Glenn Beck Gets Owned Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Schlenkatank 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]

Barring your left wing media conspiracy, what I think you have missed is that Beck’s suggestions and insinuations are naturally problematic.[/quote]

If they’re so very problematic you won’t have a problem posting a list of these significant errors. So go ahead.

Yes the reporter went out of his way putting words in Becks mouth regarding a 10% figure he never said. But I’ll give you this one as it’s an off the cuff remark and perhaps even the 1% is wrong. But the fact the he jumped on it as he did is far more telling than Becks off the cuff comment.

[quote]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. [/quote]

I’m sure you’re not trying to make a case that there were no supporters of minorities in 1899. When in fact slaves had been free for a full 34 years. There were groups who were for both the rights of women and blacks in 1899. AND…unions were NOT on that list. That is Beck’s point and he made it clearly and appropriately.

Now get busy with that list of Beck’s lies on major issue. If you can’t do that you’re just another whiner who doesn’t like Beck because he constantly damages the left.

42

[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.

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

Are there not muslums in other countries?

43

[quote]SUPER-T 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.

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

Are there not muslums in other countries? [/quote]

haha, if i weren’t able to laugh at this stuff I’d have an aneurysm.

44

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Maybe i’m stun but i read about american politics for a few years before i realized what left/right meant.

Fuck man we all know honesty and truth… its not about the party its about the people. The rich are too rich right now. We need to change the ratio.

45

His producer’s response…

46

[quote]canada wrote:

As I The rich are too rich right now. We need to change the ratio.[/quote]

I have a crazy idea but it just might work. Why don’t we just take more from the wealthy and spread it around to all of the people who are poor? What do you think sport?

47

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]canada wrote:

As I The rich are too rich right now. We need to change the ratio.[/quote]

I have a crazy idea but it just might work. Why don’t we just take more from the wealthy and spread it around to all of the people who are poor? What do you think sport?
[/quote]

No deal.

I want food, lots of machines and fuel.

Take your piece of paper up you ass!!

48

[quote]JPCleary wrote:
His producer’s response…

The fact that his producer goes to such lengths to antagonize and ridicule Fareed Zakaria as some sort of irrelevant liberal nobody while simultaneously producing fairly unconvincing arguments is a perfect example of why civilian political analysis in America on most levels is frustrating.

I mean, Zakaria is a highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly respected man who frankly is more qualified than almost anyone but the upper echelons of analysts to make comments about American foreign policy. I’m more distressed by the possibility that CNN may try to push him to get into an open rhetorical brawl with Beck than anything else, but given who Zakaria is I’m sure he’d decline such a futile exercise.

I’m pretty sure at this point we can all agree that this is a stupid argument and there are a lot more important things that should be considered, such as the South Korean fishing boat tragedy. But, more likely, someone will read this post and use it to attack ‘the libs’ or ‘foreigners’ or whatever.

49

[quote]Ithiel wrote:

I mean, Zakaria is a highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly liberal blowhard who can’t find anything of significance to jump on Beck about so he chose this
[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank 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]

Barring your left wing media conspiracy, what I think you have missed is that Beck’s suggestions and insinuations are naturally problematic.[/quote]

If they’re so very problematic you won’t have a problem posting a list of these significant errors. So go ahead.

Yes the reporter went out of his way putting words in Becks mouth regarding a 10% figure he never said. But I’ll give you this one as it’s an off the cuff remark and perhaps even the 1% is wrong. But the fact the he jumped on it as he did is far more telling than Becks off the cuff comment.

[quote]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 Ã?¢?? 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. [/quote]

I’m sure you’re not trying to make a case that there were no supporters of minorities in 1899. When in fact slaves had been free for a full 34 years. There were groups who were for both the rights of women and blacks in 1899. AND…unions were NOT on that list. That is Beck’s point and he made it clearly and appropriately.

Now get busy with that list of Beck’s lies on major issue. If you can’t do that you’re just another whiner who doesn’t like Beck because he constantly damages the left.
[/quote]

You. are. ridiculous. First of all, the reason this reporter jumped on the comment like he did is because he is Muslim. Sorry, but I don’t think he appreciates the inaccurate terrorist stereotype. And don’t try and downplay the figures Beck preposed, they’re mathematically impossible.

Secondly, I’m the whiny one who can’t handle the truth from Beck? You give Beck far too much credit. I’m not the one who just sputtered a handful of paragraphs refuting criticism from one of the most respected journalists in the world. Ouch, that must hurt.

Thirdly, I know I don’t have to reexamine why Unions in the 1800’s showed the same level of racism as our government and vast numbers of social groups have shown well into the 60’s of the last century. It’s true, that particular Union wasn’t on the side of blacks back then, but neither was Jim Crow so what’s the point? Oh, that’s right, Beck wants us to associate socialistic institutions with racism. Doy!

I feel as if I have adequately deconstructed your argument, and knowing your penchant for time wasting I’m not going to do you the favor of digging up pages of mistakes Beck has made so you can get a chubby typing a billion page response citing questionable journals from the earlier parts of last century. Face it, Beck has a very big audience and that means if he wants to have an ounce of respect in this country he is going to have to be less of a nut and a little more careful about what he insinuates. Especially when those insinuations are as divisive as “10% of Muslims are terrorists”.

