glenn beck

[Michael Hardner]

MH, I noticed you didn't mention how many shows of his you watched while coming to your decision. You have probably come to your conclusion on him based on what you've heard from the MSM then. Clips taken out of context. Or video where Whoopi decides Beck is a bag of dog crap because he may have been mistaken as to whether a seat was reserved or not.

I have watched a few episodes and clips... taken out of context. Well, no. He provides the context so if I watch a 10 minute clip of Beck weeping and saying "I'm afraid for my country"... the context is baked right in, you see.

I think I posted a clip of Lewis Black making fun of Beck's Nazi comparisons on this thread - seek it out, it's quite funny.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmmm.... yes, I think I heard of him. He had to resign, it is thought to be partially due to the fact that they strained the lines of objectivity.

Again -> he had to *resign* because of this.

Do you see the difference yet ?

The only difference is loss or gain in audience share and paying sponsors. That's why Rather had to go. Beck does not pretend to be a "Rather", he is not a journalist.

[Michael Hardner]

The only difference is loss or gain in audience share and paying sponsors. That's why Rather had to go. Beck does not pretend to be a "Rather", he is not a journalist.

You keep drawing the equation that popular=better, it seems. That means McDonald's is nutritious food then as well, I suppose.

You say "Beck is not a journalist", yet in response to my point "You honestly can't put Beck beside newscasts and say "see it's the same thing" " you replied "yes he can".

Answer the question, Bushy, is junk food real food or not ? Make up your mind. Does popular mean right or not ?

[bush_cheney2004]

You keep drawing the equation that popular=better, it seems. That means McDonald's is nutritious food then as well, I suppose.

The market determine what is better based on definitions that you can't control, despite wanting to.

You say "Beck is not a journalist", yet in response to my point "You honestly can't put Beck beside newscasts and say "see it's the same thing" " you replied "yes he can".

Beck can do whatever he and his producers wish, he has far more degrees of freedom than Rather ever did. You are confusing media format, message, and messenger.

Answer the question, Bushy, is junk food real food or not ? Make up your mind. Does popular mean right or not ?

Yes..Hardie...popular does mean right for market share and ad revenue.

[GostHacked]

You can make fun of Beck all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he's right.

So he is right about America being the next Fascist Nazi regime?

[Michael Hardner]

The market determine what is better based on definitions that you can't control, despite wanting to.

I concur.

Beck can do whatever he and his producers wish, he has far more degrees of freedom than Rather ever did. You are confusing media format, message, and messenger.

Of course he can. So... he's not the same thing then. Got it.

Yes..Hardie...popular does mean right for market share and ad revenue.

And the rest of us can point to other measures for what means right for health: such as obesity rates, cholesterol levels. How do we do that for information ? Ask how many people in a country believe in leprechauns ? Ask them what their nation's capital is ?

Once and for all: I'm not arguing that Beck is unpopular. In fact, if he were unpopular I wouldn't care so much about the bilge he sprays from his mouth-nozzle every day at 5 pm.

I'm arguing that it's probably unhealthy, just as a Mars bar is. Now, someone can eat a Mars bar once a week or so and it doesn't do much damage but eating 20 a day and nothing else... that's another matter.

You don't care, though. You want to argue about something else, and I'm asking for help on how to define the problem I want to talk about.

[Shady]

But he contradicts himself.

So does Al Gore. In fact, Al Gore produced a massive piece of propaganda called ironically "An Inconvenient Truth." Which legally was found to contain several untruths. Where is your outrage? Or is it selective?

He says that you'd have to be an idiot not to believe Global Warming, then he says that Global Warming is fake.

No, that's not what he's said.

We have health groups to warn us about junk food but who warns us about junk information ? Nobody does, so we have to talk about it ourselves.

Go ahead. Talk about junk information. Nobody has a problem with that. But what you think is junk information, somebody else might not. And what somebody else thinks is junk information, you might not.

Did mainstream news call GW Bush a racist for Katrina ? I don't remember the networks saying that.

Yes, actually they did. They called him racist for other things too.

Anyways, Beck is no different than Frank Rich or Paul Krugman of The New York Times. Except that he's on television instead of writing in a newspaper.

[bush_cheney2004]

Once and for all: I'm not arguing that Beck is unpopular. In fact, if he were unpopular I wouldn't care so much about the bilge he sprays from his mouth-nozzle every day at 5 pm.

Why do you care at all? He is an on-air talent in a foreign country for chrisakes. Do you think I lose sleep over whatever Mansbridge says or does on CBC?

