Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Let's not distort the alleged facts, it was a young girl that he raped and murdered in 1990. We don't think he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered girl in 1990; we think he didn't. But if he didn't why wouldn't he prove he didn't?

At 10/21/09 05:42 PM, Memorize wrote: And yet, no law was passed.

Acknowledging what Elfer said I don't have a real problem with what is at the Supreme Court. I would have a problem with the display of the ten commandments, using government money on government property. Doesn't matter if the law is passed. If you put something like that on public display it means something and puts everything into a context. There are laws and there are laws. Point is that if the state displays the object, its not personal expression its state expression. You don't have to pass a law to get around the meaning of the constitution, & to act against the spirit of the grand scheme and make it the norm. As long as no one stops you, you're golden.

Also, feel free to assume that if its not strictly in the constitution that there should be a total seperation from church and state I would like it to be, the same way women wanted to vote & slaves wanted to be free.

I'm NOT saying outlaw religion. I'm saying keep it out of government. (but this is now off topic)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As for Beck, there's nothing more to say about that except that he is an opinionist. A majority of people aren't going to like what he has to say because he represents an extranious fringe. But he does distort and manipulate the truth to his advantage and as the girl may have found out in 1990, he suggests things that are totally innacurate, and while he acknowledges they may not be true (because we don't know he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, even though he could have), the point is he's associating an idea to a person on national tv where a lot of easily manipulated people are.

Beck's a propagandist, more than an opinionist.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

At 10/22/09 03:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

Private website owned by Newgrounds and they would be held responsible. It's up to the moderators to deem what is or isn't a acceptable post on the forum. By neither banning or deleting said post the moderators give a silent nod that what I said was okay and accept that it is a form of satire.

So the website would be held for libel and not me.

Which isn't any better because we all know Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

At 10/22/09 03:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

Senator Ellison should prove that he is not working our enemies though! Also, if Glenn Beck didn't do it, then why doesn't he deny that he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I don't think it's true, but I feel like saying that he should prove it if he didn't.

Your mothers were all raped and murdered in 1990.

by glenn beck

Okay look, you guys obviously haven't done research on the subject, but Glenn Beck did not actually rae and murder a girl in 1990. It was a rumour started on the internets after someone incorrectly overheard a conversation about how Glenn Beck rapped and murdered a squirrel in 1990, of course referencing the event when he ran over the woodland critter with his car while on his way home from recording an album under his then-moniker, G.B. Fresh.

That sounds feasible, Elfer. However, if he didn't, why doesn't he prove it?

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

The first commandment is essentially "Worship one god" That specifically mandates religions of a monotheistic faith yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

At 10/23/09 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:
Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

It's not degenerating into flames. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a lot of rumors going around that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. These are strong allegations and if you say Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 then I suggest people just makes sure they stop spreading rumors and go to the proper authorities.

By the way, saying that you win an argument doesn't mean you win an argument.

Also, Glenn Beck obviously represents your ideas and what happens to make sense to you. To many other people they seems as if they don't make sense at all and just so happen to sound a little crazy.

Granted I understand Glenn Becks appeal, but I just don't agree with him and at all. He is very opinionated and outspoken. His ideas are far reaching to a fringe group and the passion he has about it just makes it sound all the more better.

The only problem is that he can be just dead wrong on quite a few things. He's either dead wrong or throwing out theories.

Theories are good and fine, but like all of them they need to have a process to them and Glenn Beck doesn't really seem to have much of a process. His process seems to be, "It's in my head so it might be true."

I live more in the world of facts. I want proof on something, but it seems to me that even some people are even willing to ignore cold hard facts in favor for loyalty to a political party. He can claim he's an independent all he wants, but I've seen his type. Independents who support the Republican party 90% of the time, but don't want to be tied down by any sort of offical party recognition for reasons that tend vary.

I think he also hurts a bit too because he's giving people who agree with his opinions or literally see this man as part of the news incorrect information.

