Dude, if you aren’t a troll than you’re confused. You ask me to post his errors, you ignore them when I do, you say I’m full of shit and you ask me to post more… It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s wrong with this picture.[/quote]
And you must be an idiot for admitting you’ve watched Beck twice and then make an outlandish claim from those two experiences that he manipulates statistics.
All I asked for is a significant list to back up your absurd assertions. You couldn’t give it because you don’t have it. You watched him twice drew a false conclusion based on your liberal bent and walked away. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don’t post your opinion as if it’s fact - It is NOT fact you’ve shown that you have no facts.
[quote]I’m not going to play your game because frankly it’s childish, and that’s coming from someone half your age. Act like an adult or go play with the other children.
[/quote]
Oh really? It seems to me that you’ve played the part of a child on this thread. An uninformed child. “Beck manipulates facts cause I say so.” That’s how you’ve represented yourself on this thread. All I asked you to do is to back up what you were saying and you coldn’t do it. I’d say that’s pretty childlike. Now run along, but remember the next time you act like a far left wing nut you better be able to back it up if someone calls you on it.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
[/quote]
Beck never made that claim. In this case Zakaria is making the false argument.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
That’s funny.
I remember that story. It originated in Newsmax. There were a couple of problems with it:
The source was an anonymous FBI agent, not any official statement or report.
That being said, the source did not refer to violence. He made a specific statement about “jihad,” which can take many, non-violent forms.
As to the extrapolations you make in your post above:
Even if we assume that 1 in 10 mosques in the US have at one point or another housed an opinion that supports violent Jihad… How may times was that opinion voiced? Was it a long-standing Imam of the mosque or a visitor? Who was it directed at? Was it a reflection on history, or an edict?
You are jumping to conclusions.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
Look. I’m not a fan of religion… especially Islam. I find it to be one of the most perverse. But, let’s be realistic about what we are dealing with. Beck is a hysteria monger at best.
[/quote]
It is not a PC subject, you simply cannot have an official report. This type of information will be suppressed unless it favors one side. A lack of evidence in my opinion is testament to the truth being against the PC side.
Lastly, I consider (as many other people do) terrorists to include general supporters and enablers.
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.[/quote]
I have watched his show and read his columns. He is as dishonest as any of these media ghouls.
He picked this fight with a prominent member of the media (who can also be dishonest) in order to bring attention to himself.
The fact still remains that the Muslim world hates us and supports terrorism against the West in significant numbers. Much higher than 1%. Multiple polls confirm this.
Hell, in Afghanistan most people don’t know about 9/11 and the reasons for invading so of course they hate our guts.
This cannot be denied by honest people.[/quote]
If you watched his show, I don’t understand how you can say he’s dishonest… he mediates conversations between liberals and conservatives often, much like Meet the Press. It’s a show that generally provides facts, not his opinion [he often gives a pretty centrist solution to a problem he presented in the show].
As for many Muslims hating America, yeah you are right. The difference is, they favor the SENTIMENTS of terrorists and the reasons for why they are doing it. But when you ask most Muslims how they feel about terrorists blowing up buildings with no regard for the public… you’d be surprised how many are against it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
That’s funny.
I remember that story. It originated in Newsmax. There were a couple of problems with it:
The source was an anonymous FBI agent, not any official statement or report.
That being said, the source did not refer to violence. He made a specific statement about “jihad,” which can take many, non-violent forms.
As to the extrapolations you make in your post above:
Even if we assume that 1 in 10 mosques in the US have at one point or another housed an opinion that supports violent Jihad… How may times was that opinion voiced? Was it a long-standing Imam of the mosque or a visitor? Who was it directed at? Was it a reflection on history, or an edict?
You are jumping to conclusions.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
Look. I’m not a fan of religion… especially Islam. I find it to be one of the most perverse. But, let’s be realistic about what we are dealing with. Beck is a hysteria monger at best.
[/quote]
It is not a PC subject, you simply cannot have an official report. This type of information will be suppressed unless it favors one side. A lack of evidence in my opinion is testament to the truth being against the PC side.[/quote]
Well there you go… you never have to provide any evidence for your opinion. Like I said: on/off
[quote]Lastly, I consider (as many other people do) terrorists to include general supporters and enablers.
