Glen Beck is Wrong!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
43

While we’re on the subject of ol kite flyin Ben, lecherous codger though he was, consider these words of his recorded for all posterity at the convention:

[quote]â??In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answeredâ?¦ do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?â?? Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787

â?? God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babelâ?? Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787[/quote]

44

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

The majority of the founding fathers weren’t exactly “religious…blah, blah and more blah…”[/quote]
Misdirection play. Even though I believe you’re wrong I’m not headed down that rabbit trail at this time.

What did I say? Read it again - “Practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.” You want to refute that statement? Have at it.[/quote]

Yes, they did write on God-given rights, but they didn’t believe it to the same extent that they wrote it…[/quote]

Oh good grief, you’re quite the speculator. Maybe you should be spending your time at the Chicago Board of trade buying and selling pork belly futures instead of here at T-Nation arguing that the “Four Fatheres” (as Junior put it) were disingenuous bastards that said one thing but meant another.

Do I need to face palm you too?[/quote]

Bastards? No, I have no problem with how some of them acted. Is it really so hard to believe the founders were this way? I have read several historians that speculate this was the case. And a few founders were quoted that faith was a good way to influence the people or that without faith the country would fail/struggle, franklin was one I think. Most of this would be hard to verify considering the lack of journalism. And most of my argument is to shed light on the difference in the way that the Beck and founders term God-given rights.[/quote]

So we have:

  1. “Nature’s God”
  2. “Creator”
  3. “Supreme Judge of the world”
  4. “Divine Providence”

all in the nation’s founding document and written by the nation’s preeminent deist.

BUT the snake oil sellin’ sonofabitch “didn’t believe it to the same extent that he wrote it,” huh? He and ol’ Kite Flyin’ Ben were just foolin’ around and concocted “a good way to influence the people.” And lordy, lordy that quaint concept that “without faith the country would fail/struggle,” was one of the slipperiest sleight of hands ever, wasn’t it?

And NOW we know all this because YOU have “read several historians that speculate this was the case,” and the veil has been drawn aside and we can readily observe Ben and Tom’s dastardly plan with the 20/20 hindsight that only a modern (objective) reporter like you can provide?

Thanks, friend. Go buy yerself one of them there astrolabes. You got yerself sum latitudinal figurin’ to do.[/quote]

Damn. It’s hard to defend speculations. I just didn’t think it was so hard to believe someone in power using faith for gain. And, I, personally, did no figuring. Just passing along the info. Although, I should have made it seem like I was stating a theory rather than fact.

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:
Let’s also point out that the deist concept of God isn’t pious or submissive, unlike Beck’s attribution.

To a deist, the phrase God-given would have meant: granted by existence.[/quote]

Some of the “Four Fatheres” were deists; many were not.

By definition a deist is one who believes in God although they place Him distantly, not involved in the day to day activities of men. That does not preclude the deist’s God from granting rights to men.[/quote]
Of course it doesn’t. It does however reduce God to a metaphor.

Boulderdash.

I’ll have you know that I am required to carry a compass at all times – by court order.

46

Without going into a lengthy post suffice it to say that the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in fact Christian. The remaining were mostly those who believed in a God (some deists).

As for Glenn Beck he’s spot on:

“Colonial America believed that individual rights were God given, not man made.
The references to God in these documents and their understanding that He is God, make clear that our founding fathers recognized and acknowledged God’s nature and authority, as well as mankind’s dependence upon the Lord. These documents acknowledged rights, but the context of the documents conceded that the documents did not first create the rights. Colonial America believed that individual rights were God given, not man made. They made it clear that essential to the maintenance of virtue and liberty depended on the worship of God. These constitutions, declarations and bills of rights of the colonies were the pattern for the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. They were the models for the nation’s founders.”

48

[quote]pushharder wrote:

In other words, “Glenn Beck is Right!”[/quote]

Yeah, but who’s going to read a thread by that title?

So I went out and started reading Locke’s 1st and 2nd Treatise on Government. It appears that he considers rights and government to derive from 1) humanity’s existence, and therefore each humans’ natural inclination to survive, 2) human’s ability to reason, and 3) the fact that nature gives no inherent characteristic to distinguish one human superior to another. To a Deist, these all stem from “God”.

