His standards are no different from any real intellectual. We also can't pick on in the closet homo-phobic republicans or priest just becuase someone else came out or got help. Yeah Glenn is a real nut, you would have to be really easily infuenced to believe half of the crap that comes from his rants. Thats why intellectuals don't commonly watch his show unless they need a laugh. A.K.A he's a nut, just like his secret friend Ventura.
Jesse Ventura, you don't know a thing!
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
One morning I listened to Beck and his radio cohorts going on and on and on about the great insult that Obama had just committed
against the British by returning their gift of a bust of Winston Churchill. This bust was described as a gift presented to George Bush
by Tony Blair after 9/11, a gift from the British people to the people of the United States. Beck said that the British had urged Obama
to keep it, but apparently Obama had brushed them off with a "Thanks, but no thanks". What a slap in the face of our oldest ally! They
continued on to speculate on what sort of icon of Obama's socialist beliefs would replace Churchill's bust.
I thought this was indeed odd and in bad form on the President's part (if true), so I searched out different sources on the internet.
To get fair and balanced information. To get "the rest of the story", if there was more.
I found out (mostly from the British media sites):
1) The bust was not a gift, but was only on loan to the White House;
2) The bust was returned as was originally scheduled, since it was a loan to the White House during Bush's term;
3) No one in Britain really knew about this matter and this return of an object on loan was hardly considered an insult;
4) Obama placed a bust of Abraham lincoln, one of his personal heroes, in the spot on the Oval Office.
Now I am sure that Glenn Beck and his team know how to use the internet. They should also know to check out more than one source.
Why was I able to find out the true story in a matter of minutes, while Beck was on the air angrily making accusations and telling a story that was so far off base?
Could it be that he was more interested in telling his listeners a "story" that they would/could get riled up over, rather than reporting the actual facts?
Instances like this is why I can not believe anything Beck says.
Another more recent example is his claim/rant that Obama's trip to India was costing U.S. taxpayers $200 million a day and his implications/hinting that one tenth of all our naval vessels was accompanying him on the trip. This claim apparently came from a single blogger in India. An official from the Pentagon had to come out and say the idea of sending all those ships along was a "fantasy".
I do not dismiss Beck as a hypocrite. Hypocrite is not the best word to describe Beck.
I dismiss him as a liar.
against the British by returning their gift of a bust of Winston Churchill. This bust was described as a gift presented to George Bush
by Tony Blair after 9/11, a gift from the British people to the people of the United States. Beck said that the British had urged Obama
to keep it, but apparently Obama had brushed them off with a "Thanks, but no thanks". What a slap in the face of our oldest ally! They
continued on to speculate on what sort of icon of Obama's socialist beliefs would replace Churchill's bust.
I thought this was indeed odd and in bad form on the President's part (if true), so I searched out different sources on the internet.
To get fair and balanced information. To get "the rest of the story", if there was more.
I found out (mostly from the British media sites):
1) The bust was not a gift, but was only on loan to the White House;
2) The bust was returned as was originally scheduled, since it was a loan to the White House during Bush's term;
3) No one in Britain really knew about this matter and this return of an object on loan was hardly considered an insult;
4) Obama placed a bust of Abraham lincoln, one of his personal heroes, in the spot on the Oval Office.
Now I am sure that Glenn Beck and his team know how to use the internet. They should also know to check out more than one source.
Why was I able to find out the true story in a matter of minutes, while Beck was on the air angrily making accusations and telling a story that was so far off base?
Could it be that he was more interested in telling his listeners a "story" that they would/could get riled up over, rather than reporting the actual facts?
Instances like this is why I can not believe anything Beck says.
Another more recent example is his claim/rant that Obama's trip to India was costing U.S. taxpayers $200 million a day and his implications/hinting that one tenth of all our naval vessels was accompanying him on the trip. This claim apparently came from a single blogger in India. An official from the Pentagon had to come out and say the idea of sending all those ships along was a "fantasy".
I do not dismiss Beck as a hypocrite. Hypocrite is not the best word to describe Beck.
I dismiss him as a liar.
"Secret Friend"? Now who's ranting?
And...only arrogant presumption would lead one to assume what all "real intellectuals" (whatever "real" is supposed to mean) watch seriously as a rule.