Recently he gave a 8 minute segment about Net Neutrality and proved to the world that there was indeed someone out there who knew less about the issue than Ted Stevens. He claimed that the recent FCC regulatory committees effort to keep Network Neutrality was actually a secret Marxist plot to end free speech in America.

He doesn't say it at all, but he slightly suggests the alternative is better. Which is legislative restrictions on broadband that would monopolize the Internet and possibly hurt free speech in America.

All the while this kind of circle logic has no real basis to it and instead kind of does a back flip on itself.

He's suggesting the device that helps free speech to save free speech. You know, because war is peace and up is down.

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE GLENN BECK BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!

*error above*

"He's suggests to end the device that helps free speech in the efforts to save free speech."

At 10/23/09 07:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

However, if the Ten Commandments was clearly displayed in any public place, it would rightly be requested to be taken down. Elfer pointed out that the picture in question is not really clearly the Ten Commandments and could be alluding to it as well as a number of different things. If they were clearly hung in the Supreme Court, though, they should be removed. Similarly, "In God We Trust" does not belong on our currency. We are no longer fighting the dread commie atheist heathen, so it isn't necessary propaganda in order to protect our vital bodily fluids anymore.

At 10/23/09 08:14 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:
Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

It's not degenerating into flames. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a lot of rumors going around that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. These are strong allegations and if you say Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 then I suggest people just makes sure they stop spreading rumors and go to the proper authorities.

Stoicish, you are degenerating the topic since you are bringing in this joke of yours that has run its course. I realize that you think you're being the epitome of wit and are making a good point with conspiracy theories and such.

But it long ago ran its course.

By the way, saying that you win an argument doesn't mean you win an argument.

You are absolutely right. However, the degeneration of the opposition's "arguments" into drivel (thanks to you) does mean that I am winning. I want proof that Glenn Beck is a racist...and a racist by the dictionary definition not some subjective feeling or what others have said is racist.

That hasn't been forthcoming.

Also, Glenn Beck obviously represents your ideas and what happens to make sense to you. To many other people they seems as if they don't make sense at all and just so happen to sound a little crazy.

Granted I understand Glenn Becks appeal, but I just don't agree with him and at all. He is very opinionated and outspoken. His ideas are far reaching to a fringe group and the passion he has about it just makes it sound all the more better.

If it is just a fringe group, why is his 5pm EST slot pulling in more ratings than "opinionated journalists" on the Left such as Olbermann and Maddow? Why does his radio show succeed while enterprises like Air America fails?

The only problem is that he can be just dead wrong on quite a few things. He's either dead wrong or throwing out theories.

Theories are good and fine, but like all of them they need to have a process to them and Glenn Beck doesn't really seem to have much of a process. His process seems to be, "It's in my head so it might be true."

Dude, I've expressed that one of the reasons I like Beck is he actually shows you substantial bits of a person's speeches instead of just taking soundbites. It gives more context. For example when he showed Anita Dunn actually saying that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung...it was the middle section of a clip that ran well over a minute. Same thing with Van Jones.

You would like to think he's throwing out conspiracy theories...but he's backing what he says up.

When he talks about our monetary policy and how we're turning on the printing presses...backed up.
When he talks about the deficit...backed up.

I live more in the world of facts. I want proof on something, but it seems to me that even some people are even willing to ignore cold hard facts in favor for loyalty to a political party. He can claim he's an independent all he wants, but I've seen his type. Independents who support the Republican party 90% of the time, but don't want to be tied down by any sort of offical party recognition for reasons that tend vary.

The irony that you're now claiming to live in the world of "facts" is not lost on me. Afterall, you're the one who brought all of this smoke screen BS about something he did not do in 1990.

I've listened to Beck since 2001, have you? What is your basis for thinking he supports the Republicans? For the past eight years I've heard him bitch on and on about how the Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible.

But what is an independent supposed to do? The Libertarian party is not viable and the Democrats are just too left of center to be a viable option.

Perhaps we should just have a "no confidence" write-in campaign.

I think he also hurts a bit too because he's giving people who agree with his opinions or literally see this man as part of the news incorrect information.