51

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So to own Beck the reporter has to twist his words to say something he didn’t say. [/quote]
Oh come the fuck on. Beck said, “I think that it’s closer to 10%” or something like that - what the fuck do you really think he means, 6%, 7%? Even that number is still outrageously high.

And before you all spit back at me, I also think it was ridiculous that Fareed spent so much time on Beck in his show… his show is actually pretty good most times [edit: not Beck’s, Fareed’s.][/quote]

Who cares? I mean really who cares if he thinks 6,7 or even 10% support terrorists?

The fact that he had to go after his opinion, not the facts that he states speaks volumes. The vast majority of his listeners tune in for the facts that he brings, which he then posts on his site where he got the info from, and actively encourages his audiance to do their own research.

Lets just be honest, this was nothing more then a jab so the liberals can have their circle jerk.

If Fareed had a real back bone lets see him go after Becks book Broke.

52

Wikipedia says Beck has stopped using cannabis. His math says otherwise.

53

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
I am libertarian/conservative on most issues. When I vote, I vote Republican. I have never voted Democrat. So there’s goes that argument of yours.

54

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ithiel wrote:

I mean, Zakaria is a highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly liberal blowhard who can’t find anything of significance to jump on Beck about so he chose this
[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.[/quote]
Umm, have you watched Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show? He has been called a conservative, a liberal, and a centrist, for a reason. Read the ‘Views’ section of Fareed Zakaria on Wiki.

The man knows shit about foreign policy than any of us could ever know.

55

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So to own Beck the reporter has to twist his words to say something he didn’t say. [/quote]
Oh come the fuck on. Beck said, “I think that it’s closer to 10%” or something like that - what the fuck do you really think he means, 6%, 7%? Even that number is still outrageously high.

And before you all spit back at me, I also think it was ridiculous that Fareed spent so much time on Beck in his show… his show is actually pretty good most times [edit: not Beck’s, Fareed’s.][/quote]

Who cares? I mean really who cares if he thinks 6,7 or even 10% support terrorists?

The fact that he had to go after his opinion, not the facts that he states speaks volumes. The vast majority of his listeners tune in for the facts that he brings, which he then posts on his site where he got the info from, and actively encourages his audiance to do their own research.

Lets just be honest, this was nothing more then a jab so the liberals can have their circle jerk.

If Fareed had a real back bone lets see him go after Becks book Broke.[/quote]
Um, obviously Fareed cares. He’s fucking Muslim, and Beck just said 10% (OMG 6% SORRY!!) of his religion were terrorists.

Why doesn’t Fareed go after Beck’s facts? Well, it’s probably because Fareed wouldn’t dispute them, because, well… they are FACTS! Fareed probably agrees with many things that Beck does, but when Beck says such an insinuating comment about Fareed’s religion, you bet your ass he’s gonna use his own show to mathematically break down Beck’s argument. Big surprise.

Yes, this was a jab. Just as Beck’s statement was a jab. Except Fareed’s jab was factual-based, Beck’s jab was out-of-his-ass-based.

56

Someone once told me, i you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem. Seems kind of fitting.

and the polls being used by Glenn Beck’s program are widely recognized as correct. And also it does fit the definition.

What the left doesn’t like is he returns their play on words back on them and they aren’t accustomed to that.

He had TECHNICALLY sufficient evidence for his statement, whether you agree with it or not is your own decision.

I tend to agree, in the sense that if there are people who claim to be christian and they are doing things to hurt others and go against the principles of the religion. As a christian I have an obligation to speak against them, try to stop, or actually stop them. Not to advocate their actions.

But here is the contrast, unlike Christianity, Islam’s teachings actually condone and support the murder of infidel’s . And somehow some of you will try to refute that. It shows just how delusional you really are.

57

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Umm, have you watched Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show? He has been called a conservative, a liberal, and a centrist, for a reason. Read the ‘Views’ section of Fareed Zakaria on Wiki.

The man knows shit about foreign policy.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

58

I keep waiting for all of those important factual errors to come rolling in from all the Beck haters on the myriad of topics that Beck has covered over the past two years. But I guess Andy and company can’t quite rise to the occasion. Surely there must be a more important error than this off the cuff comment that he made recently. If the man is an idiot and only a showman then certainly he must be wrong.

Remember when Obama said there were 57 states? Ah, it was just a slip of the tongue. Remember what Joe Biden said on mic about the health care plan, “this is a big fucking deal”. Or how about this pearl “You cannot go into a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.” But let’s judge these guys based on their over all record of truth telling.

If one talks for a living whether elected to do so or paid big bucks there will be some errors. I maintain that Glenn Beck is spot on with the important topics that he’s talked about over the past two years.

One last offer, if any of you Beck haters want to up the ante I’m waiting.

59

The saying use to be “beware the man of one book.” These days it should be “beware the follower of one news network.”

60

[quote]JesseS wrote:
The saying use to be “beware the man of one book.” These days it should be “beware the follower of one news network.”

[/quote]

Only one problem with that, for many of us we follow a couple news networks, papers, and other sources, not just one.