“closer to 10%” is not outrageous.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I do disagree with you, though. By broadening the definition to this degree, you make the term less useful… and, you create a tendency to overlook motivations for support.
For instance a young, Palestinian man has a totally different reason for supporting suicide bombings of US citizens than say and Egyptian man. One is motivated largely by religious ideology, and the other is motivated by desperation. Personally, I think Palestinian suicide bombers are more on the “freedom fighter” end of the spectrum.
Another important point that Zakaria actually made.
If you are generous and assume that for each terror attack there are 100 supporters and enablers, you still only get 1,100,000 terrorists in the world.
The polls that Beck’s producer sighted were in relation to people supporting the acts of terrorists… as an opinion. They do not give any evidence to what percentage of the Muslim world actively supports terrorism in the manner of materials, money, etc…
Now, we’re bridging a really wide gulf to call all of these people terrorists.
The point is that Glenn Beck has an enormous listenership and viewership. If this were one, isolated example of him making an off-the-cuff remark that didn’t hold water, and he backed away from it, I might be willing to accept the argument that it’s not a big deal. However, he pulls shit like this every day.
More importantly, this statement is incredibly inflammatory. Without a significant amount of qualification and analysis (which he hasn’t even attempted), this statement could easily lead someone to the opinion that 1 in 10 of every Muslim they meet is a terrorist who is actively pursuing a violent agenda against the US. Unfortunately, his audience consists of people who will actually buy this kind of crap.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Another important point that Zakaria actually made.
If you are generous and assume that for each terror attack there are 100 supporters and enablers, you still only get 1,100,000 terrorists in the world.
The polls that Beck’s producer sighted were in relation to people supporting the acts of terrorists… as an opinion. They do not give any evidence to what percentage of the Muslim world actively supports terrorism in the manner of materials, money, etc…
Now, we’re bridging a really wide gulf to call all of these people terrorists.
The point is that Glenn Beck has an enormous listenership and viewership. If this were one, isolated example of him making an off-the-cuff remark that didn’t hold water, and he backed away from it, I might be willing to accept the argument that it’s not a big deal. However, he pulls shit like this every day.
More importantly, this statement is incredibly inflammatory. Without a significant amount of qualification and analysis (which he hasn’t even attempted), this statement could easily lead someone to the opinion that 1 in 10 of every Muslim they meet is a terrorist who is actively pursuing a violent agenda against the US. Unfortunately, his audience consists of people who will actually buy this kind of crap.
[/quote]
It takes entire nations to enable the actions of terrorism.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
That’s funny.
I remember that story. It originated in Newsmax. There were a couple of problems with it:
The source was an anonymous FBI agent, not any official statement or report.
That being said, the source did not refer to violence. He made a specific statement about “jihad,” which can take many, non-violent forms.
As to the extrapolations you make in your post above:
Even if we assume that 1 in 10 mosques in the US have at one point or another housed an opinion that supports violent Jihad… How may times was that opinion voiced? Was it a long-standing Imam of the mosque or a visitor? Who was it directed at? Was it a reflection on history, or an edict?
You are jumping to conclusions.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
Look. I’m not a fan of religion… especially Islam. I find it to be one of the most perverse. But, let’s be realistic about what we are dealing with. Beck is a hysteria monger at best.
[/quote]
It is not a PC subject, you simply cannot have an official report. This type of information will be suppressed unless it favors one side. A lack of evidence in my opinion is testament to the truth being against the PC side.[/quote]
Well there you go… you never have to provide any evidence for your opinion. Like I said: on/off
[quote]Lastly, I consider (as many other people do) terrorists to include general supporters and enablers.
“closer to 10%” is not outrageous.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I do disagree with you, though. By broadening the definition to this degree, you make the term less useful… and, you create a tendency to overlook motivations for support.
For instance a young, Palestinian man has a totally different reason for supporting suicide bombings of US citizens than say and Egyptian man. One is motivated largely by religious ideology, and the other is motivated by desperation. Personally, I think Palestinian suicide bombers are more on the “freedom fighter” end of the spectrum.