Recently he gave a 8 minute segment about Net Neutrality and proved to the world that there was indeed someone out there who knew less about the issue than Ted Stevens. He claimed that the recent FCC regulatory committees effort to keep Network Neutrality was actually a secret Marxist plot to end free speech in America.

Here's the thing, I'd rather the internet not be managed by the government. After Bush and the Patriot Act, and some of the things I've seen proposed by this Administration about "emergency powers". (Oh yeah...I've seen that elsewhere...not just Beck.) I'm not a militia nut nor am I an anarchist.

But I just don't trust the government, nor do I think they are all that capable in terms of delivering on their promises or solving problems.

He doesn't say it at all, but he slightly suggests the alternative is better. Which is legislative restrictions on broadband that would monopolize the Internet and possibly hurt free speech in America.

All the while this kind of circle logic has no real basis to it and instead kind of does a back flip on itself.

He's suggesting the device that helps free speech to save free speech. You know, because war is peace and up is down.

Okay I know you're trying to draw an Orwellian parallel here. But you're not making any sense. What is he suggesting about the device that helps free speech...is he saying we should use it to save free speech? Wouldn't that be good?

The real funny thing is you come on here blasting Beck for not backing up what he says. You call them theories. You say you live in the world "facts"...but guess what? You don't support anything you say with anything but hyperbole.

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE GLENN BECK BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!

At 10/23/09 09:32 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

However, if the Ten Commandments was clearly displayed in any public place, it would rightly be requested to be taken down. Elfer pointed out that the picture in question is not really clearly the Ten Commandments and could be alluding to it as well as a number of different things. If they were clearly hung in the Supreme Court, though, they should be removed. Similarly, "In God We Trust" does not belong on our currency. We are no longer fighting the dread commie atheist heathen, so it isn't necessary propaganda in order to protect our vital bodily fluids anymore.

And why would it be so right to request that they be taken down? They are not codified as law. They do not mandate that people be a part of a religion.

They are however a part of the Western tradition that forms the basis of the intellectual traditions of our system of law. As a connection to history...I think they are appropriate. The whole point about fighting the "dread commie atheist heathen" is your strawman and has nothing to do with anything I have thus far said.

However, Congress making a law to make people be Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Aethists, Mormons, Satanists, Masons or whatever...that I have a problem.

I can express my feeling for this thread in 3 simple words.

Fuck Glenn Beck

At 10/23/09 11:48 PM, TheMason wrote:

If it is just a fringe group, why is his 5pm EST slot pulling in more ratings than "opinionated journalists" on the Left such as Olbermann and Maddow? Why does his radio show succeed while enterprises like Air America fails?

Olbermann and Maddow are just as bad, but they are more reserved about their attacks. They have a clear political biased as with Beck you seem to wonder where he is coming from.

Dude, I've expressed that one of the reasons I like Beck is he actually shows you substantial bits of a person's speeches instead of just taking soundbites. It gives more context. For example when he showed Anita Dunn actually saying that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung...it was the middle section of a clip that ran well over a minute. Same thing with Van Jones.

Except that when she was saying 'favorite political philosopher' she said it meaning to be ironic and that the Mao quote was actually one she picked up from Republican strategist Lee Atwater/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/b eck.dunn/index.html

You would like to think he's throwing out conspiracy theories...but he's backing what he says up.

Not when Republicans are also quoting Mao. Which is funny because they are supposed to be staunch capitalist. Then again he could also just...maybe...read into the tone of the speech.

The irony that you're now claiming to live in the world of "facts" is not lost on me. Afterall, you're the one who brought all of this smoke screen BS about something he did not do in 1990.

Hey, I'm willing to drop the obvious joke once he comes out an says that he did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. That's all I am really trying to say.

I've listened to Beck since 2001, have you? What is your basis for thinking he supports the Republicans? For the past eight years I've heard him bitch on and on about how the Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible.

I don't have to listen to Beck for 8 years to know what he's like. It's like listening to Limbaugh a few times and know that he is a racist asshat.

