Glenn Beck Gets Owned Again

[ReignIB]

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.

Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?

It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?

No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.

While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]

Pretty much this.
Beck is telling it like it is and the “left wingers” can’t take it so they are making shit up to make him sound ignorant. This approach isn’t working though, if it wasn’t for the leftist bitching I, for one, would never pay attention to his show.

[/quote]
What exactly did Fareed Zakaria make up, again?[/quote]

Well, you kind of answered your own question already, but what Beck said is that he THINKS the percentage of terrorists among muslims is CLOSER to 10% than 1%.
He then proceeded to say smth along the lines that “this is contrary to what PC media will tell you as they consider this percentage to be miniscule”.

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.

[siouxperman]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.
[/quote]

He wasn’t…but he was. To be closer to 10% than 1%, it has to be at LEAST 6%. And if he thought it was 6% he would just say 6%, which is still wildly unreasonable. I don’t really get how you can defend this. If he wants to point out that the media is too PC, fine. But do it in the realm of reality.

[Big_Banana]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.

Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
… [/quote]

Pretty poor comprehension.

I understand the reporter stirring shit, it is his job. how come you people can’t see though the BS?

[Big_Banana]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.
[/quote]

He wasn’t…but he was. To be closer to 10% than 1%, it has to be at LEAST 6%. And if he thought it was 6% he would just say 6%, which is still wildly unreasonable. I don’t really get how you can defend this. If he wants to point out that the media is too PC, fine. But do it in the realm of reality.[/quote]

Muslims all over the world support terrorists in huge percentages.

[siouxperman]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
how come you people can’t see though the BS?[/quote]

Back atcha.

edited for misquoting.

[siouxperman]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.
[/quote]

He wasn’t…but he was. To be closer to 10% than 1%, it has to be at LEAST 6%. And if he thought it was 6% he would just say 6%, which is still wildly unreasonable. I don’t really get how you can defend this. If he wants to point out that the media is too PC, fine. But do it in the realm of reality.[/quote]

Muslims all over the world support terrorists in huge percentages.[/quote]

So just to defend beck you’re willing to say that close to 10% of people in the muslim world are terrorists? What the hell percentage would you have estimated had it not been influenced by him? It was pulled out of his ass and now it’s fact? No wonder he’s got such an audience.

[SUPER_T]

It all depends on witch definition of the word you use. If you use the dictionary def, I could see close to 10 percent being terrorists. Beck never said it was a fact, he said that is what he thought. Maybe he used the term terrorist too loosly. I could see 10% of the muslum world hating us and wanting to do bad things to us. Maybe he should have said he thought 10% of muslums were radical, that might have went over better.

[Schlenkatank]

[quote]kamui wrote:
if Glen Beck is mentally challenged, making publicly fun of him is unethical.
if he is just a propagandist making outrageous claims, it doesn’t worth a serious answer (and more negative advertising).

either way, i don’t see the point.

[/quote]

Glenn Beck has millions of viewers who support his unfounded and divisive statements. Refuting him is a step towards sanity. That is the point.

[Big_Banana]

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
It all depends on witch definition of the word you use. If you use the dictionary def, I could see close to 10 percent being terrorists. Beck never said it was a fact, he said that is what he thought. Maybe he used the term terrorist too loosly. I could see 10% of the muslum world hating us and wanting to do bad things to us. Maybe he should have said he thought 10% of muslums were radical, that might have went over better.[/quote]

Exactly but many people would rather fake outrage.

[canada]

Glenn Beck = Clutter. His main agenda is personal profit.

[Big_Banana]

[quote]canada wrote:
Glenn Beck = Clutter. His main agenda is personal profit. [/quote]

Same as all these other media ghouls on both sides.

As I said before I don’t understand why some don’t see through the BS and fake outrage.