[/quote]
I don’t know that motivation changes the term that much. suicide bombings against innocent civilians is always terrorism in my book.
And I never said anything about not supporting something. I merely noted that where statistical and reporting black holes exist, it generally means that the answer isn’t the PC one. If there is a noticeable void of information and reporting on an issue. How you take that to mean, nothing has to be supported is beyond me. Maybe you are off.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
That’s funny.
I remember that story. It originated in Newsmax. There were a couple of problems with it:
The source was an anonymous FBI agent, not any official statement or report.
That being said, the source did not refer to violence. He made a specific statement about “jihad,” which can take many, non-violent forms.
As to the extrapolations you make in your post above:
Even if we assume that 1 in 10 mosques in the US have at one point or another housed an opinion that supports violent Jihad… How may times was that opinion voiced? Was it a long-standing Imam of the mosque or a visitor? Who was it directed at? Was it a reflection on history, or an edict?
You are jumping to conclusions.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
Look. I’m not a fan of religion… especially Islam. I find it to be one of the most perverse. But, let’s be realistic about what we are dealing with. Beck is a hysteria monger at best.
[/quote]
It is not a PC subject, you simply cannot have an official report. This type of information will be suppressed unless it favors one side. A lack of evidence in my opinion is testament to the truth being against the PC side.[/quote]
Well there you go… you never have to provide any evidence for your opinion. Like I said: on/off
[quote]Lastly, I consider (as many other people do) terrorists to include general supporters and enablers.
“closer to 10%” is not outrageous.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I do disagree with you, though. By broadening the definition to this degree, you make the term less useful… and, you create a tendency to overlook motivations for support.
For instance a young, Palestinian man has a totally different reason for supporting suicide bombings of US citizens than say and Egyptian man. One is motivated largely by religious ideology, and the other is motivated by desperation. Personally, I think Palestinian suicide bombers are more on the “freedom fighter” end of the spectrum.
[/quote]
I don’t know that motivation changes the term that much. suicide bombings against innocent civilians is always terrorism in my book.
And I never said anything about not supporting something. I merely noted that where statistical and reporting black holes exist, it generally means that the answer isn’t the PC one. If there is a noticeable void of information and reporting on an issue. How you take that to mean, nothing has to be supported is beyond me. Maybe you are off.[/quote]
What I am saying is that you are supporting your opinion via omission. This rarely works.
Never mind that there are official reports from the State Department, no less.
And, it is talked about all the time in our media. Like he said, Zakaria was published on the front-page of Time, the week after 9/11 on exactly this topic. Hell, I listened to three, two-hour-long treatments of exactly this on the Dianne Rheemes show a few weeks ago.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
That’s funny.
I remember that story. It originated in Newsmax. There were a couple of problems with it:
The source was an anonymous FBI agent, not any official statement or report.
That being said, the source did not refer to violence. He made a specific statement about “jihad,” which can take many, non-violent forms.
As to the extrapolations you make in your post above:
Even if we assume that 1 in 10 mosques in the US have at one point or another housed an opinion that supports violent Jihad… How may times was that opinion voiced? Was it a long-standing Imam of the mosque or a visitor? Who was it directed at? Was it a reflection on history, or an edict?
You are jumping to conclusions.
Given a proper dilemma, many people will assert that suicide bombings can at times be justified. That doesn’t mean that 1/4, or even 1/8 or… say 1% of muslims between the age of 18 and 29 are gearing up to strap bombs to their chests.
Look. I’m not a fan of religion… especially Islam. I find it to be one of the most perverse. But, let’s be realistic about what we are dealing with. Beck is a hysteria monger at best.
[/quote]
It is not a PC subject, you simply cannot have an official report. This type of information will be suppressed unless it favors one side. A lack of evidence in my opinion is testament to the truth being against the PC side.[/quote]
Well there you go… you never have to provide any evidence for your opinion. Like I said: on/off
[quote]Lastly, I consider (as many other people do) terrorists to include general supporters and enablers.