I'm arguing that it's probably unhealthy, just as a Mars bar is. Now, someone can eat a Mars bar once a week or so and it doesn't do much damage but eating 20 a day and nothing else... that's another matter.

So who only watches Beck exclusively? For some reason, you have a hard-on for Beck that only you understand. Good luck with that.

You don't care, though. You want to argue about something else, and I'm asking for help on how to define the problem I want to talk about.

Your problem is with the First Amendment to United States Constitution. And you are not even an American to boot.

[Michael Hardner]

So does Al Gore. In fact, Al Gore produced a massive piece of propaganda called ironically "An Inconvenient Truth." Which legally was found to contain several untruths. Where is your outrage? Or is it selective?

Why are you bringing up Al Gore ?

Where is my outrage ? Start a thread on Al Gore and I will express it there. Al Gore's incorrect statements are also to be condemned. Now that I have stated that - as per your question - will you join me in condemning Beck's junk food information ?

No, that's not what he's said.

It was quoted in USA Today in February. I read it myself.

Go ahead. Talk about junk information. Nobody has a problem with that. But what you think is junk information, somebody else might not. And what somebody else thinks is junk information, you might not.

In it's purist form, what you're doing is akin to moral relativism, i.e. nothing is "right" or "wrong" it's just that some people like it or do not. Lying is "ok" if you "like" lying.

Yes, actually they did. They called him racist for other things too.

Find me a mainstream journalist who called GW Bush a racist, and that wasn't forced to resign or was severely admonished for that. I don't think any of them even said that.

Anyways, Beck is no different than Frank Rich or Paul Krugman of The New York Times. Except that he's on television instead of writing in a newspaper.

Wait - Krugman is a journalist though. Are you disagreeing with Bush_Cheney and Beck himself by saying Beck IS a journalist ?

[maple_leafs182]

Yes when they were linked to fluctuation gold prices.

Not that the US economy couldn't collapse but I think we need to see more then the most jobs created in the last 15 years in a month. Those aren't signs of collapse.

You will see, it won't last, them along with majority of the world are running off bubble economies thanks to low interest rates and stimulus packages. Reality will kick in soon, this year or early next year I'm thinking.

America's federal budget deficit for 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from their 2008 deficit. It is expected to be $2 trillion dollars this year, or at least that is what Ron Paul says, do you think a Government can continue to operate like that forever. America is broke.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you care at all? He is an on-air talent in a foreign country for chrisakes. Do you think I lose sleep over whatever Mansbridge says or does on CBC?

Why do you care about anything yourself ? Why are you posting on a Canadian board ?

I'm here to express my opinion with people who care about issues, as are you. That's the best reason I can think of.

So who only watches Beck exclusively? For some reason, you have a hard-on for Beck that only you understand. Good luck with that.

My concern over Beck is because he's the worst, and the next high-water mark for how bad things are getting.

Your problem is with the First Amendment to United States Constitution. And you are not even an American to boot.

I already explained that, and you're circling back because you are running out of new things to add.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do you care about anything yourself ? Why are you posting on a Canadian board ?

I'm here to express my opinion with people who care about issues, as are you. That's the best reason I can think of.

Well hell, even in that context you should grant Beck all the room he wants. He has the right to an opinion as well, but can sell a lot more ad time than you.

My concern over Beck is because he's the worst, and the next high-water mark for how bad things are getting.

Getting bad where? Are you really that patronizing? Not only do you voluntarily watch American media, but you also want to determine its content from frickin' Canada?????? WTF?

I already explained that, and you're circling back because you are running out of new things to add.

That's the basic rub for you...Beck is an American with certain rights...and you can't shut him up (or me).

[Michael Hardner]

Well hell, even in that context you should grant Beck all the room he wants. He has the right to an opinion as well, but can sell a lot more ad time than you.

That's not a reason for me to like Beck. I wouldn't be opposed to him on MLW, of course. I just think he has too many people listening to him, unappreciative of the junk information factor.

Getting bad where? Are you really that patronizing? Not only do you voluntarily watch American media, but you also want to determine its content from frickin' Canada?????? WTF?

I have a right to comment on America too. For that matter, I consider "America" to be both of our countries and the problems I ascribe to the US also exist in Canada.

I post because I care, B_C, I care...

That's the basic rub for you...Beck is an American with certain rights...and you can't shut him up (or me).