[siouxperman]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
It all depends on witch definition of the word you use. If you use the dictionary def, I could see close to 10 percent being terrorists. Beck never said it was a fact, he said that is what he thought. Maybe he used the term terrorist too loosly. I could see 10% of the muslum world hating us and wanting to do bad things to us. Maybe he should have said he thought 10% of muslums were radical, that might have went over better.[/quote]

Exactly but many people would rather fake outrage.[/quote]

To reach 8.5%, EVERY PERSON in afghanistan, iraq, and iran would have to be a terrorist. This is a fucking joke.

Islam by country

I’ll freely admit that muslims are more likely to be terrorists. But beck just takes it to another level of crazy.

[Big_Banana]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
It all depends on witch definition of the word you use. If you use the dictionary def, I could see close to 10 percent being terrorists. Beck never said it was a fact, he said that is what he thought. Maybe he used the term terrorist too loosly. I could see 10% of the muslum world hating us and wanting to do bad things to us. Maybe he should have said he thought 10% of muslums were radical, that might have went over better.[/quote]

Exactly but many people would rather fake outrage.[/quote]

To reach 8.5%, EVERY PERSON in afghanistan, iraq, and iran would have to be a terrorist. This is a fucking joke.

Islam by country

I’ll freely admit that muslims are more likely to be terrorists. But beck just takes it to another level of crazy.[/quote]

There are no terrorist supporters outside these nations?

[siouxperman]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
It all depends on witch definition of the word you use. If you use the dictionary def, I could see close to 10 percent being terrorists. Beck never said it was a fact, he said that is what he thought. Maybe he used the term terrorist too loosly. I could see 10% of the muslum world hating us and wanting to do bad things to us. Maybe he should have said he thought 10% of muslums were radical, that might have went over better.[/quote]

Exactly but many people would rather fake outrage.[/quote]

To reach 8.5%, EVERY PERSON in afghanistan, iraq, and iran would have to be a terrorist. This is a fucking joke.

Islam by country

I’ll freely admit that muslims are more likely to be terrorists. But beck just takes it to another level of crazy.[/quote]

There are no terrorist supporters outside these nations?[/quote]

goddamn are you serious with this?

[ZEB]

[quote]Ithiel wrote:
I love how Zakaria is trying to suppress a grin the entire time.

Though honestly finding hilariously wrong shit Glen Beck does is not exactly a difficult past time.[/quote]

Then find something of significance and post it. If you can’t do that then it must be difficult to do.

[ZEB]

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.

Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?

It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?

No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.

While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]

Even I’m tired of talking about beck. But dude, we all know what’s going here. Beck doesn’t convert people. He’s popular as shit with his audience because his show is one big confirmation of everything they already thought. We know that he brings up facts but we ALL (including his fans) know that he acts like a complete jackass lunatic.

I know that you can see that a lot of his chalkboard shenanigans are completely asinine, but I also get that his overarching message is something you were already on board with, so it gets overlooked. It is what it is. He’s not a threat, political zealots are a threat, and they just happen to be in his audience.

Also, in regards to the 10% thing, it’s obvious what he’s suggesting. Let’s not bullshit about it. It’s what he does. He makes suggestions, not hard claims, which is why they aren’t disproved. I never said he isn’t good at what he does.
[/quote]

And you are saying the above because you do not agree with his politics. You’re the perfect example of your own meandering.
[/quote]
That’s an easy cop-out. Sioux presented a pretty logical argument explaining Beck and didn’t even mention his belief or disbelief in Beck’s politics.[/quote]

His logical argument is that “Beck doesn’t convert people”. And that he’s more or less preaching to the choir. Well, who said that he was converting people? That’s a logical argument? For what? Who said otherwise? And because the poster is on the opposite side politically he attacks Beck. Hence, becoming just as guilty as the faithful listeners. So where’s the cop out? And YOU TOO are probably on the other side politically as well or you would not have posted what you did.

Simple.

[Schlenkatank]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.

Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?

It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?

No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.

