Beck is the new Joseph McCarthy...

[edgewalker424]

Here, "educate" yourself. He's a GENIUS!

It's ironic, isn't it, that Beck uses the term "propaganda" to end this particularly government rant. Seriously though, this is scary stuff being spewed out by someone who's being watched (rather questioningly) by millions of people!

By the way, don't google Joseph McCarthy--big brother's watching!! *facepalm* >_>

[adrshepard]

And you find it on mediamatters.org, which is completely objective with no agenda and never ever gives anything but the full, complete picture on every story they report.
At least use a youtube clip or something to hide the fact that you were deliberately searching out Glenn Beck hate sites to get yourself all riled up.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/16/11 09:35 PM, adrshepard wrote: At least use a youtube clip or something to hide the fact that you were deliberately searching out Glenn Beck hate sites to get yourself all riled up.

This would make a difference if this were contested. However, it is very much common knowledge that Beck is just plain crazy.

[Xcyper33]

Anyone hear what happened to the CBS reporter? That was messed up. Yet some people are using this as a means to attack Islam, saying that since this one incident happened, Islam is like this! Such ignorance >.<

[adrshepard]

At 2/16/11 09:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/16/11 09:35 PM, adrshepard wrote: At least use a youtube clip or something to hide the fact that you were deliberately searching out Glenn Beck hate sites to get yourself all riled up.

This would make a difference if this were contested. However, it is very much common knowledge that Beck is just plain crazy.

You should listen to his radio show now and again. He's a completely different person than on his show.
But calling him crazy is oversimplifying it. He has none of the ego of people like Limbaugh and Hannity, so he doesn't hesitate so speak his mind, even if he regrets it later (like the "Obama is racist against white people" comment which he admitted was stupid in a time magazine interview.) But that sort of honesty is why people listen to him.

Watching the video, I don't think he's serious about google being a government operation. He's big on long, drawn out sarcasm. It's hard to say without seeing what google connections he's referring to exactly.

But I stand by my original point. The Glenn Beck that the haters know only shows up in these isolated clips that represents less than 1% of all the things he says. And given that the source has no other function than to mine conservative commentators for anything to make them look bad, you can't take these "exposes" at face value.

[adrshepard]

At 2/16/11 09:49 PM, Xcyper33 wrote: Anyone hear what happened to the CBS reporter? That was messed up. Yet some people are using this as a means to attack Islam, saying that since this one incident happened, Islam is like this! Such ignorance >.<

Lol, it's not just "one incident", its the entire culture and society of the Middle East and the oppression of women that's an everyday occurrence (to varying degrees depending on country, true). You're going to find more of what we would consider ignorance and barbarism in the Middle East than you will in the US or Europe, it's just a fact. How you act on that knowledge is a different matter.

[KemCab]

Both sides are biased, get over it. In fact, CNN has the same sort of biases which you could selectively attack as well, and it would be completely acceptable to do so. People say idiotic things on both sides, and that shouldn't be a surprise, because both the left and the right are moronic in their own regard.

[Warforger]

At 2/16/11 11:53 PM, adrshepard wrote: You should listen to his radio show now and again. He's a completely different person than on his show.
But calling him crazy is oversimplifying it. He has none of the ego of people like Limbaugh and Hannity, so he doesn't hesitate so speak his mind, even if he regrets it later (like the "Obama is racist against white people" comment which he admitted was stupid in a time magazine interview.) But that sort of honesty is why people listen to him.

Umm he didn't say "it was stupid" more like "I was exaggerating but I was getting at that he is a fascist"

Beck: "Of course I do. I don't want to retract the, um ... I want to amend that I think it is much more of a theological question, that he is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim. 'Racist,' first of all, it shouldn't have been said. It was poorly said. I have a big fat mouth sometimes and I say things. That's just not the way people should behave. And it was not accurate. It is liberation theology that has shaped his world view."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/29 /glenn-beck-regrets-callin_n_698580.html #s132361&title=undefined

Then he attacks Liberal pundits for calling the TEA party racist and yet no one notices he said so himself.

And to call him having no ego is like saying most rappers aren't black.