“closer to 10%” is not outrageous.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I do disagree with you, though. By broadening the definition to this degree, you make the term less useful… and, you create a tendency to overlook motivations for support.
For instance a young, Palestinian man has a totally different reason for supporting suicide bombings of US citizens than say and Egyptian man. One is motivated largely by religious ideology, and the other is motivated by desperation. Personally, I think Palestinian suicide bombers are more on the “freedom fighter” end of the spectrum.
[/quote]
I don’t know that motivation changes the term that much. suicide bombings against innocent civilians is always terrorism in my book.
And I never said anything about not supporting something. I merely noted that where statistical and reporting black holes exist, it generally means that the answer isn’t the PC one. If there is a noticeable void of information and reporting on an issue. How you take that to mean, nothing has to be supported is beyond me. Maybe you are off.[/quote]
What I am saying is that you are supporting your opinion via omission. This rarely works.
Never mind that there are official reports from the State Department, no less.
And, it is talked about all the time in our media. Like he said, Zakaria was published on the front-page of Time, the week after 9/11 on exactly this topic. Hell, I listened to three, two-hour-long treatments of exactly this on the Dianne Rheemes show a few weeks ago.
[/quote]
Those documents don’t answer the question in the context of the definition being used. And no, I don’t consider constantly down playing the role of Islam in acts of terrorism to count as “talking about it all the time”.
Like this article I noticed today:
The guy arrested is only described as “An Arlington man”. It seems like an unbiased reporting would have maybe added some information to that.
They omit all they can about the realities of terrorist actions as they relate to Islam.
Dude, if you aren’t a troll than you’re confused. You ask me to post his errors, you ignore them when I do, you say I’m full of shit and you ask me to post more… It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s wrong with this picture.[/quote]
And you must be an idiot for admitting you’ve watched Beck twice and then make an outlandish claim from those two experiences that he manipulates statistics.
All I asked for is a significant list to back up your absurd assertions. You couldn’t give it because you don’t have it. You watched him twice drew a false conclusion based on your liberal bent and walked away. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don’t post your opinion as if it’s fact - It is NOT fact you’ve shown that you have no facts.
[quote]I’m not going to play your game because frankly it’s childish, and that’s coming from someone half your age. Act like an adult or go play with the other children.
[/quote]
Oh really? It seems to me that you’ve played the part of a child on this thread. An uninformed child. “Beck manipulates facts cause I say so.” That’s how you’ve represented yourself on this thread. All I asked you to do is to back up what you were saying and you coldn’t do it. I’d say that’s pretty childlike. Now run along, but remember the next time you act like a far left wing nut you better be able to back it up if someone calls you on it.
[/quote]
Let’s simplify this.
You had a post at the beginning of this thread that downplayed the 10% figure Beck proposed, openly mocked Fareed Zakaria and claimed that Beck was correct 99% of the time. I rejected those statements on the grounds that it is mathematically impossible for there to be that many terrorists, that Fareed Zakaria is one of the most respected journalists in the world who was responding to a topic that was relevant to him, and that although Beck’s facts are often accurate they are manipulated frequently. You have left the first two points. I provided three examples of the latter point and you’ve ignored all three, yet you’re requesting more?
Regardless, the third point is mostly opinion. Many people feel that Beck’s show is designed to manipulate facts and that’s what makes it entertaining. You apparently don’t.
Dude, if you aren’t a troll than you’re confused. You ask me to post his errors, you ignore them when I do, you say I’m full of shit and you ask me to post more… It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s wrong with this picture.[/quote]
And you must be an idiot for admitting you’ve watched Beck twice and then make an outlandish claim from those two experiences that he manipulates statistics.
All I asked for is a significant list to back up your absurd assertions. You couldn’t give it because you don’t have it. You watched him twice drew a false conclusion based on your liberal bent and walked away. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don’t post your opinion as if it’s fact - It is NOT fact you’ve shown that you have no facts.
[quote]I’m not going to play your game because frankly it’s childish, and that’s coming from someone half your age. Act like an adult or go play with the other children.