Sure, Beck can bitch about the Republicans all he wants. It's sort of a farce when you have the backing of the party and go on to claim, when you are a Republican represenative, that Glenn Beck speaks for many Americans: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/100 9/28608.html?ohtheseanhannity#

But what is an independent supposed to do? The Libertarian party is not viable and the Democrats are just too left of center to be a viable option.

Not be a Libertarian because an absolute free market is corrupt without a few regulations?

Perhaps we should just have a "no confidence" write-in campaign.

It's your vote and you can do with it as you will.

Here's the thing, I'd rather the internet not be managed by the government. After Bush and the Patriot Act, and some of the things I've seen proposed by this Administration about "emergency powers". (Oh yeah...I've seen that elsewhere...not just Beck.) I'm not a militia nut nor am I an anarchist.

I agree on this a bit because I believe the less the government is my interent the better. However the FCC regulations is preventing private companies, such as Comcast, from limiting certain typs of speed to its users if they use certain programs or visit websites. For example, Comcast intentionally slows its Internet if people use peer-to-peer networking. If the FCC regulates this then Comcast will no longer be able to do something like this.

So I am for this in this sense as opposed to what some other lawmakers want to do, like I dunno, Phil Kerpen who is actually against Network Neutrality who was on Beck's show. They are a conservative organization that seem like they are for free internet, but are not. Instead they are against the taxation of the Internet or any regulations on it.

It is more of a free market look at the Internet, which again sounds great, but serves more in the interest in companies who can be, essentially, corrupt about how they provide you their service. Their idealogy is more fiscal and self serving.

Net Neutrality is like civil liberties, without someone regulating and enforcing people's rights then those rights won't be upheald. If someone isn't regulating and telling people that equal amounts of bandwith is deserved by all then this can be abused by a company willing to make a quick buck.

COMCAST.

Okay I know you're trying to draw an Orwellian parallel here. But you're not making any sense. What is he suggesting about the device that helps free speech...is he saying we should use it to save free speech? Wouldn't that be good?

He's essentially saying that we should regulate something to prevent the wrong kind of regulations. Which is basically partisan regulations.

His idea is that they are doing the wrong kind of regulations and that they should go more with how his viewpoint is. Which is wrong because partisanism never helped anyone except for that political party.

Its hard to call Beck a racist, but its easy to call him an assuming xenophobic pundit and I already provided you two sources before of him distoring and assuming things without proof which you entirely neglected on the previous page.

At 10/21/09 12:43 PM, TheMason wrote: You both have a point.
a) Stelyu makes an astute observation

Fair enough fair enough.

I think he was saying it was unrelated as a transition from one point to another.

Well it's a dishonest transition. Hmph.

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.

He's not just saying there is an errosion of public morality.

At 10/23/09 11:54 PM, TheMason wrote: And why would it be so right to request that they be taken down? They are not codified as law. They do not mandate that people be a part of a religion.

If they are displayed as authoritative, though, that is definitely wrong.

They are however a part of the Western tradition that forms the basis of the intellectual traditions of our system of law. As a connection to history...I think they are appropriate.

Other parts of the Bible, perhaps, but the Ten Commandments seem a bit... commanding.

The whole point about fighting the "dread commie atheist heathen" is your strawman and has nothing to do with anything I have thus far said.

I wasn't basing that part on you, that was a bit of a joke in general. Perhaps it was misplaced.

However, Congress making a law to make people be Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Aethists, Mormons, Satanists, Masons or whatever...that I have a problem.

But even promoting these religions or lack thereof should not happen in a public place.

Sorry that I probably sound like a jackass, but this guy cracks me up. 'Course I only watch people make fun of him on other news stations, so I'm only seeing the worst. But from what I do see, this guy needs some serious help.
I guess everyone has their opinion, and if his is that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" then thats fine with me.
Keith Oberman to Gleen Beck: "No. You're freaking nuts."

At 10/23/09 08:14 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 10/23/09 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:

It's not degenerating into flames. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a lot of rumors going around that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

No that was Barrack Obama.