But I stand by my original point. The Glenn Beck that the haters know only shows up in these isolated clips that represents less than 1% of all the things he says. And given that the source has no other function than to mine conservative commentators for anything to make them look bad, you can't take these "exposes" at face value.

I saw half a episode of his show and all he did was make me hate him, I looked up facts online to see if his statements measured up and lo and behold they did not. On top of this I saw multiple hypocrisies like attacking a news station for reporting a story on celebrities right after he quoted People magazine (of course implying he had nothing better to do then to go through People magazine to look for some quote). And I did this out of urging of a Beck fan! His show left me with a headache honestly.

He's nothing more then some random Conservative who writes up Conspiracy theories and sells them on TV, nothing that interesting really. It's more of the same old "I hate liberals therefore everything they propose I must be on the contrary regardless if I actually had an opinion on that topic or not".

[WolvenBear]

At 2/16/11 08:22 PM, edgewalker424 wrote: Here, "educate" yourself. He's a GENIUS!

It's ironic, isn't it, that Beck uses the term "propaganda" to end this particularly government rant. Seriously though, this is scary stuff being spewed out by someone who's being watched (rather questioningly) by millions of people!

By the way, don't google Joseph McCarthy--big brother's watching!! *facepalm* >_>

You understand that McCarthy wanted to get foreign agents who worked in our government fired right?

Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

[gmercerd]

I want to make sure you understand this whole topic is tainted by the title. Glenn Beck is not like Joe McCarthy in any way, shape, or form. He isn't part of the government, he doesn't have subpoena powers, and he isn't using said subpoena powers to embarrass people on national television when there were only six channels. Furthermore, he isn't as well respected as McCarthy, who had enough cache that one of his investigatory associates, Richard Nixon, eventually went on to be President. If it weren't for the fact that McCarthy looked crazy and overreached while he was doing all the investigations he might still be popular today.

I also disagree with that guy on the racism issue, Glenn Beck clearly apologized for accusing Obama of racism in the quote you gave. It seems to me that you're saying he can't make an effective apology then go on and continue attacking Obama's policies. That's inane.

[gumOnShoe]

At 2/18/11 01:04 AM, KemCab wrote: Both sides are biased, get over it. In fact, CNN has the same sort of biases which you could selectively attack as well, and it would be completely acceptable to do so. People say idiotic things on both sides, and that shouldn't be a surprise, because both the left and the right are moronic in their own regard.

CNN is piloted by attention grabbing idiots that flock to *big news* stories but rarely understand them. Don't get me started on them.

But Beck is a whole different class. Not only is he an idiot. He's a liar and propagandist to boot. I wouldn't call him McCarthy as quickly as I would to Joseph Goebbels. McCarthy was a politician, Beck is an instigator and manager of media...

He's that tame, I don't know what I'm talking about, but let me tell you WHAT I THINK. I think everyone's out to get you, but I might be wrong. But.... have you looked at your neighbors yet? You know... they might be liberals. And what are Liberals? Nazis. You heard me folks nazis.

That's my Beck impression. Thankyouverymuch.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/18/11 07:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

Wow...that is an amazing amount of oversimplification and lack of understanding of the long range damage McCarthy's witch hunt actually did.

[aviewaskewed]

Sorry to double post, but let's be honest that Beck isn't just a guy on TV spouting his views, he's also a published author with multiple books doing so as well. I always find someone like Beck hard to pin down in terms of saying things like "crazy", because this is a guy who gets his income and maintains his employment through his opinion. Or at least by spouting an opinion that is salable to a certain portion of the population, thus keeping him employed and drawing an income. So that always makes me a little weary when it comes to making absolute judgments about their mental state and if you were to talk to them one on one, in a situation where they aren't "on" if you'd hear the same sort of thing.

[KemCab]

At 2/18/11 08:03 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: CNN is piloted by attention grabbing idiots that flock to *big news* stories but rarely understand them. Don't get me started on them.

I think I know what you mean. I see a lot of over-hyped stories on their site.

But Beck is a whole different class. Not only is he an idiot. He's a liar and propagandist to boot.