Therefore, actions by an individual that threaten the “natural order”, that is, survival, can be deemed punishable by rational humans in order to maintain the natural order. Consider that actions that benefit survival, such as cooperation, assembling into groups and tribes, are rationally encouraged and rewarded. And then we start to get into governments…

I guess we have rights because it’s rational, so we act rationally to survive.

Interesting stuff. I have a lot more to read.

By the way, lot’s of reading material at http://libertyfund.org/resources.html

49

[quote]yorik wrote:

So I went out and started reading Locke’s 1st and 2nd Treatise on Government. It appears that he considers rights and government to derive from 1) humanity’s existence, and therefore each humans’ natural inclination to survive, 2) human’s ability to reason, and 3) the fact that nature gives no inherent characteristic to distinguish one human superior to another. To a Deist, these all stem from “God”.

Therefore, actions by an individual that threaten the “natural order”, that is, survival, can be deemed punishable by rational humans in order to maintain the natural order. Consider that actions that benefit survival, such as cooperation, assembling into groups and tribes, are rationally encouraged and rewarded. And then we start to get into governments…

I guess we have rights because it’s rational, so we act rationally to survive.

Interesting stuff. I have a lot more to read.[/quote]
Independent study on a message board? I say!

Hopefully you didn’t skip over my post about the inherent cuddliness of man, because it seems I’ve been promoting Locke’s philosophies without knowing it. Maybe I’ll read up as well.

The belief that man is born with both the impetus and incentive to do good. Without that, I’d be somewhat paralyzed.

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

…The belief that man is born with both the impetus and incentive to do good. Without that, I’d be somewhat paralyzed.[/quote]

Man’s impetus and incentive to do good is overshadowed by his impetus and incentive to do evil. This is hardly even debatable but if you so desire I will bury you with facts - six thousand years worth.

The Founding Fathers would concur. Guaranteed.[/quote]

The comfort comes from knowing there’s a conflict, and that the basis for good is not culturally relative.

It’s merely the ability to suffer and then imagine the suffering of another, and it means more than any artifact.

53

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

…The belief that man is born with both the impetus and incentive to do good. Without that, I’d be somewhat paralyzed.[/quote]

Man’s impetus and incentive to do good is overshadowed by his impetus and incentive to do evil. This is hardly even debatable but if you so desire I will bury you with facts - six thousand years worth.

The Founding Fathers would concur. Guaranteed.[/quote]

The comfort comes from knowing there’s a conflict, and that the basis for good is not relative.

It’s merely the ability to suffer and then imagine the suffering of another, and it means more than any artifact.[/quote]

I see that medicinal Mary Jane’s not quite working out like you had planned.

The class of '09 continues to whiff in '10.[/quote]

Damn, I’d fuck a mule for some of that “Train wreck” stuff. Stuff is dry round these parts.

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

…The belief that man is born with both the impetus and incentive to do good. Without that, I’d be somewhat paralyzed.[/quote]

Man’s impetus and incentive to do good is overshadowed by his impetus and incentive to do evil. This is hardly even debatable but if you so desire I will bury you with facts - six thousand years worth.

The Founding Fathers would concur. Guaranteed.[/quote]

The comfort comes from knowing there’s a conflict, and that the basis for good is not relative.

It’s merely the ability to suffer and then imagine the suffering of another, and it means more than any artifact.[/quote]

I see that medicinal Mary Jane’s not quite working out like you had planned.

The class of '09 continues to whiff in '10.[/quote]

Me sounding dim would mean that this weed is fully operational.

It’s like you’re auditioning to be a movie jock. I’ll bet anything there are comb tracks in your hair.

55

[quote]yorik wrote:
Usually I like most of Glen Beck’s viewpoints but this one today really got to me. (I didn’t see the whole segment, so I might have misinterpreted it.)[/quote]

I just want to point out how funny the whole concept of this thread is. Whether you agree or disagree with Glen Beck’s views, surely everyone knows that his points and arguments are not supposed to be logical or even factual. Glen Beck is the equivalent of a lawyer for very conservative viewpoints. The job of any lawyer is to win the jury over. If that means making up some good shit that will convince most people (like any good palm-reader or psychic can do), then that’s what he will do. Analyzing this is just silly.