While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]

Barring your left wing media conspiracy, what I think you have missed is that Beck’s suggestions and insinuations are naturally problematic. Ya, I caught that he didn’t actually say 10% too, but to even suggest that the number of Islamic terrorists is close to that high is incredibly inflammatory and unfounded. As the reporter proved, to even suggest 1% is way off.

So what’s the problem with inaccuracy? As it turns out there is very little that stands between the typical joe watching the media and the radio and television giants who get to say what they please on the air. Beck claims “I’ve done my research”, but all to often we have something like this that proves him wrong. The times when he does report accurately he is adept at twisting the facts to support his agenda. Take this quote from him as an example

"There are a few things labor leaders won’t tell you about their history. Unions have a long history with deep communist and racist roots. You only hear about how unions heroically stopped greedy employers from sending 10-year-old kids to work in the coal mines for a dollar a day. But you don’t hear stories like these about unions:

There was a union mineworker strike in Illinois in 1898. It ended in the unions (with the backing of the governor) telling blacks they couldn’t have their jobs back â?? with the governor threatening to use the state militia to, “shoot to pieces with Gatling guns” any train bringing in black workers. The militia captain said, “If any Negroes are brought into Pana while I am in charge, and they refuse to retreat when ordered to do so, I will order my men to fire.” Several black miners were murdered in the ensuing weeks."

This quote although probably accurate makes it seem as if Unions have had racist roots in stark contrast to a responsible society in the late 1800’s. The obvious truth of the matter is that almost every white guy was racist then, hell the government was racist too. So why the hell does this fact matter to anyone? Because he likes to use isolated facts to construct illusions that support his agenda. That is not okay. People listen to him and that is okay, but if he wants to be a responsible contributor in the media then he should expect criticism like he’s gotten and react to it accordingly.

[Jewbacca]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.
[/quote]

He wasn’t…but he was. To be closer to 10% than 1%, it has to be at LEAST 6%. And if he thought it was 6% he would just say 6%, which is still wildly unreasonable. I don’t really get how you can defend this. If he wants to point out that the media is too PC, fine. But do it in the realm of reality.[/quote]

Muslims all over the world support terrorists in huge percentages.[/quote]

Nah, they love America. Why, these arabs in Gaza were celebreation on 9/11/01 because it was some holiday. They weren’t chanting “Death to America,” they were sad the fourth plane missed its chance to visit the White House on an arab peace mission, instead of going down in PA.

- YouTube

[Gambit_Lost]

Eh, it was a pretty wild claim made by a “shock jock.” Beck can be pretty funny, but it is a little unsettling the lengths to which people will defend and obviously exaggerated statement. If Beck weren’t so influential, I doubt he would get this sort of attention.

What did Zakaria put the number at? .1% was it? What do Beck supporter’s think? Is the number closer to .1% or 10%?

I guess IMO when someone as popular and influential as Beck makes a statement like that, he should be challenged, whether she is on the political right or left.

[ZEB]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

So it’s not like he was “this just in ladies and gents - percentage of terrorists in a muslim world is 10%”, which is how CNN is attempting to present it.
[/quote]

He wasn’t…but he was. To be closer to 10% than 1%, it has to be at LEAST 6%. And if he thought it was 6% he would just say 6%, which is still wildly unreasonable. I don’t really get how you can defend this. If he wants to point out that the media is too PC, fine. But do it in the realm of reality.[/quote]

That this idiot tried to make a case out of an off hand comment shows how far some will go to try to discredit Beck.

What the Beck haters should be doing is what I suggested in my original post. Point out how he’s wrong about the important discussion topics of the day, not some off hand comment. For example, (once again), point out how he’s lied about Obama, Reed, Pelosi, Soros, Alinsky, Van Jones and the many, many others that he’s been talking about for over two years. Where are the rebuttlas from the other side that Beck is lying about stories of magnitude?

(Crickets chirping)

I won’t hold my breath.