I watched his show a few times. I never really thought of him as a propagandist, at least in the sense that his overly ridiculous nonsense really just made me laugh. His audience doesn't even seem like they're being unwittingly deluded -- they KNOW what he preaches and they love it.

It's delightfully detached from reality. His fans keep saying that "he shares my values" or something, but what they are really saying is, "he tells me what I want to hear." But isn't that what CNN/MSNBC viewers do, too? The only difference is that they engage in much less distortion of the facts simply because that is what the audience that they cater to wants.

He's that tame, I don't know what I'm talking about, but let me tell you WHAT I THINK. I think everyone's out to get you, but I might be wrong. But.... have you looked at your neighbors yet? You know... they might be liberals. And what are Liberals? Nazis. You heard me folks nazis.
That's my Beck impression. Thankyouverymuch.

The only distasteful thing I find about him is that people actually enjoy his demagoguery. I mean, I could get why people found Hitler or Robespierre mesmerizing -- but Beck is this fat, obnoxious whiny guy with a history that sounds as whiny and pathetic as he does when he's on the air. I'm sure he could be a decent guy, just... not a terribly great public speaker.

From his Wikipedia page:

"As Beck later recounted in his books and stage performances, his first attempt at self-education involved six wide-ranging authors, comprising what Beck jokingly calls 'the library of a serial killer': Alan Dershowitz, Pope John Paul II, Adolf Hitler, Billy Graham, Carl Sagan, and Friedrich Nietzsche."

The man is clearly an idiot if he thinks that reading Sagan or Nietzsche's work is the mark of a serial killer -- even more so considering that he went BACK to religion despite the fact. Everything about the man screams weak.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/20/11 01:02 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/18/11 07:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

Wow...that is an amazing amount of oversimplification and lack of understanding of the long range damage McCarthy's witch hunt actually did.

No, that's an accurate description of Joe McCarthy's trials.

Not a single person who he went after wasn't a government employee. None. 0%.

Not a single person who he went after suffered a more severe penalty than being fired. Again. Not one. 0%.

Many of the people he went after were actually guilty.

The punishment in 100% of cases that he went after was execution. Working for a foreign government to the detriment of your own government is treason. That is an executable offense. Not a single person was killed under McCarthy despite many of them actively committing treason. In not one case did he go after ANYTHING more than removing them from their position.

So, McCarthy went after people guilty of treason, found many guilty, had none of them tried in a court, and only had them fired.

Everything I said is true. And therefore I see no downside. McCarthy was a pretty good guy.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/20/11 08:15 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Everything I said is true. And therefore I see no downside. McCarthy was a pretty good guy.

That's not the history I remember, so source it to me.

[Warforger]

At 2/18/11 07:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You understand that McCarthy wanted to get foreign agents who worked in our government fired right?

Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

No they were not. Most were innocent only about IIRC a single digit number of the hundreds were actually spies. The logic was really stupid, it went along the really paranoid lines of "If I ask you if you are a Communist and you say you are not then you are a Communist, if you say are then you are a Communist" it was just more retardation, the methods for seeking them out were people complaining about workers rights, people who held some interest in the past in the Communist party and stuff along those lines. It was one of the worst things to happen to America in the 20th century showing off how paranoia is a huge flaw in America, and the effects of it left people like Glenn Beck to grow up and spout the aftershocks of it using more logical fallacies.

[aviewaskewed]

Arthur Miller disagrees with you. I would say more...but everybody else took the stuff I wanted to say.

I love how you have the balls to call other people morons guy when you spout out things even a high school student knows is bullshit.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/20/11 01:18 PM, Warforger wrote: No they were not. Most were innocent only about IIRC a single digit number of the hundreds were actually spies. The logic was really stupid, it went along the really paranoid lines of "If I ask you if you are a Communist and you say you are not then you are a Communist, if you say are then you are a Communist" it was just more retardation, the methods for seeking them out were people complaining about workers rights, people who held some interest in the past in the Communist party and stuff along those lines. It was one of the worst things to happen to America in the 20th century showing off how paranoia is a huge flaw in America, and the effects of it left people like Glenn Beck to grow up and spout the aftershocks of it using more logical fallacies.