56

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:

[quote]yorik wrote:
Usually I like most of Glen Beck’s viewpoints but this one today really got to me. (I didn’t see the whole segment, so I might have misinterpreted it.)[/quote]

I just want to point out how funny the whole concept of this thread is. Whether you agree or disagree with Glen Beck’s views, surely everyone knows that his points and arguments are not supposed to be logical or even factual. Glen Beck is the equivalent of a lawyer for very conservative viewpoints. The job of any lawyer is to win the jury over. If that means making up some good shit that will convince most people (like any good palm-reader or psychic can do), then that’s what he will do. Analyzing this is just silly.
[/quote]

How many times have you seen his show and what specifically brought you to this viewpoint?

58

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
his points and arguments are not supposed to be logical or even factual.
[/quote]

In your next post make a list of all the non-factual points that Beck has tried to pass off as fact. If you don’t have a nice long list, or even a few very key points don’t post.

Life is simple sometimes.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
…If that means making up some good shit…

[/quote]

The floor is yours. Expose the eeeevil Beck. Go get 'im, tiger.
[/quote]

Just to be clear, I’m not anti-conservative. I’m anti-commentator (at least as it works right now). The liberal side does the same thing. I’ll try to watch him soon ad tell you some current things I think are just good effective bullshit.

But one I remember recently is his big red phone thing. Where he basically comes on and makes highly critical (and IMO demonstrably false) statements about the president’s policy. Then he says, “Mr. President, I have a phone right here that you can call if you think I’m wrong and you want to set the record straight.”

You would have to be retarded to think that is a fair way to get to the truth of something… First, it puts the president in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. I.e. he’s guilty unless he calls in. Second, I would be pissed if the president actually called in, because he damn well better have more important things to do than to call into some private commentator’s show to see if he can fend off an ambush. Third, it is clearly a setup to ambush him in a format where he would not have time to explain his policies, and would inevitably look bad if he tried.

There is also the fact that Beck takes a ton of money from companies that profit from trading in gold. This is fine by itself, but he also promotes gold from his commentator role without mentioning the conflict of interest.

It’s not just Beck though. Rachel Maddow does the same thing on the liberal side… No big red phone, but the same tactic. And Keith Olbermann goes way overboard and ignores inconvenient fact that don’t support his point of view.

60

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
<<< I’ll try to watch him soon >>>[/quote]

Saw that one comin.

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
<<< (and IMO demonstrably false) >>>
[/quote]

We’re still waiting for an example of at least one consequential, non ad hominem demonstrably false point he’s made, let’s say since the red phone was installed. I might be able to come up with one or two (maybe) since I actually watch the guy and he is like everyone a foible ridden imperfect mortal. About once a show he gives me a wince where I’m sitting there thinking , "ooooo, I don’t know if I would have said that that way, but that doesn’t equate to propagating falsehood.

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
You would have to be retarded to think that is a fair way to get to the truth of something… First, it puts the president in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. I.e. he’s guilty unless he calls in. Second, I would be pissed if the president actually called in, because he damn well better have more important things to do than to call into some private commentator’s show to see if he can fend off an ambush. Third, it is clearly a setup to ambush him in a format where he would not have time to explain his policies, and would inevitably look bad if he tried.[/quote]

There you go again,
He has repeatedly, as in numerous times, said he does not expect the president himself to call, but welcomes any of his staff, who themselves make no secret of the fact that they watch him BTW, to either call that phone, the number for which only they have, or to come on FOR AN ENTIRE SHOW, his words, and he would be thrilled with alternate explanations to anything he says. Oh yeah, a TV opinion show is not a court of law and is hence not subject to rules of jurisprudence. Guilty until proven innocent is just fine if based on the unassailable documentation he provides for, let’s say 95% of what he says. He does stretch sometimes.

[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
There is also the fact that Beck takes a ton of money from companies that profit from trading in gold. This is fine by itself, but he also promotes gold from his commentator role without mentioning the conflict of interest.
[/quote]

I’ve seen every one of his shows for the past six months and don’t recall this happening, though I could be mistaken. He has mentioned that he owns gold. In any case if it were a habit I would certainly know about it and gold commercials are on FOX all day and not just FOX. Also, even if he or somebody else did promote gold, or anything else they’re invested in, how does that influence overall the stark critique of progressive liberalism that is the driving theme of the show?