Last edited:
So are you saying the British government didn't offer to extend the loan?
And, I have to be honest...it makes no sense that " No one in Britain really knew about this matter". Apparently someone in Britain did, to recieve the bust back--and, for that matter, to issue the loan in the first place!
"Implications/Hinting"? What was his exact quote, I wonder--or are you citing MediaMatters?
Frankly, again you say:
If we are to hold what you say to the standards you hold Beck...should you be called a liar, too, then?
Also, you say the Pentagon called sending the navy a fantasy. I am curious...you did not refute the $200 million number....
I am not really anybodies friend here, but I was just supporting some of his comments, and I am right to assume had it been conservative comments that he made, you would have been agreeing as well.
No, Arrogant, truth, I can honestly tell you no Real intellectual(what I mean by real is to have the common sense "GOD" gave a rock, not just what they believe is smarts.) watches Glenn Beck seriously, as was my point.
I fear for anybody who watches him and takes him seriously, I wouldn't trust a weather report to him, he would say Vermont is a tropical state.
It doesn't matter whether they asked if we wanted to extend and we declined, his point was that Glenn was once again wrong to say it was a slap in the face without actually looking on the internet, or does he think its the devil's work?
Since it wasn't a major headline, it wasn't in the extremes that Mr. Beck put it in, once again a case where he is nuts. Theres a huge difference between simply implying that nobody really knew because nobody really cares, and too say that we slapped our oldest ally in the face, one is extreme one isn't. Especially when it was just a loan, which are usually supposed to be re-paid.
To say that he spent 200 million, when he has been so religious about lowering the debt, and the fact that he didn't stay in a gold hotel, is absolutely nuts. If you believe one blogger you might as well watch Conspiracy Theory and Glenn Beck. You might as well believe that all the cuts Republicans are saying they will try to pass, will actually save any money and not add on another 800 billion.
You would be wrong. I could point to Michael Savage as a Rightist who, in my mind, often goes too far.
Uh-huh.
Doesn't it?his point was that Glenn was once again wrong to say it was a slap in the face without actually looking on the internet, or does he think its the devil's work?
Theres a huge difference between simply implying that nobody really knew because nobody really cares, and too say that we slapped our oldest ally in the face, one is extreme one isn't. Especially when it was just a loan, which are usually supposed to be re-paid.
To say that he spent 200 million, when he has been so religious about lowering the debt, and the fact that he didn't stay in a gold hotel, is absolutely nuts. If you believe one blogger you might as well watch Conspiracy Theory and Glenn Beck.
Again...refute, please? There is more than one way to spend $200 million, number one. Number two...how can you honestly say the president is serious about lowering the debt, considering how the debt has doubled--at the very least--since he took office?
Ah...how can cuts add on $800 billion?Yeah I didn't say Dem were sane either, you got people like Nancy Grace. There is atleast one extreme nut on one side.
Vermont isn't a tropical state if that is a question of yours.
his point was that Glenn was once again wrong to say it was a slap in the face without actually looking on the internet, or does he think its the devil's work?
Theres a huge difference between simply implying that nobody really knew because nobody really cares, and too say that we slapped our oldest ally in the face, one is extreme one isn't. Especially when it was just a loan, which are usually supposed to be re-paid.
To say that he spent 200 million, when he has been so religious about lowering the debt, and the fact that he didn't stay in a gold hotel, is absolutely nuts. If you believe one blogger you might as well watch Conspiracy Theory and Glenn Beck.
Again...refute, please? There is more than one way to spend $200 million, number one. Number two...how can you honestly say the president is serious about lowering the debt, considering how the debt has doubled--at the very least--since he took office?
Well, no it doesn't matter whether we declined to extend a loan, its actually a good sign that we declined. It would of mattered had we said F you and this loan go back to your tea drinking nation, we didn't so it doesn't matter.
It did double in the beginning, however, its actually gone down, slowly but surely. Even his healthcare bill will actually in the future end up taking off about 50 billion off the debt. Poeple didn't like the fact that he passed a bail out, what people don't see is that most jobs were lost before he even sat into his chair at the white house, and the unemployment is actually lower than it was previously. Please don't just get your info from republican websites or just listen to fox news, try reading the non-partisan report that just came out of congress, it explains the fact that all those purposed cuts will actually end up adding to our debt. Thats why political figures have said that once republicans take over and we see the affects, Obama will have a good chance to be re-elected. You have to remember do to the foolish actions of a republican president, the debt tripled. Just a little example of a republican want:
IF you go onto my Real Time With KJBushway thread, I posted a link where it supports what i said about the cuts adding more onto the deficit.