That's a pretty massive distortion of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_proj ect

As the venona cables make clear, there was a massive proliferation of people in the government associated with communist regimes. While it is a matter of dispute to what extent the people in the cables were involved with the communists, the connection is undeniable.

At 2/21/11 01:09 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Arthur Miller disagrees with you. I would say more...but everybody else took the stuff I wanted to say.

I love how you have the balls to call other people morons guy when you spout out things even a high school student knows is bullshit.

Kinda ballsy for a dude who has a low average for calling BS on me...somewhere around 0%. So pardon me if I stand by my factual statement above and demand someone prove me wrong.

Other than simply claiming I'm a fool, ya got anything intelligent to add?

[Warforger]

At 2/21/11 05:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 2/20/11 01:18 PM, Warforger wrote: No they were not. Most were innocent only about IIRC a single digit number of the hundreds were actually spies. The logic was really stupid, it went along the really paranoid lines of "If I ask you if you are a Communist and you say you are not then you are a Communist, if you say are then you are a Communist" it was just more retardation, the methods for seeking them out were people complaining about workers rights, people who held some interest in the past in the Communist party and stuff along those lines. It was one of the worst things to happen to America in the 20th century showing off how paranoia is a huge flaw in America, and the effects of it left people like Glenn Beck to grow up and spout the aftershocks of it using more logical fallacies.

That's a pretty massive distortion of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_proj ect

As the venona cables make clear, there was a massive proliferation of people in the government associated with communist regimes. While it is a matter of dispute to what extent the people in the cables were involved with the communists, the connection is undeniable.

And? Everyone knows there were spies around, the problem is the McCarthy only made a witch hunt. He had nothing to do with Venona at all, he was often found to be a complete moron and pretty much no one believed anything he said by the time everything he said was shown to be lies, including for say his military service. A big one being saying he had a list of the names of over 200 Communist spies and held it up at a crowd only for someone to later find out it was just a laundry receipt. His whole career was more shit like that over and over again until the bastard died of his alcoholism because people stopped putting up with his bullshit.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/21/11 05:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Kinda ballsy for a dude who has a low average for calling BS on me...somewhere around 0%. So pardon me if I stand by my factual statement above and demand someone prove me wrong.

You gave no references for your "factual statements" and again, even a high schooler sees the holes in this.

Other than simply claiming I'm a fool, ya got anything intelligent to add?

I did when I mentioned Arthur Miller, someone who was a victim of the "black balling" that occured due to the wild accusations McCarthy was throwing around before he was discredited.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/21/11 01:00 PM, Warforger wrote: And? Everyone knows there were spies around, the problem is the McCarthy only made a witch hunt. He had nothing to do with Venona at all, he was often found to be a complete moron and pretty much no one believed anything he said by the time everything he said was shown to be lies, including for say his military service. A big one being saying he had a list of the names of over 200 Communist spies and held it up at a crowd only for someone to later find out it was just a laundry receipt. His whole career was more shit like that over and over again until the bastard died of his alcoholism because people stopped putting up with his bullshit.

Well, I didn't say he was connected to Venona. If you say something, and later on I prove that to be true, that doesn't mean you had anything to do with me or vice versa...it just means that the facts ended up proving you right. (Considering Venona wasn't released until after McCarthy was dead, I don't think anyone can say I was claiming he was responsible for something that occured long after he was dead...)

But let's look at some of the others. He WAS in the military. The only claim I can find that he lied is that he supposedly said he enlisted as a "buck private" when he was recruited as an officer. Even if this claim is true...it's a rather timid claim. He was a marine, went on combat missions and was an intelligence officer. If his "big lie" was that he started as a private instead of an officer...meh.

Really, I find that hard to believe. People generally lie to make themselves sound more important and successful, not less. Being a lieutenant is more impressive than being a private, and it seems weird that he'd lie to make himself sound less important or influencial than he was...