I don't want to shut you up. Further to that - I would be sad if you left this board. You have a brain and you consider what you say far more than Beck appears to. Beck's rights aren't really germane here anyway, it's the rights of News Corporation to create a living puppet that seems to be a man and have him beam fake opinions from Coast to Coast.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not a reason for me to like Beck. I wouldn't be opposed to him on MLW, of course. I just think he has too many people listening to him, unappreciative of the junk information factor.

So you not only wish to censor his content, but also have a patronizing opinion about his listeners? Marvelous!

I have a right to comment on America too. For that matter, I consider "America" to be both of our countries and the problems I ascribe to the US also exist in Canada.

Comment away, but you do not have the right to censor content. "America" is not your country, but we will leave that common wannabe affliction for another time. I certainly do not feel that Canada is "my country".

I don't want to shut you up. Further to that - I would be sad if you left this board. You have a brain and you consider what you say far more than Beck appears to. Beck's rights aren't really germane here anyway, it's the rights of News Corporation to create a living puppet that seems to be a man and have him beam fake opinions from Coast to Coast.

The "News Corporation" can create whatever it wants in the cause of furthering its interests. Competition can provide alternative views and content. As of today, Fox News is doing quite well. "Fake opinions" are perfectly legal unless a law is broken.

[Shady]

Why are you bringing up Al Gore ?

Well, let's take your premise as accurate and say that both Gore and Beck have been incorrect in their statements. Which one is embraced by the mainstream media and which one is vilified?

It was quoted in USA Today in February. I read it myself.

Can you post a link. I'd be very interested in reading it.

Find me a mainstream journalist who called GW Bush a racist, and that wasn't forced to resign or was severely admonished for that. I don't think any of them even said that.

Well, off the top of my head, I remember this beauty from Paul Krugman.

"Under George W. Bush - who, like Mr. Reagan, isn't personally racist but relies on the support of racists"

NYT

So apparently Bush isn't neccessarily racist, he just relies on the support of racists.

Wait - Krugman is a journalist though. Are you disagreeing with Bush_Cheney and Beck himself by saying Beck IS a journalist ?

No, Krugman and Rich are columnists, writing under the opinion pages of The New York Times. So like I've already said. Beck is no different than Krugman and Rich, except he's on television instead of writing in a newspaper.

[Michael Hardner]

So you not only wish to censor his content, but also have a patronizing opinion about his listeners? Marvelous!

It's "viewers" not listeners. I don't know why you say I have a patronizing opinion about them, and we already discussed the fact that I recognize Beck's right to speak. We mentioned it several times, and yet you're bringing it up again - and again, I say it's because you're running out of things to say.

Comment away, but you do not have the right to censor content. "America" is not your country, but we will leave that common wannabe affliction for another time. I certainly do not feel that Canada is "my country".

See above.

The "News Corporation" can create whatever it wants in the cause of furthering its interests. Competition can provide alternative views and content. As of today, Fox News is doing quite well. "Fake opinions" are perfectly legal unless a law is broken.

Ok - can we now put to bed any idea that I'm calling for censorship, or legislation to shut down Beck ?

That leaves only my point that Beck is a blithering idiot, whose views are ill considered and bad for America.

Thank you. Try the veal.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, let's take your premise as accurate and say that both Gore and Beck have been incorrect in their statements. Which one is embraced by the mainstream media and which one is vilified?

Gore is embraced and Beck is vilified.

Did I get that right ?

Now - my question which you cut out of your quote: Now that I have stated that - as per your question - will you join me in condemning Beck's junk food information ?

Can you post a link. I'd be very interested in reading it.

Here's one - there's another but I don't have time to find it:

in a recent interview with USA Weekend, Beck sounded eco-friendly and suggested global warming is real:

"You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," he says. He also says there's a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind. He has tried to do his part by buying a home with a "green" design and using energy-saving products. "I'm willing to do anything but use the CFLs," he says of compact fluorescent light bulbs. "I put them in once and couldn't stand the way they lit up the room."

From USA Today

Well, off the top of my head, I remember this beauty from Paul Krugman.

So apparently Bush isn't neccessarily racist, he just relies on the support of racists.

Please give me a link and a quote on what he was talking about - whose support ? What was the issue ?

It sounds like he was talking about something specific - that Bush did or said - that he categorized as racist. I would likely disagree with his example, but I would hope that he at least has an example. If not, I would lose a lot of respect for Mr. Krugman and his employer.

No, Krugman and Rich are columnists, writing under the opinion pages of The New York Times. So like I've already said. Beck is no different than Krugman and Rich, except he's on television instead of writing in a newspaper.

Dan Rather wasn't a columnist, though. So...