Last edited:
If someone says that there is some secret table of Elders controlling the world and our government parties fight over different topics to keep us busy, then someone could just as easily say that the military and NASA are working together, and we do already have space ships up there like Stargate, and that all the ISS and hubble stuff is just to keep us intellectuals at bay. Now wether it may be true or not, who knows, well maybe Lookingglassman does.
LOL! Nope I don't know anything about secret Stargate/UFO stuff. All the stuff I know is regular ol' US military doing things the public don't know about stuff. Although there was that one report I read about a certain "space" thing in Russia....
That's actually a bit of an internet myth. Read about it here:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
I know, but theres a hidden point in it.
That hidden point being, that Russia does a lot more than us with less materials and budget.
They have used the same aircraft for decades
They built a space-station. Granted it had a lot of problems, but they did it before anybody else. So I am not surprised that Aliens visited Russia instead of us.(Of course, in a joking manner)
That hidden point being, that Russia does a lot more than us with less materials and budget.
They have used the same aircraft for decades
They built a space-station. Granted it had a lot of problems, but they did it before anybody else. So I am not surprised that Aliens visited Russia instead of us.(Of course, in a joking manner)
I want to say here that I don't particularly care for the strategy of trying to invalidate a larger premise or to cloud the big picture by attempting to drag the focus away onto arguments about smaller details of questionable relevance. Politicians do this, entertainment commentators do this, and too many people allow themselves to be lead off the trail by this type of distraction. I will try to get things back on track and say my piece to clear up any of these minor details regarding my earlier post....
No, I did not say that the Brits did not offer to extend the loan. I believe that they actually did make that offer, but that detail is only a somewhat irrelevant side issue. My point was that Beck's unjustified outrage was over a falsehood that he himself was propagating without bothering to report (or at least check into) the basic facts. He had it wrong.
The President had in no way inappropriately returned a "gift" from the British government.
Here's a cool fact: one of the the neat things about being being President is that you get to decide how to set up your office. He gets to choose what surrounds and inspires him in his workspace. He didn't want or need Churchill's bust there, and Churchill's bust was already already scheduled to go home before he even moved into the White House.
Also, I meant to say that practically no one in Britain knew (or cared) anything about the loan until individuals in Britain were actually told the story in order to get their thoughts on the matter. My original wording did not best convey my meaning. OBVIOUSLY someone in Britain had to know about the loan. I fell into the common, but sloppy, habit of using the phrase "no one really" instead of "practically no one". I think most people would understand what I meant, but it was my inadvertent mistake for not choosing my words better.
Nope- no MediaMatters- just actual video clips of Beck himself talking shown on the first segment of "The Daily Show" on November 8th.....
On his radio show on November 4th, Glenn Beck repeatedly claimed that 34 warships would be accompanying Obama. By the time he got on his television program, however, he must have figured that he needed to tune his tone down just a bit for his Fox audience, because he then would put it:
"... And how many ships will be there? Thirty-four warships possibly... I don't know!"
Innuendo? A disingenuous half-lie? I don't know! I do bet you that most of his audience believed the misleading message that he intended them to walk away with. Mission accomplished! I have trouble believing this guy can actually be so ignorant of the facts that are out there, or so willing to make statements that can not be backed up with facts.
Inaccuracy of my memory regarding exact wording (but not regarding the gist of the main message) should have lead me to go back check things from video clips and reports before I posted. I went back to confirm. While the word "fantasy" was not used, the actual quote gives the same sentiment for the Pentagon's take on the ridiculousness of the overblown naval force assertions:
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell during November 4th's Pentagon Briefing :
“I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy -- some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier -- in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."