So let's look at the laundry receipt idea. Let's start by pointing out, no one has ever claimed it was a laundry receipt. Wikipedia traces the origin of this number and their findings are not great to the case that McCarthy was a liar...:

There is some dispute about whether or not McCarthy actually gave the number of people on the list as being "205" or "57". In a later telegram to President Truman, and when entering the speech into the Congressional Record, he used the number 57.[25] The origin of the number 205 can be traced: In later debates on the Senate floor, McCarthy referred to a 1946 letter that then-Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. In that letter, Byrnes said State Department security investigations had resulted in "recommendation against permanent employment" for 284 persons, and that 79 of these had been removed from their jobs; this left 205 still on the State Department's payroll. In fact, by the time of McCarthy's speech only about 65 of the employees mentioned in the Byrnes letter were still with the State Department, and all of these had undergone further security checks.[26]

Taken at face value, that means that the original report he is supposedly citing found a minimum of 79 employees of the State department who were removed from their jobs for security issues. By the time he made his speech, about 70% of those listed on the report had been removed. At the very least, this is cause for concern. It's also worth noting that all 9 cases that he focused on had been previously investigated for various charges of spying.

I guess I don't get it. Everyone acknowledges that the State Department was riddled with Communist spies (kinda hard to ignore really). Every last person McCarthy went after had been flagged on more than one occasion as a security risk by others. The vast majority of people in the reports McCarthy used were found to be communists. Venona vindicates most of these "persecutions". The evidence was overwhelming.

Despite many of these people committing treason, none was given any sort of punishment beyond a pink slip.

I guess I fail to see the horror in traitors being fired. Maybe that's just me.

At 2/21/11 04:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You gave no references for your "factual statements" and again, even a high schooler sees the holes in this.

I'm pretty sure I linked. I'll double check...

Yes, I did. But we'll ignore your mistake. We'll also ignore that you yourself have not linked to anything. I'm a forgiving guy. Mistakes happen. It's all good.

I did when I mentioned Arthur Miller, someone who was a victim of the "black balling" that occured due to the wild accusations McCarthy was throwing around before he was discredited.

Yea, I tried to ignore it because you were wrong. And on a level that made it clear you were completely ignorant of the subject you were talking about. Arthur Miller never was brought in front of McCarthy, as he never worked for the government. He never even met McCarthy. He never even went in front of the HUAC. His ONLY passing glance with the Red Scare was that his friend was tried. Miller then became a critic of the government, and had a passport denied.

Don't get me wrong, he did nothing wrong, and should've suffered no punishment. But to claim that Miller, who never worked in government, was never accused of being a communist, never went in front of either the House or Senate, never testified, was never fired, and had absolutely no relation to Joe McCarthy.... to claim it's McCarthy's fault is either dishonest or uninformed.

In the future, when you say someone has holes in their statement, don't make massive mistakes yourself, including not knowing the difference between the house and the senate. Thanks man.

[Warforger]

At 2/22/11 08:22 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 2/21/11 01:00 PM, Warforger wrote: And? Everyone knows there were spies around, the problem is the McCarthy only made a witch hunt. He had nothing to do with Venona at all, he was often found to be a complete moron and pretty much no one believed anything he said by the time everything he said was shown to be lies, including for say his military service. A big one being saying he had a list of the names of over 200 Communist spies and held it up at a crowd only for someone to later find out it was just a laundry receipt. His whole career was more shit like that over and over again until the bastard died of his alcoholism because people stopped putting up with his bullshit.

Well, I didn't say he was connected to Venona. If you say something, and later on I prove that to be true, that doesn't mean you had anything to do with me or vice versa...it just means that the facts ended up proving you right. (Considering Venona wasn't released until after McCarthy was dead, I don't think anyone can say I was claiming he was responsible for something that occured long after he was dead...)

No. The problem isn't that he went after Communists the problem was that he went after people who were completely innocent .

But let's look at some of the others. He WAS in the military. The only claim I can find that he lied is that he supposedly said he enlisted as a "buck private" when he was recruited as an officer. Even if this claim is true...it's a rather timid claim. He was a marine, went on combat missions and was an intelligence officer. If his "big lie" was that he started as a private instead of an officer...meh.