[/quote]
Oh really? It seems to me that you’ve played the part of a child on this thread. An uninformed child. “Beck manipulates facts cause I say so.” That’s how you’ve represented yourself on this thread. All I asked you to do is to back up what you were saying and you coldn’t do it. I’d say that’s pretty childlike. Now run along, but remember the next time you act like a far left wing nut you better be able to back it up if someone calls you on it.
[/quote]
Let’s simplify this.
You had a post at the beginning of this thread that downplayed the 10% figure Beck proposed, openly mocked Fareed Zakaria and claimed that Beck was correct 99% of the time. I rejected those statements on the grounds that it is mathematically impossible for there to be that many terrorists, that Fareed Zakaria is one of the most respected journalists in the world who was responding to a topic that was relevant to him, and that although Beck’s facts are often accurate they are manipulated frequently. You have left the first two points. I provided three examples of the latter point and you’ve ignored all three, yet you’re requesting more?
Regardless, the third point is mostly opinion. Many people feel that Beck’s show is designed to manipulate facts and that’s what makes it entertaining. You apparently don’t.[/quote]
And I would argue the muslim is manipulating facts to what he wants.
Like he doesn’t have an agenda to push. And if we use the assumption that most journalist are progressive leaning, him being respected in that field doesn’t hold much weight with a constitutional conservative.
In fact it may detract from his credibility.
He is muslim upset because someone made an off the cuff statement about his religion being a militant organization which it primarily is and it happened to be backed with data. Yet you the progressive from vermont, gee what a shocker, ascertain the data is manipulated to prove a point. Wow isn’t the hole point of statistics, to use empirical data to support an idea.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
I wasn’t speaking about polls.
The FBI estimated that about 10% of US mosques preach violent jihad. Making the assumption that most of the people who attend a mosque support it’s teachings, that puts the number in the US at about 10%.
They also estimated that 1/4 of US Muslims ages 18 to 29 believe suicide bombings are at least sometimes justified.
And that’s in the US. It’s pretty safe to assume those numbers are much higher overseas. Beck was not off base. If anything, he probably underestimated.
Why on earth doesn’t the main stream news report that though?
Those are some amazing figures. Unfortunately, when I tried to check your link I got this message:
We are sorry. The content you are looking for has either expired or is unavailable
I typed it into google and did find a lot of right wing blogs and websites that had picked up on the newsmax story. However, a short google search including “site:newsmax.com” was unable to turn up the article immediately. This lead me to question if it had been taken down from the official website. Further, I was unable to find any other evidence that the FBI had claimed this. I also briefly searched the FBI’s website.
I guess given what evidence I have been able to find, the 10% figure looks completely absurd. If you have sources proving otherwise, I would like to see them. Thanks for your posts and your time.
EDIT: I don’t mean to pose this question only to DD. I think other posters had said there are “multiple sources” proving what Zakaria said was incorrect.
Dude, if you aren’t a troll than you’re confused. You ask me to post his errors, you ignore them when I do, you say I’m full of shit and you ask me to post more… It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s wrong with this picture.[/quote]
And you must be an idiot for admitting you’ve watched Beck twice and then make an outlandish claim from those two experiences that he manipulates statistics.
All I asked for is a significant list to back up your absurd assertions. You couldn’t give it because you don’t have it. You watched him twice drew a false conclusion based on your liberal bent and walked away. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don’t post your opinion as if it’s fact - It is NOT fact you’ve shown that you have no facts.
[quote]I’m not going to play your game because frankly it’s childish, and that’s coming from someone half your age. Act like an adult or go play with the other children.
[/quote]
Oh really? It seems to me that you’ve played the part of a child on this thread. An uninformed child. “Beck manipulates facts cause I say so.” That’s how you’ve represented yourself on this thread. All I asked you to do is to back up what you were saying and you coldn’t do it. I’d say that’s pretty childlike. Now run along, but remember the next time you act like a far left wing nut you better be able to back it up if someone calls you on it.
[/quote]
Let’s simplify this.
