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!
