say I pity you.
As for Beck, the sources one picks to believe are quite telling. You basically are stating that you don't trust anyone so you don't have to take any responsibility for believing rubbish. And by broad-brushing anyone who rebuts your material, you try to deflect any reality.
Good luck in 2011.
What you post has been rubbish. False choice in the Nazi q: he hid, which didn't help the Nazis. Quit trying to make it an either or. You seem like the type who can't learn vicariously, so perhaps if YOU had been in that situation as a child, you might now see the nuance. We would hope.
For someone who discounts Glen, you've spent a lot of time on here, mostly being a jerk.
The nerve...
You wrote, "No, are you BarackObamasD!ck?" This was an improper conjunction of two thoughts. Since the first part was a declarative, it should be followed by a period, "No." The second part was an interrogative, related to the first part, but not responsive to the original question, and therefore the only proper way to formulate the thoughts would be to separate them. So, your post should have read, "No. Are you BarackObamasD!ck?" A less elegant way to acheive similar results would have been to insert a coordinating conjunction to link the two independent clauses, but that sort of writing tends to muddle the message. Best to keep sentences short, direct, and simple.
Your post was ignorant and venal. It displayed a lack of self-awareness and a limited native facility at rapartee. Since there was no substance to your post, it only seems fair that you could at least punctuate it properly. Herein endeth the lesson.
Besides, Soros didn't admit anything. He was protected by a man who was willing to risk his life and the lives of his family to care for Soros by hiding him in plain sight. The Kroft interview doesn't contain a single instance of Soros admitting to taking property. In fact, Soros denies that he had any role in taking any property. He was a Jewish kid in a difficult situation in which the Nazis were actively murdering his people. What was he supposed to do? Pull a Rambo? This was real life, not an action movie. The only Jews that survived those times were the Jews who hid.
That is an admission. The rest is just a bad attempt to cover his butt.
So he says two things in that interview; that helped in the confiscation of land, and that he had no role in the confiscation of land.
Which one is true? all of you donkeys seem so sure you know the truth so enlighten me.
And, as we all know, the person in the passenger seat of a vehicle, simply by occupying that seat, is giving the OK for every action the actual driver takes. If you do a "California stop", slowly rolling through a stop sign, the person in the passenger seat is as much or more responsible than the person actually holding the wheel and operating the pedals.
I love the way the s for brains likes to use "donkeys" as an epithet. Learn that from Beck, did you? Something tells me that this snivelling little jerk would be one helluvalot more polite were he standing in front of me trying to make his "arguments".
Now, which scenario sounds more plausible, your assertion that a 14-year old Jewish boy who had to hide his identity, his race and his religion just to survive was actually a Nazi collaborator? Or a 14-year old Jewish boy who had to hide his identity, his race, and his religion kept his mouth shut and just hoped to wake up every morning in his own bed? Yeah, if you're a reasonable person, the Soros Nazi collaborator story just doesn't make sense. But I suspect, considering how you truncated that quote from the Kroft interview, that you're not a reasonable person.
>>He admits it at the beginning of the Kroft interview, and his dad writes about it in his book.
George Soros never admitted any such thing, as MMFA explains above.
You really don't see an admission in that sequence.
Many of the borders in the modern world are political constructs. The entire Middle-East was redrawn after the fall of the Ottman Empire. France, England, Russia and the United States decided where the borders would be and who would control them.
-Israel took land from Palestinians.
-Iraq got land that was traditionally Persian land
-Iraq lost land that was historically theirs i.e. modern Kuwait
-Lebanon was traditionally seen as Syrian.
etc...ad infinitum
We do business with many groups that acted poorly in WW2. How do you think the world views doing business with America now? A country that claims moral superiority, then uses torture, abduction and mercenaries?
The same country that kept Saddam in power for decades, then kills him.
How do think Iran views america after it overthrew its democratically elected governemnt in 1953 and istalled the Reza Shah Pahlavi. Who tortured and murdered his oposition?
How about the Marcos' in the Phillipines?
How about Manuel Noriega?
Did I mention all the companies and their owners that benefited from these take-overs?
I am certainly not justifying anyone taking land from anyone. I am however, finding it hard to claim any moral high ground when Haliburton, Blackwater, Gilead Science and others benefit from our taking of land or supporting dictatoships.