[Michael Hardner]

So apparently Bush isn't neccessarily racist, he just relies on the support of racists.

I see that you did provide a quote - which I didn't see in the 'reply' box.

[i take back the part where I said you misquoted Krugman - I was confused by a quote of his, followed by a quote of yours]

Under George W. Bush - who, like Mr. Reagan, isn't personally racist

He said Bush ISN'T racist. So I asked you to provide an example of a mainstream columnist calling Bush racist, and you did just the opposite.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

Here's the quote from Beck in USA Today:

USA Today Weekend Edition

He believes in global warming

“You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change,” he says. He also says there’s a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind. He has tried to do his part by buying a home with a “green” design and using energy-saving products. “I’m willing to do anything but use the CFLs,” he says of compact fluorescent light bulbs. “I put them in once and couldn’t stand the way they lit up the room.”

It's on Page 3.

If I was a Michael Moore fan, then found out that he had stock in General Dynamics and laughed at people who followed his books and movies, I think I would stop reading his books and watching his movies.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's "viewers" not listeners. I don't know why you say I have a patronizing opinion about them, and we already discussed the fact that I recognize Beck's right to speak. We mentioned it several times, and yet you're bringing it up again - and again, I say it's because you're running out of things to say.

Beck also has a syndicated radio show with a large number of "listeners"...not viewers. As before, we have already determined that in some cases you know absolutely jack about America despite claims to the contrary based on your "American friends".

See above.

See Google....Obi Wan Kenobi...it's your only hope.

Ok - can we now put to bed any idea that I'm calling for censorship, or legislation to shut down Beck ?

That leaves only my point that Beck is a blithering idiot, whose views are ill considered and bad for America.

Thank you. Try the veal.

Good...that took a bit of work but it was worth it. If you don't like American media content then express your opinion (or don't watch/listen at all), but don't think you have standing for shutting it down, or worse yet, determining what is "good or bad" for American audiences. That's the worse kind of patronizing crap I can think of.

Edited May 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[maple_leafs182]

what a pointless argument you guys are having.

[bush_cheney2004]

what a pointless argument you guys are having.

Must be the dope talking.....

[Michael Hardner]

Beck also has a syndicated radio show with a large number of "listeners"...not viewers. As before, we have already determined that in some cases you know absolutely jack about America despite claims to the contrary based on your "American friends".

I thought he gave up the radio show ? I remember listening to it when he was on CNN and thought he said he was doing it less often.

As to knowing "Jack" about America. Really ? Is the bar to knowing "Jack" about knowing how many programs Beck has on the air at the moment ? Really.

Continue to pick at my knowledge of Americans. I'll let you know how my American friends do with your questions ok ?

Seems to me that you're more intimidated by a Canadian that likes America than one who hates America.

See Google....Obi Wan Kenobi...it's your only hope.

Let's see.... Star Wars right ?

Good...that took a bit of work but it was worth it. If you don't like American media content then express your opinion (or don't watch/listen at all), but don't think you have standing for shutting it down, or worse yet, determining what is "good or bad" for American audiences. That's the worse kind of patronizing crap I can think of.

Actually, I can express my opinion as to what's 'good' and 'bad'. That's kind of what makes this site interesting - people's *opinions* - don't you think ?

And - yes - I think Beck is bad and eagerly await his downfall.

I'm glad you're past the idea that I want to censor people. Instead, I'd like people to determine something is bad on their own, or with some persuasive arguments, then to stop watching it. Once I've convinced you I only have 28 million or so more to convince. Or 14 million if you split the work with me.

[Michael Hardner]

what a pointless argument you guys are having.

I believe you posted something about understanding things better after a dose of mushrooms ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems to me that you're more intimidated by a Canadian that likes America than one who hates America.

Not at all....it is great fun to show wannabes their ass on such matters.

Let's see.... Star Wars right ?

Right....but which episode?

Actually, I can express my opinion as to what's 'good' and 'bad'. That's kind of what makes this site interesting - people's *opinions* - don't you think ?

Of course, in the end it's all opinion and nothing more. And that's a good thing. And we have painfully determined that Beck's opinions are at least as valid as yours, and a whole lot more "popular".

I'm glad you're past the idea that I want to censor people. Instead, I'd like people to determine something is bad on their own, or with some persuasive arguments, then to stop watching it. Once I've convinced you I only have 28 million or so more to convince. Or 14 million if you split the work with me.

Sure, and I bet you know exactly how people should think too. It would be a beautiful world if only people thought just as you do in Canada, because you know best for not only Americans, but all other nationals as well. LOL!