At 10/22/09 06:53 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You don't have to pass a law to get around the meaning of the constitution, & to act against the spirit of the grand scheme and make it the norm. As long as no one stops you, you're golden.

And yet I just told you that the very people who wrote the Constitution didn't find it "appalling".

Also, feel free to assume that if its not strictly in the constitution that there should be a total seperation from church and state I would like it to be, the same way women wanted to vote & slaves wanted to be free.

And yet I just told you that Ben Franklin argued against slavery on the basis of a religion.

I'm NOT saying outlaw religion. I'm saying keep it out of government. (but this is now off topic)

Right.

Because the example I gave was horrible. How dare he!

As for Beck, there's nothing more to say about that except that he is an opinionist. A majority of people aren't going to like what he has to say because he represents an extranious fringe. But he does distort and manipulate the truth to his advantage and as the girl may have found out in 1990, he suggests things that are totally innacurate, and while he acknowledges they may not be true (because we don't know he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, even though he could have), the point is he's associating an idea to a person on national tv where a lot of easily manipulated people are.

And yet, it's actually a rumor/joke.

At 10/25/09 09:44 AM, Memorize wrote: Because the example I gave was horrible. How dare he!

You can find a very good motivation for that law that has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm glad Chritianity motivated him to that, but that doesn't mean that we should write Jesus's thoughts about Slavery on the constitution.

I've often argue religions provide a great stable framework for morality since they are supposed to be extremely rigid systems, but they don't belong in secular government. Or rather, a government which governs multiple faiths should be secular.

And yet, it's actually a rumor/joke.

And yet, you are dense not to realize I realize that.

At 10/24/09 12:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its hard to call Beck a racist, but its easy to call him an assuming xenophobic pundit and I already provided you two sources before of him distoring and assuming things without proof which you entirely neglected on the previous page.

How did I "entirely neglect" your two sources? Let's look at the highlight reel:

=========

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

That is not racist...when Obama himself makes the case. Here is a transcript from his show...specifically what you're talking about:

Barack Obama: "If we have a program, for example..."
Beck: "he had rejected universal healthcare because -- I'am sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough".
Barack Obama: "But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

Obama's a racist ...

I fail to see how that makes Beck a racist. The tape does not speak for itself in saying what you feel it says. Please make an argument.

And yeah, a lot of those things are taken out of context.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context. These YouTube videos does show the entirity of what Beck said. However, I will say I don't think what he is saying is obviously racist. I think there are people who are saying Glenn Beck is a racist and then shows him talking about race. Now you put that idea into a person's head an then show them a person talking about race (especially someone white talking about someone Black/Latino/Asian)...then you have the listener predisposed to the idea that the person talking is a racist.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent. They also talk about how the office of civil liberties was designed to ensure that the hiring process is color blind...but that the focus is now on historically disadvantaged groups...and less on qualifications. These are not racist sentiments.

=============

With reparations he makes a connection...but based upon what Obama himself says. In terms of calling Obama a racist...he's expressing his opinion. You know, something that commentators do as part of their job.

Without some sort of argument to go along with the clips...your point is totally not made.

At 10/24/09 07:15 PM, ZAchaPi wrote: Sorry that I probably sound like a jackass, but this guy cracks me up. 'Course I only watch people make fun of him on other news stations, so I'm only seeing the worst. But from what I do see, this guy needs some serious help.

So then why do you think your opinion has any validity? If you're judging him by the soundbites that someone like Olbermann shows...then you're forming your opinion off of bad and incomplete information. You're developing an opinion based off of what someone else wants you to form.

I hate to say it because it sounds so condescending and jerky, but that is how sheople are born.

I guess everyone has their opinion, and if his is that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" then thats fine with me.
Keith Oberman to Gleen Beck: "No. You're freaking nuts."

Olbermann isn't the paragon of sanity either (and I've watched his show...not just what others show me).