Bill O'Reilly was a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time" on Friday, November 5th (you can watch the segment again on YouTube). When asked by Maher about the $200 million per day figure for the India trip that was being reported by conservative commentators, O'Reilly responded that the number "was bull", but stated that the number had come from "some guy in India" and the number had been picked up by the Drudge Report and had then been disseminated by certain other people, but not by the Fox hard news people. Some of my liberal friends hate Bill O'Reilly, but I can and do watch him because I feel he is a much more honest when presenting information and conservative point of view than Limbaugh or Beck. I don't always agree with O'Reilly, but I do feel that he does not completely make things up like the other two fellows, who I consider more windbags than gentlemen. They are no doubt, however, VERY successful windbags.
I find it very interesting that in a case such as this, the people making these claims (Beck, Fox and Friends, Limbaugh, etc.) seem to have no need to provide reasonable evidence to back up their faulty assertions and -even more more important- these talkers are not expected by their viewers to provide the the basis for these assertions. As long as they are hearing what they want to hear, why question the assertions? This is somewhat akin to all the Hollywood tabloids stating that some film star has been beating his wife (well, after all, this one guy who works in accounting at Universal claimed he heard about something!) and the flimsy accusation is accepted as the truth unless the actor somehow provides proof that he is NOT beating her.... but even then, the some readers will refuse to believe him because they like the idea that he would do it! What a screwed up situation!
....And, no, I would not call myself a liar. Unlike Beck, who has three hours a day on radio and a television program later in the day to get the facts right and refine/rephrase his wording, I am simply someone who was trying to be somewhat hastily concise in my post so people would actually want to read through it. Beck has no excuse. He should be able to get the facts right in the course of his daily show,however, this is clearly not his his goal. He chooses to be misleading. But once again, I believe that he and I do have different agendas and motivations.
No, I did not say that the Brits did not offer to extend the loan. I believe that they actually did make that offer, but that detail is only a somewhat irrelevant side issue. My point was that Beck's unjustified outrage was over a falsehood that he himself was propagating without bothering to report (or at least check into) the basic facts. He had it wrong.
The President had in no way inappropriately returned a "gift" from the British government.
Here's a cool fact: one of the the neat things about being being President is that you get to decide how to set up your office. He gets to choose what surrounds and inspires him in his workspace. He didn't want or need Churchill's bust there, and Churchill's bust was already already scheduled to go home before he even moved into the White House.
Also, I meant to say that practically no one in Britain knew (or cared) anything about the loan until individuals in Britain were actually told the story in order to get their thoughts on the matter. My original wording did not best convey my meaning. OBVIOUSLY someone in Britain had to know about the loan. I fell into the common, but sloppy, habit of using the phrase "no one really" instead of "practically no one". I think most people would understand what I meant, but it was my inadvertent mistake for not choosing my words better.
Nope- no MediaMatters- just actual video clips of Beck himself talking shown on the first segment of "The Daily Show" on November 8th.....
On his radio show on November 4th, Glenn Beck repeatedly claimed that 34 warships would be accompanying Obama. By the time he got on his television program, however, he must have figured that he needed to tune his tone down just a bit for his Fox audience, because he then would put it:
"... And how many ships will be there? Thirty-four warships possibly... I don't know!"
Innuendo? A disingenuous half-lie? I don't know! I do bet you that most of his audience believed the misleading message that he intended them to walk away with. Mission accomplished! I have trouble believing this guy can actually be so ignorant of the facts that are out there, or so willing to make statements that can not be backed up with facts.
Inaccuracy of my memory regarding exact wording (but not regarding the gist of the main message) should have lead me to go back check things from video clips and reports before I posted. I went back to confirm. While the word "fantasy" was not used, the actual quote gives the same sentiment for the Pentagon's take on the ridiculousness of the overblown naval force assertions:
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell during November 4th's Pentagon Briefing :
“I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy -- some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier -- in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."
Bill O'Reilly was a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time" on Friday, November 5th (you can watch the segment again on YouTube). When asked by Maher about the $200 million per day figure for the India trip that was being reported by conservative commentators, O'Reilly responded that the number "was bull", but stated that the number had come from "some guy in India" and the number had been picked up by the Drudge Report and had then been disseminated by certain other people, but not by the Fox hard news people. Some of my liberal friends hate Bill O'Reilly, but I can and do watch him because I feel he is a much more honest when presenting information and conservative point of view than Limbaugh or Beck. I don't always agree with O'Reilly, but I do feel that he does not completely make things up like the other two fellows, who I consider more windbags than gentlemen. They are no doubt, however, VERY successful windbags.
