At 10/19/09 05:34 PM, Victory wrote:
At 10/19/09 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote:
The reason I like Beck is he is a libertarian. I've grown tired of my party (the Republicans) using the Religious Right to become the face of Conservativism.
Too bad Beck is clearly part of the religious right.
Stelyu answered this pretty well. Although I want to add something. I watched that clip and the guy annoyed me. He talked over Beck. Now I don't mind him editing his voice in...but stop Beck...throw up your "pithy" graphic and then talk. Then let Beck speak...then stop him and add your commentary.
Does he believe in God and talk about his religious journey? Yes he does. But being a Libertarian does not mean you are required to be an atheist. Show me where he wants the government to legislate morality or enshrine the Ten Commandments as law.
At 10/19/09 06:03 PM, fatape wrote:
I doubt he's a libretarian, seeing as he said that watching porn turn's people into serial killers, or that atheist have cuased a insurgence of crime in america.
And that disqualifies him as a Libertarian...how? I think abortion is the taking of a human life. If a woman gets pregnant and it is an inconvenient time for her to be pregnant (ie: as birth control)...it is murder. Now in cases of life & death medical emergencies, rape or incest I have a slightly different take on this.
However, these are my personal beliefs. My beliefs in regards to how abortion should be legislated in this country are different.
Just because you express your personal religious/moral beliefs does not disqualify you as a Libertarian. If you start saying that Congress or State Legislatures should give religious belief the power of law...then that makes you not a Libertarian.
he seem's much closer to a republican to me, and although I have not read his, book I have seen his show and he dose not back his arguements well on his show.
Can you quantify how much of his show you've seen? Like I've said, I've listened to him since 2001/2 and have watched him since he was on CNN. Economically he is with Ron Paul (hardly a typical Repulican). He has had Jesse Ventura and Ted Nugent on his shows.
Also like I said before, he backs up his commentary much better than I've seen any other commentator (Olbermann, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc). He doesn't just play a soundbite, but several minutes of the person speaking to provide context. His book Arguing with idiots is fully sourced to media like the New York Times.
HERE
You know I think he does need to throttle back a bit, it makes him an easy target for those who want to cast him in a bad light.
But I've heard that clip before, and where is the "fact checking" of the woman who called? You've got a woman who got on there already combative. Then she makes comments about how "obviously no one in your family has every been seriously sick" (paraphrase). She makes an appeal to emotion argument. Guess what? You can be effected by serious illness (or a family member) and still be against the Democrat's health reform. My grandfather had Alpha-1 Antitripsen (sp?) disease (or disorder). He needed a liver transplant and was hours from death when he got it. Then he had to be on anti-rejection meds for the rest of his life (13 years). It was a very expensive health condition. Oh yeah...we're not Rockefellers or Gates. Grandpa was an auto-worker at Ford.
Then when he tries to explain his position as against reckless spending...she attacks him for being for spending when it came to bail-outs. At this point he has the "meltdown". Why did he get so pissed? During the bail-out and throughout the Bush administration he was against the reckless spending of the Republicans. His position on economics has remained consistent. So you've got a pinhead calling up who obviously does not listen to his show...and thus has very little idea of his political position.
So, in sum fatape...I think Beck needs to throttle back his passionate diatribes. But I don't think he's a racist or many of the other charges people lodge at him.
At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 10/19/09 05:56 PM, Stelyu wrote:
I think a lot of the shit flying towards Beck comes from the fact that he is not a journalist but rather a commentator, something that is usually lost on people.
I don't understand how that supposedly gives his critics less of a right to evaluate the validity of what he says.
You both have a point.
a) Stelyu makes an astute observation in that Beck is a commentator, not a reporter. A reporter has to remove himself from the story. There has to be a neutrality. Their job is to say: "this is how it is". On the other hand a commentator's job is to editorialize...to say: "this is how it oughta be".
b) Bachannalian you make a good counter. Beck is running a line: question with boldness. Whenever someone tells you something...don't take it at face value. I'm from Missouri...don't just tell me something...Show-me. Don't take Beck or Obama at their word...research for yourself if what they are saying is true.
That said, there is a campaign to discredit Fox as not a news organization based upon their commentators. They use commentary to say their reporting is bad...not their reporting.
On an unrelated note, I think the point he was trying to make in that video is that the United States is moving away from morals and not so much that literally only the godless are murderers.
That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.
I think he was saying it was unrelated as a transition from one point to another.
"Is it the fact that just like some of our new money doesn't say now, God is no longer trusted. Instead of God being held up, he's being taken down...etc"
That is the conclusion of his opening statement, identifying what he believes to be the sole means of how we've "arrived at this place."
Our Founding Fathers, to include people like Thomas Jefferson (who most vociferously argued for the seperation of church and state) who did argue for a public morality based upon Judeo-Christian ethics as well as Greek and Roman ethics/philosophies. So to say that there is an errosion of "public morality" is not the same as saying we need to illegalize gay marriage, abortion or codify a Christian equivalent of Sha'ria law as the law of the land.
So until he crosses the line of calling for Congress to legislate morality (across the board and on a regular basis)...he is not a part of the religious right.
At 10/19/09 06:13 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.
Apologies.... the Mason's position.
You're responding to Stelyu's commentary...not mine. So I'd say it is okay to infer that we share the position.