At 10/25/09 10:46 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

That is not racist...when Obama himself makes the case. Here is a transcript from his show...specifically what you're talking about:

Barack Obama: "If we have a program, for example..."
Beck: "he had rejected universal healthcare because -- I'am sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough".
Barack Obama: "But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

Obama's a racist ...

I fail to see how that makes Beck a racist. The tape does not speak for itself in saying what you feel it says. Please make an argument.

Clearly what Obama is saying there is that any bill that seeks to make sure everyone insured or educated is going to vastly affect those that are at a disadvantage. And all the statistics say that minorities are usually disadvantaged so doing this will disproportionately affect them as a race.

HOWEVER

He never claims what he is doing in any of those segments is because of race. He acknowledges that this will improve minority communities more than others, but frankly that's just the way the country is and you can't argue with that.

For beck to claim that these are reparations ignores the fact that he is doing this for everyone. Universal means exactly that.

Implying they are reparations is dishonest. If a white man said those words they'd mean the same thing and still not be an argument for reparations. When we talk about no child left behind and the schools that are doing the worst are inner city urban schools with a lot of black kids that isn't reparations either, but its the same goal, to help the severely disadvantaged.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context.

but you already claimed Beck puts things in context, which in these specific cases wasn't true. Go ahead and ignore one of your arguments.

These YouTube videos does show the entirity of what Beck said. However, I will say I don't think what he is saying is obviously racist. I think there are people who are saying Glenn Beck is a racist and then shows him talking about race. Now you put that idea into a person's head an then show them a person talking about race (especially someone white talking about someone Black/Latino/Asian)...then you have the listener predisposed to the idea that the person talking is a racist.

Oh, I'm not claiming anything he said was overtly racist. And I never did. These clips were posted here because of their dishonesty.

And yes, you have to wonder why Beck would even bring up racism and reparations when you can see Obama isn't a racist and isn't doing anything specifically to make up for slavery. I would call Beck a race bater before I ever called him a racist. And in all honesty, that's almost worse since he has a public podium.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent.

And you know, I've seen a lot of people say that kind of stuff and it's just to save face. I don't know if beck is doing this, but he's yet to prove to me that he isn't. lol

They also talk about how the office of civil liberties was designed to ensure that the hiring process is color blind...but that the focus is now on historically disadvantaged groups...and less on qualifications. These are not racist sentiments.

I don't have any real arguments against this bit, just the reparations and obama's a racist. Beck likes to tread the line and cross over it while supporting his claims with things that look related, but are related at best by tangent.

How does the office of civil liberties have anything to do with any of the things Obama said, for instance.

With reparations he makes a connection...but based upon what Obama himself says. In terms of calling Obama a racist...he's expressing his opinion. You know, something that commentators do as part of their job.

Yeah, and its a dishonest one.

Without some sort of argument to go along with the clips...your point is totally not made.

Consider it made.

Though at this point I have to ask, why is Beck using race as a tactic to discredit Obama. You answer that, and you'll get to the core of what I find wrong with Beck and its got little to do with Racism.

At 10/22/09 03:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

No he's not you idiot. Public figures have almost no protection against libel.

At 10/25/09 10:27 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You can find a very good motivation for that law that has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm glad Chritianity motivated him to that, but that doesn't mean that we should write Jesus's thoughts about Slavery on the constitution.

Damn all that Creator stuff.

I've often argue religions provide a great stable framework for morality since they are supposed to be extremely rigid systems, but they don't belong in secular government. Or rather, a government which governs multiple faiths should be secular.

Right, a secular Federal Government.

And as such, I fail to see why any religious symbol over someone's gravestone is a sign of religious oppression.

And yet, you are dense not to realize I realize that.

Uh-huh, sure you did. <.<

At 10/25/09 01:10 PM, Memorize wrote: Damn all that Creator stuff.

lolwut?

Right, a secular Federal Government.

And as such, I fail to see why any religious symbol over someone's gravestone is a sign of religious oppression.

I fail to see where I claimed it was

Uh-huh, sure you did. <.<

-_- My first encounter with it and the subsequent point at which I researched it.