You had a post at the beginning of this thread that downplayed the 10% figure Beck proposed, openly mocked Fareed Zakaria and claimed that Beck was correct 99% of the time. I rejected those statements on the grounds that it is mathematically impossible for there to be that many terrorists, that Fareed Zakaria is one of the most respected journalists in the world who was responding to a topic that was relevant to him, and that although Beck’s facts are often accurate they are manipulated frequently. You have left the first two points. I provided three examples of the latter point and you’ve ignored all three, yet you’re requesting more?
Regardless, the third point is mostly opinion. Many people feel that Beck’s show is designed to manipulate facts and that’s what makes it entertaining. You apparently don’t.[/quote]
All I wanted you to do was give me a list of the important topics that Beck has manipulated. You did give a couple of examples, nothing that reached a significant level. One I disagreed with completely. Then you followed that up with the fact that you’ve only watched Beck TWICE. I think that it’s only fair to give the man a chance. How can you honestly judge the man by watching twice? But there is more to it than that isn’t there?
Your politically beliefs are strong in the opposite direction as Beck’s therefore you are not going to give Beck a fair chance. He opposes a political philosophy that you agree with. And that is pretty much the end of the story. With that said, I understand fully, no problem on that front. You are entitled to follow any political philosophy that you like. However, make sure you know why you hate Beck. It has nothing to do with facts or the manipulation thereof. For example, I don’t like John Stewart because I feel that over all he is a hack for the democratic party (but he had a a tough question for Obama once- Like that makes up for 400 shows?). So I don’t watch Stewart, simple. But because I don’t watch him I never say that Stewart doesn’t have his facts right, or that he lies about the important issues. Be good enough to say that you dislike Beck’s style, or brand of politics and leave it at that. Because in reality you have no more than that.
You can say you don’t like Beck because he acts like a buffoon. Or, he tries to be funny and isn’t. Or any number of comments that speak to his ability to deliver information. I would have said nothing in response. However, as a detractor on the opposite side of the political fence you are not happy to attack his delivery, you also feel a need to say that he’s wrong. That’s when I feel a need to ask you to post a lengthy list of his important mistakes. As I’ve said repeatedly, on the important issues, the ones that he’s been beating to death for two years he has been SPOT ON. And please don’t post back that he manipulates information unless you are ready to deliver that lengthy list.
[…] where statistical and reporting black holes exist, it generally means that the answer isn’t the PC one. If there is a noticeable void of information and reporting on an issue. [/quote]
Why do you think this? There are a large number of both “left” and “right” think-tanks and news organizations in the country and around the world.
Fareed is a douchebag. He certainly isn’t owning beck with this one. His rational of multiply the number of terrorist incidents by another number to estimate the number of people who are terrorists is ridiculous.
What we are up against is a range of dedication, support and participation. You don’t have to be a suicide bomber to be a participant in the jihad. You can participate by buying bomb parts or raising kids who think that blowing themselves up along with a bunch of infidels is a way to paradise.
Support for jihad and the jihadist ideology is widespread throughout the muslim world. Look at how many foot soldiers that Hamas or Hizbollah have been able to raise out of very small populations.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t often follow polls, so I’m surprised to see some people here saying that there are “multiple polls” that show that what Zakaria said was incorrect. If you have access, could you please post the polls/polling information? I would much like to see it. Thank you in advance. [/quote]
This^
So far, the only player in this thing with useable statistics is Zakaria.
[/quote]
The poll is linked here and I think someone else posted it already.
This makes Zakaria look bad because he took the time to try to deconstruct an off the cuff comment by Beck and he couldn’t even do that right.
I am not sure how this is even debatable.
[/quote]
Sorry Big, I don’t know how I missed this earlier. I had clicked on the link but was turned off by the “negative” tone and didn’t get to the bottom of it. If I’m understanding this line of reasoning, you are agreeing that those who are called “terrorists” are those who have positive feelings towards terrorist acts. Is this right? If that is the case, then I agree, there isn’t much of an argument there.
Given a more restrictive definition of terrorism, would you agree the number is much smaller than Beck claimed?
If so, then I guess we’re down to a question of semantics. Thanks for your post and your thoughts.