You, sir, are a liar. "Nuff said...
use google or another search engine to find the truth. i would post links but i think yon need to learn how to do your own research.
if your first stop is foxnews, hmmmm well don't bother
You forgot to say MMFA, HuffP, and every "big" newspaper that hasn't gone bankrupt yet (because normal people realized long ago they are not credible) are sources you will accept.
Leftists' lemmings are so funny.
I don't think every article MMFA posts is of great interest and sometimes I disagree with their "take" but they certainly source all their material. Same with HuffP.
One can disagree with all their opinion pieces, but they don't make stuff up as those right wing sites do on a regular basis. If World New Daily and Newsmax made their arguments based upon factual material it would be easier, but they don't.
As for Heritage, they are guilty of frequently skewing data to prove their point. It's been exposed on here, factcheck and snopes. Just one example.
the right-wing response is to claim that factcheck and snopes are somehow suspect. That just isn't honest.
Just for instance, Beck's claim that President Obama said "judge me by the people I keep around me". Google it. You will find that EVERY source claiming that links back to Beck as the source for it. Funny that a comment supposedly made by a front-runner in a presidential election wasn't filmed by ANYONE.
sorry it's just to funny
BTW, this is but one reason the Left has dribbled down to something like 20% while the Right is growing. (See 2010 mid-term election results for proof.) Keep living in your bubble shouting La, La, La, La ,Laaaa so as to not hear sounds of reason and common sense. In fact, more power to you. The more goofy Leftists go the more it helps the Right.
Really, the only unsoved variable in the 2012 equation is whether or not President Obama is going to reconcile with his base. If that happens, Democrats will retake the House. And the funny, funny thing is, you know it's true. That's why you bluster and post substance-free screeds on an unambivalently liberal site. You want to desperately hang on to this fleeting feeling of superiority before we take it away and you're back to bitching about Obama's birth certificate.
Signed, ong, an "expert" whose whose credentials and theories are generally invalid and irrelevanr because n'est says so.
But I will thank you for the laugh when you said, "MMfA sources their articles, including full-context quotes, unedited video, and transparent reporting."
Riiiiiiight. Your posts demonstrate both a lack of education and intellect. You're an expert at being a dumbass.
Implying that the articles on MMfA don't produce those basic source materials, but providing no examples of same. Like I said, yer a dumbass.
And, you couldn't even get your own initials right, so much for expecting you to have any valid "credentials and theories".
Bolding mine.
Uh, no dude. First, your initials would be OMG. Second, your credentials and theories are generally invalid and irrelevant because you are stupid.
There is a plethora of other words and phrases that have been stripped of original meaning and rebranded to mean whatever the right wants them to mean.
Grmace, hope you and yours are ok in all this.
And Happy New Year to the trolls who made things interesting, too.
I think this statement says it all.
Is it Right enough?
And yes I know I have intentionally misquoted him for the same reasons he does.But he would never admit that.
I'm boasting about it!
whenever i point out the lies and twisted information, even with documentation, they just say it is people that have an agenda to get rid of him.
this is the same mass, for lack of a better word "hypnosis" that Adolf Hitler used on his masses of followers. i am not saying beck is like him i am saying he uses the same psychology
This is why cult leaders always insist that you only listen to them. All other sources are the "other" (in this case, left). This way when they hear something that doesn't jive with their beliefs they are fully prepared to utterly discard it.
What is really distrubing in the current cult of anti-reason, is that it is packaged in mundane and familiar guises and broadcast to mainly old white people, so some of you might find it's your parents or uncle that are under the red, white and blue spell. After all Beck has claimed God and Charity and the Founding Fathers and Hope, and faith and apple pie, puppies and sunshine. There isn't much left for the cultic other in this case. Beck calls them progressives but we know "left" is the real devil in this senario. Now if you'll excuse me I have some overpriced gold to buy and a bomb shelter to finish up.
Profiled sterotyping by a, what's that word again?, - oh yeah, bigot! Don't ya just love it when a snobby leftist reveals their actual inner thoughts for the world to see?
BTW, the cult thing is really funny coming from the Left. Talk about ridiculous! In fact, better you folks go ahead and put the booze away. New Years celebration is over.
2BTW, I am no fan of Beck, but the things the left sez about him is truly funny to read.
And, you've yet to post anything to back up your own opinions. That is what you've been continually asked to do; and in reply, you simply go on about "the left" describing your cartoon fantasy of same.