Because he was a person in government and gets automatic promotions, I mean the average Senator doesn't go in their commercials going "I am the son of a aristocratic and rich father, I became a Lawyer and defended companies in court" but rather would like to give the impression of "I came from a suburban household/farm/city like you did and I have a vision for a better government as I personally studied the issues face to face with the people involved in them", it's like Bush he didn't show off his military standing because of his dad who got him promoted for no reason other then because he could.

So let's look at the laundry receipt idea. Let's start by pointing out, no one has ever claimed it was a laundry receipt. Wikipedia traces the origin of this number and their findings are not great to the case that McCarthy was a liar...:


Taken at face value, that means that the original report he is supposedly citing found a minimum of 79 employees of the State department who were removed from their jobs for security issues. By the time he made his speech, about 70% of those listed on the report had been removed. At the very least, this is cause for concern. It's also worth noting that all 9 cases that he focused on had been previously investigated for various charges of spying.

I guess I don't get it. Everyone acknowledges that the State Department was riddled with Communist spies (kinda hard to ignore really). Every last person McCarthy went after had been flagged on more than one occasion as a security risk by others. The vast majority of people in the reports McCarthy used were found to be communists. Venona vindicates most of these "persecutions". The evidence was overwhelming.

That's the biggest logical fallacy I've ever heard on this forum. Venona says nothing of the like, basiclly what you just said was "McCarthy went after Communist Spies, and sources say there were Communist spies therefore McCarthy went after the right Communist Spies" 1st and 2nd statements are true but the 3rd makes no sense.

The worst part is, is that these people were only labeled as a security risk because they MIGHT be Communists, MIGHT be is different then THEY ARE and much different then THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE SOVIETS

Despite many of these people committing treason, none was given any sort of punishment beyond a pink slip.

I guess I fail to see the horror in traitors being fired. Maybe that's just me.

They weren't traitors, they were suspected but few of the people he went after actually were.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/22/11 06:56 PM, Warforger wrote: No. The problem isn't that he went after Communists the problem was that he went after people who were completely innocent .

But no one he went after was completely innocent. EVERYONE he targeted was already a state target. There were security issues with everyone he went after. Does that mean they were all guilty? Well, no. But it does mean that they all had raised warning flags before. It's not like McCarthy was pulling names out of a hat. He was going after people that had already been triggered as risks.

Because he was a person in government and gets automatic promotions, I mean the average Senator doesn't go in their commercials going "I am the son of a aristocratic and rich father, I became a Lawyer and defended companies in court" but rather would like to give the impression of "I came from a suburban household/farm/city like you did and I have a vision for a better government as I personally studied the issues face to face with the people involved in them", it's like Bush he didn't show off his military standing because of his dad who got him promoted for no reason other then because he could.

I...um....huh?

The average person is more likely to be impressed by a somebody than a nobody. Using the example of Bush that you cite...Bush cited his best examples when running for President. He used his military service to make him sound as brave as possible. He used his governorship. He downplayed his mediocrity (which his opponents rightfully played on). When Senator Kerry brought up his terrible record as a private businessman, Bush made jokes. Look over there. Ignore that I really wasn't successful on the business stage!

While nobody openly says in political commercials "I am God and you are dirt", none of them claim to be humble nobodies. They tout their legislative or executive experience. If they have military experience they run with that.

So, even if true, the fact that McCarthy downplayed his military start makes me think he's a man prone to understating his case...

That's the biggest logical fallacy I've ever heard on this forum. Venona says nothing of the like, basiclly what you just said was "McCarthy went after Communist Spies, and sources say there were Communist spies therefore McCarthy went after the right Communist Spies" 1st and 2nd statements are true but the 3rd makes no sense.

Hmmm. I don't really think that's the argument I made. And looking back, there's a lot you're trying to downplay to bolster your case. Let's recap.

100% of McCarthy's charges were filed against people who had been flagged by other agencies as security risks in government. Almost all of the people McCarthy's lists said were security risks had been removed for being security risks.

Even if we go no further, that proves McCarthy to not be a liar. If I claim I have a list of 300 people who are security risks, and 200 of them have been found to be security risks...it doesn't really matter about the remaining 100. The list has found a lot of security risks. If 2 out of every 3 are security risks, it's beyond unreasonable to call a dude a liar for saying "what about the other 1/3rd?"