I find it very interesting that in a case such as this, the people making these claims (Beck, Fox and Friends, Limbaugh, etc.) seem to have no need to provide reasonable evidence to back up their faulty assertions and -even more more important- these talkers are not expected by their viewers to provide the the basis for these assertions. As long as they are hearing what they want to hear, why question the assertions? This is somewhat akin to all the Hollywood tabloids stating that some film star has been beating his wife (well, after all, this one guy who works in accounting at Universal claimed he heard about something!) and the flimsy accusation is accepted as the truth unless the actor somehow provides proof that he is NOT beating her.... but even then, the some readers will refuse to believe him because they like the idea that he would do it! What a screwed up situation!
....And, no, I would not call myself a liar. Unlike Beck, who has three hours a day on radio and a television program later in the day to get the facts right and refine/rephrase his wording, I am simply someone who was trying to be somewhat hastily concise in my post so people would actually want to read through it. Beck has no excuse. He should be able to get the facts right in the course of his daily show,however, this is clearly not his his goal. He chooses to be misleading. But once again, I believe that he and I do have different agendas and motivations.
Last edited:
Of course not. You assume, however, that he was being dishonest because, like those in your "tabloid" example--you want to think of him as being dishonest.
Indeed. And this is the situation you have placed Glenn Beck in--via a COMEDY show, which, characteristic of comedy shows, twists words and events to get laughs.
Doesn't he? You excuse your mistake in that manner--and do not allow for him to make one similar mistake, in all those hundreds of hours--to be hastily concise in his point?
Isn't it? How many times has he challenged his listeners, "Do NOT accept anything I say--do your own homework"?
He is human. Of COURSE he would make mistakes--which is why he constantly gives that warning.
In this case...I agree.
Finally...what does all this have to do with Jesse Ventura?
If I recall correctly, some of us were simply pointing out the flaw in the logic of your initial suggestion that we take the word of one asylum inmate that another inmate was "nuts".
I assume that you listen to Beck, so you should understand that there is no need for someone to spend a lot of time in order to selectively edit his statements to "create" the appearance of misleading or unsupported statements coming out of his mouth. If you missed it (or simply ignored it), just watch the clip. You'll see that pieces of video haven't been dishonestly spliced together in order to get a different meaning from Beck's intent. His own words, when lined up against the truth, are what makes him look foolish.
I suspected you would have this dismissive view of "The Daily Show". You probably don't watch and probably don't have a good grasp of comedy or irony, or perhaps you simply feel singed when your own political heroes and commentators get skewered.
"The Daily Show" doesn't need to "twist" people's words to create humor. The humor (for the most part) comes as a result of pointing out how necessary it is for these officials, politicians, and commentators to TWIST reality themselves in order to arrive at their own words and logic. Running clips side by side of what someone says one day, compared to what that same person said or did the previous week ( ... we're talking about you, Larry Craig...) is a pretty effective way to cut through the fog and deception.
Quite a few people do not seem to appreciate that comedy (yes- COMEDY!) has been used quite effectively historically as a commentary to cut through the smoke and spin of politics to expose hypocrisy and lies. For the most part, I think Stewart handles things responsibly in how he exposes the liars and hypocrites. Ironically, even on a comedy show, he seems to have more respect for the truth than Beck or Limbaugh (or Ed Schultz or Leslie Marshall over on progressive radio).
It is indeed sad that we might need to go to a comedy show to see hypocrisy and lies exposed. I wish there were a more powerful, universally accepted source for pointing out this crap to consumers of news. We sure do need it.
It would simply be nice if he would be responsible by taking his own advice and go do some homework himself.
Coming to class, half-prepared to give a presentation, and then telling your audience "Do NOT accept anything I say-- please go home and read up on this subject yourself" is a sure fire way to get a failing grade in school (It actually sounds like the Bart Simpson way of giving a presentation.... ).
I guess I expect more of a commentator if I am going to take him seriously in helping me to understand the world.
Well, as Dennis Miller would say (a guy who is a conservative and IS funny), "I am outta here......"
Last edited:
And dont forget the liar telling his sheep at his teabagger rally that he "held" a historical document in his hands and the Department that overseas all the US historical documents came out and said nobody is allowed to handle them and he never did.
Similar threads