That is, of course, when you bother to post any sources at all. Usually your opinions are half-cocked regurgitation of the latest Beck or Limbaugh screed, slightly paraphrased in a vain attempt to try and disguise the source.
If you can only find two or three sources for something, and they all feedback loop to each other as sources for their information, they aren't legit.
One thing some of you are correct on though. I am wasting my time here. At first it was fun sparing with you but I've come to realize Savage was right when he said Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Thank goodness only a few dozen actually read MMFA while millions upon millions tune into conservative sources for reality.
Therefore, I have decided to reduce my contributions to this site. You lefty clowns can continue to live in your fantacy world; giving each other your thumbs up just like a regular ole love-in of the past. Don't forget to sing Kum-by-Yaaa whilst you pass the pipe!
By n'est's logic one can say "Muslims are by far the largest group of terrorists in the world" because thats what the evidence shows - but it is not profiling. Thanks n'est, for showing you are also a bigot.
Bummer when you FU really bad, eh n'est?
See ya.......
Saying that many of the acts of terrorism committed over the past twenty years have been committed by Muslims isn't profiling. Advocating that we should abrogate the civil rights of 1.6 BILLION people by subjecting them to greater scrutiny than other racial or ethnic groups, that's profiling. So, you're for profiling; I am not. I'd ask you if you see the difference, but you're a dumbass.
I believe that the word you are looking for is demographics. For his website traffic, at least, it pretty much breaks down to being mostly old white guys. Presumably his radio and tv audience will break down about the same way.
Mental please. You sure do defend Beck a lot. I mean, I am no W fan, and you will rarely see me defend him.
But your just playing the fiddle I was criticizing. You don't have a right to label me.
That*s why MMfA*s attempt to get sponsors to drop Fox/Beck hasn*t worked. Beck just uses that as a foil.
And he throws out enough factual material to keep a **well educated** audience interested.
The best way to deal with Beck is to point out contradictions in his arguments from the conservative ideological viewpoint that his audience believes in.
For example, his Friday program dealt with the U.S. constitution from a conservative originalist perspective.
An example of one such contradiction was that his show opened with an assertion that the constitution rejected democracy as a principle; Then the program closed by talking about the constitution*s opening phrase in such huge typeface **We the People** ( then in normal typeface ) **of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union**. ( An obvious democratic theme )
Some links that might help you understand why Beck's audience will never abandon him.
Gore Vidal's debate with William F. Buckley
Mencken's Homo Neanderthalensis
Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Conservative Brains Are Inflexible and Incapable of Dealing with Change
The fascists have been robbing the Treasury and directing the American military and foriegn policy apparatus as a means of creating and perpetuating a neo-feudal society. And they've made huge strides towards that goal; the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider, most Americans are indentured to a corporation, and personal property only remains in the hands of individuals for as long as a wealthy developer doesn't have designs upon it.
The fanatics have lost a great deal of ground as the fascists no longer need them to distract Americans from what has happened to them. I'd call it a silver lining that most Americans say religion is not important in their lives, but it seems a bit tarnished in light of just how close we all are to permanently losing our rights in the name of corporate balance sheets.
Thank you for the kind words, but I am neither a conservative nor a progressive. And I agree with you that corporatocracy is a major problem in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
I started posting here at MMfA because I was interested in the psychology and sociology of the Beck phenomenon. Related to Hofstader’s article one of the first posts I made here was that to understand where Beck was coming from, you had to understand the ideological influence on him of Cleon Skousen, whose book, **The 5,000 Year Leap**, Beck frequently cites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen
I immediately got attacked here both for my handle, and for posting the Wiki link to Skousen. LOL.
Those brain function studies are very interesting.Not sure though about the conclusion that conservatives are **less brave and more fearful** from the British Telegraph paper.
During WW I, it was considered very brave and patriotic love of God, King and Country to **go over the top** of the trench and futilely charge into machine gun fire.
Or to bring it a little more up to date: **Oh it*s one, two, three, what are we fighting for ? Don*t ask me I don*t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam.**
The first study you cited may be more applicable there:
I was especially taken with Menchken's writing about Beethoven, he probably was nearly unknown in American to the vast majority of the population. But Menchken's points are still very fresh, 85 years later. Amazing.
Mencken is also one of my favorites. A couple of the best quotes from him, IMO:
""Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.""
""An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.**
LOL
From the last one I found a bit of humor:
Nice of the pundits to prove the point.
self based on facts.