How would you respond if you found out that there was a list of people, every list one of them who had been investigated had been fired...then hearing that the remainer hadn't been investigated. I'd at least want hearings.

Even if every person was innocent, that demand is perfectly rational and reasonable.

The worst part is, is that these people were only labeled as a security risk because they MIGHT be Communists, MIGHT be is different then THEY ARE and much different then THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE SOVIETS

That's not a small might though. Imagine if Iran had spies in our government. Wehave a list of people who MIGHT be spies. Every last one of them would at least be investigated. Why is this unfair?

They weren't traitors, they were suspected but few of the people he went after actually were.

That none of them were punished, and that he actually stopped an execution of a traitor he helped uncover hurts the point. That some of them WERE outted under Venona also undermines you.

[gumOnShoe]

At 2/20/11 01:56 AM, KemCab wrote: I watched his show a few times. I never really thought of him as a propagandist, at least in the sense that his overly ridiculous nonsense really just made me laugh. His audience doesn't even seem like they're being unwittingly deluded -- they KNOW what he preaches and they love it.

He's not doing a great job to convince a lot of people to believe what he does, but its propaganda all the same. It energizes whatever his "base" is, and they go out and do the propagation. He's feeding people what they want to here, but he's doing it to promote a cause(s): anti-government, anti-liberal, anti-communism (though he needs to work on his definitions and distinctions).

It's delightfully detached from reality. His fans keep saying that "he shares my values" or something, but what they are really saying is, "he tells me what I want to hear." But isn't that what CNN/MSNBC viewers do, too? The only difference is that they engage in much less distortion of the facts simply because that is what the audience that they cater to wants.

There's a difference between reporting exactly what happened, news. And expressing a viewpoint and trying to convince others of that viewpoint. If a news group is promoting an opinion they are a propaganda outlet. I'm not saying all propaganda is necessarily bad. We all produce varying degrees of propaganda. But Beck engages in untruthful propaganda. And that kind is much more harmful.

The only distasteful thing I find about him is that people actually enjoy his demagoguery. I mean, I could get why people found Hitler or Robespierre mesmerizing -- but Beck is this fat, obnoxious whiny guy with a history that sounds as whiny and pathetic as he does when he's on the air. I'm sure he could be a decent guy, just... not a terribly great public speaker.

Look at him again. He's got that 50's 60's good guy look. Not the thin masculine one, but he looks like the kid from A Christmas Story just a bit. He's whiny and pathetic, but he's white and "like what an american should be." Or at least, that's how I think he's regarded subconsciously by some people.

The whining is part of his act... as is he pathetic appearance.

The man is clearly an idiot if he thinks that reading Sagan or Nietzsche's work is the mark of a serial killer -- even more so considering that he went BACK to religion despite the fact. Everything about the man screams weak.

Yeah, I agree. It makes him a good propagandist. Because as he appears to be weak he slips mental viruses into his listeners' brains. Its like playing dead around a bear, and then when the bear gets close to sniffing you drawing out a Katana and chopping of the beasts head. Well, maybe not quite like that. :P

[adrshepard]

At 2/23/11 07:45 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Look at him again. He's got that 50's 60's good guy look. Not the thin masculine one, but he looks like the kid from A Christmas Story just a bit. He's whiny and pathetic, but he's white and "like what an american should be."

No, people like him because he's open and honest about his own failings, something you don't find from any other popular commentator. He readily admits how much of a loser he was, when he doesn't know something, and how fat he is.

The man is clearly an idiot if he thinks that reading Sagan or Nietzsche's work is the mark of a serial killer -- even more so considering that he went BACK to religion despite the fact. Everything about the man screams weak.

Yeah, I agree. It makes him a good propagandist. Because as he appears to be weak he slips mental viruses into his listeners' brains.

He's not referring to Sagan and Nietzsche as serial killer material, he's referring to his eclectic array of books about deep philosophical issues combined with crazy rantings. The popular conception of serial killers is that they do horrible things out of some profound insight that only they understand.

He doesn't "appear" weak, either. He speaks about himself as he sees it.

I'm not trying to be some stalwart Beck defender, but it's just so tiresome to see the same unimaginative criticisms hashed out time and time again. The bottom line is that he's no different than any other popular social and political commentator; he's been wrong sometimes, he occasionally uses underhanded and deceptive reasoning, and he's unrepentant in his opinions. The OP and others are just channeling their own personal hatred of the man into some half-backed notion (he's just like Joseph McCarthy and Hitler, too, durr) that he's somehow especially different and more revolting.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/23/11 10:38 AM, adrshepard wrote: The bottom line is that he's no different than any other popular social and political commentator

That's definitely not true. if he were the same, nobody would know who he is. He is very different in that he almost makes a show of when he goes into deceptive and underhanded techniques. Most commentators on boths sides at least try to couch their underhanded comments and oddball ideas in the form of regular commentary. beck just goes of and says what he says much like a fringe blogger would. THIS is precisely why he gets so much ire. He does not try to fake like he's staying within the realm of mainstream news or views, and people eat it up.

The OP and others are just channeling their own personal hatred of the man into some half-backed notion (he's just like Joseph McCarthy and Hitler, too, durr) that he's somehow especially different and more revolting.

He definitely is more different, but more revolting? Nah. Sensationalist with a dash of Xenophobia? Definitely. McCarthyist? Nah.

[adrshepard]

At 2/23/11 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/23/11 10:38 AM, adrshepard wrote: The bottom line is that he's no different than any other popular social and political commentator

He is very different in that he almost makes a show of when he goes into deceptive and underhanded techniques. Most commentators on boths sides at least try to couch their underhanded comments and oddball ideas in the form of regular commentary. beck just goes of and says what he says much like a fringe blogger would. THIS is precisely why he gets so much ire. He does not try to fake like he's staying within the realm of mainstream news or views, and people eat it up.

Who says he has to be mainstream? He gets ire because he's expressing what he believes?

As far as underhanded deceptiveness, you're going to have to back that up with proof. I've examined most of the "research" against Beck on sites like mediamatters, and I have to say I'm not impressed. Half of it is just quoting Beck railing against liberals, unions, progressives, etc. At worst he gets some minor facts wrong, errors that don't break the point he's making.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/23/11 03:21 PM, adrshepard wrote: Who says he has to be mainstream? He gets ire because he's expressing what he believes?

No one says he has to be mainstream. The reason Beck gets ire is because he presents his opinions with zero filters and people believe as if it were coming from an encyclopedia. THAT is why he gets ire. Nobody cares what he says, it's the fact the somehow people believe 100% of what he says that is the problem. The fact the Beck is on a reputable News station makes this worse.

As far as underhanded deceptiveness, you're going to have to back that up with proof. I've examined most of the "research" against Beck on sites like mediamatters, and I have to say I'm not impressed. Half of it is just quoting Beck railing against liberals, unions, progressives, etc. At worst he gets some minor facts wrong, errors that don't break the point he's making.

Perhaps underhanded deceptiveness is the wrong term. Let's change it to inflammatory melodrama. His constant "the world is gpoing to end" tone creates a sense of emergency where none exists, and like I said before, a sizeable part of the population eats this up as facts, and not punditry.

[adrshepard]

At 2/23/11 03:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Nobody cares what he says, it's the fact that somehow people believe 100% of what he says that is the problem. The fact the Beck is on a reputable News station makes this worse.

When you put it that way, it makes more sense.

Perhaps underhanded deceptiveness is the wrong term. Let's change it to inflammatory melodrama. His constant "the world is going to end" tone creates a sense of emergency where none exists...

Well, there's no denying that. I think he's probably had about a month's total worth of programming where he thought Iran was going to launch nuclear weapons on some especially significant Islamic date, or that the health insurance mandate would inevitably lead to a completely socialist state by the end of Obama's term. It's frustrating to listen to him sometimes when he makes an sound observation then runs with it to make crazy predictions.

I used to listen to him a lot when he was exclusively a radio personality, the liberal watchdog groups had only a few entries on him, and when he called his listeners "sick, twisted freaks." With his new popularity he's grown more flamboyant and paranoid.