Glenn Beck Gets Owned Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
ZEB, your arguments are more ridiculous than your assertion that Limbaugh is relevant because he’s numerous followers.[/quote]

And Obama was elected because more people thought he’d be a better President than McCain. So, yeah there’s plenty of relevancy in numbers. Lots of money is spent on something called the “arbitron” ratings to determine the most popular and relevant newscaster. I hate to burst the liberal bubble that you live in but having 30 million listeners does in fact make you relevant. But what you have is part of the mental disorder that many liberals suffer from. You live in your own little world and within that world Limbaugh is looked down upon, so therefore he is not relevant to you and your cronies. But to the rest of the world outside the liberal bubble he is quite relevant. Most would have the good sense to say “love him or hate him he’s relevant”. But not you, your disease forbids that sort of logical non pc thought process.

I understood that the first time you posted it. My response is that we are at war with muslim terrorists and prior to 9-11 we were not worried about that 8 year old, or that blonde. By the way you still have not posted any examples of either of the two creating terrorism on our shores. I gave you several chances, so therefore your examples are meaningless, just like your argument. It’s a bunch of politically correct crap!

Not at all, but if we were at war with Estonia does that mean that we now have to bear down on all Americans or pretty much just Estonians?

Your arguments are pathetic, go back to your liberal bubble where the people in your finite circle will stroke you for your pc nonsense.
[/quote]

What I find unfathomable is how I hold the position of stringent searches for anyone wanting to board a commercial aircraft and you equate it to being a “PC liberal”.

How do his listeners make his statements any more credible or relevant? Are the sentiments from cast members from the show Jersey Shore somehow relevant because they’ve millions of viewers? I suppose Howard Stern’s opinions are unquestionable since he’s millions of listeners. All you’re doing is making an appeal to authority.

Actually, America is at war with any terrorist organization willing to do harm to the citizens of this country. They could be Muslim, Anglo, Asian, Christian, a Scientologist, or anything else. Seeing as people other than Arab Muslims have committed acts of terrorism against this nation and anyone of any religion or ethnicity is capable of committing an act of terrorism why narrow the focus to one group? That’s just being daft.

My arguments have trumped yours, you just drone on with things someone you idolize said on a radio show or television program.

142

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
ZEB, your arguments are more ridiculous than your assertion that Limbaugh is relevant because he’s numerous followers.[/quote]

And Obama was elected because more people thought he’d be a better President than McCain. So, yeah there’s plenty of relevancy in numbers. Lots of money is spent on something called the “arbitron” ratings to determine the most popular and relevant newscaster. I hate to burst the liberal bubble that you live in but having 30 million listeners does in fact make you relevant. But what you have is part of the mental disorder that many liberals suffer from. You live in your own little world and within that world Limbaugh is looked down upon, so therefore he is not relevant to you and your cronies. But to the rest of the world outside the liberal bubble he is quite relevant. Most would have the good sense to say “love him or hate him he’s relevant”. But not you, your disease forbids that sort of logical non pc thought process.

I understood that the first time you posted it. My response is that we are at war with muslim terrorists and prior to 9-11 we were not worried about that 8 year old, or that blonde. By the way you still have not posted any examples of either of the two creating terrorism on our shores. I gave you several chances, so therefore your examples are meaningless, just like your argument. It’s a bunch of politically correct crap!

Not at all, but if we were at war with Estonia does that mean that we now have to bear down on all Americans or pretty much just Estonians?

Your arguments are pathetic, go back to your liberal bubble where the people in your finite circle will stroke you for your pc nonsense.
[/quote]

What I find unfathomable is how I hold the position of stringent searches for anyone wanting to board a commercial aircraft and you equate it to being a “PC liberal”. [/quote]

That’s the pc position. To not profile anyone, to treat everyone exactly the same. That’s why I brought up WWII. We won that war in about 4 years. And part of that victory was being smart enough to profile those who looked, or behaved like our enemy. I can’t be any clearer than this.

You have it backwards, but I’m not surprised given your corrupt thought process. It’s not his listeners that cause his statements to be credible. It’s because his statements are credible that he has 30 million listeners. Got it?

And when 5 million people lay out 45 bucks to watch the next UFC they are not doing so because Randy Coture, or GSP have some significant political statement. We have to be select in our comparisons. When your hero Obama won the Presidential election most the voters expected him to solve the financial problems in the country, not make them worse (which he did). When people tune into Rush Limbaugh they know that he will deliver the sort of red meat political assessments that have skyrocketed his career. AND…most would not tune in if they didn’t agree with his opinions. You don’t think he’s credible because you’re a lefty. But to say Rush isn’t relevant only makes YOU look like yet one more self delusional liberal who runs in a certain circle and anything outside that circle is irrelevant. My advice? Wake up!

You forgot to say…“and always has been”. But that does not negate the fact that WE ARE at war with muslim terrorists. Simple…for most to comprehend.

Your arguments trump mine in your own mind and in the limited sphere of influence that you call truth. In the real world you are no closer to understanding how the system should work than some a 10 year old. And at least the 10 year old is usually willing to listen so maybe you’re a litte worse off.

By the way you still have not given me examples of the 8 year old, or the blonde woman who has caused terrorism in the US. See what I mean about your faulty logic? You throw nonsense out and expect to be respected for it. And you do this because in your limited circle of influence you are probably stroked for such statements like “that Rush is an idiot” and “Glenn Beck is a liar”. But in reality you cannot back up any of this. So you better stay where you’re being stroked because everywhere else you’re just looking bad.

143

What amazes me is the amount of people that consider Beck to represent an intelligent person. Glenn Beck is an Idiot

144

And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL

145

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What amazes me is the amount of people that consider Beck to represent an intelligent person. Glenn Beck is an Idiot [/quote]

No, he is not an idiot. Not even close. He is quite smart. Admittedly he is not one of the great intellectuals of our times but if you are holding the bar that high then you yourself would fail the “intelligent person” test.

146

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What amazes me is the amount of people that consider Beck to represent an intelligent person. Glenn Beck is an Idiot [/quote]

No, he is not an idiot. Not even close. He is quite smart. Admittedly he is not one of the great intellectuals of our times but if you are holding the bar that high then you yourself would fail the “intelligent person” test.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

147

I HAVE NO REASON TO BACK UP MY STATEMENTS ABOUT GLEN BECK , HE SPEAKS FOR HIM SELF

148

I agree, you can hold an opinion which you cannot support.

149

[quote]-LL- wrote:
Glenn Beck is extremely intelligent, and extremely well informed. He does get a little carried away from time to time, but he has the right idea.
[/quote]
Heheh, thats fucking hilarious. “Intelligent and well informed”. :smiley:

Glenn Beck is either extremely dumb or extremely evil. I’m sure he means well so he must be very dumb. He is smart in the fact that he makes money doing what he does, but making money isn’t that hard in the land of the free.

150

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL[/quote]
It’s very simple. He uses fallacies to explain his opinions.

I’ve heard him talk about less government, more freedom and all that stuff that most people would prefer. But that doesn’t mean anything if you try to prove why, for instance, the Obama administration is communist, islamist, fascist or whatever he has been trying to prove. It’s lies, fallacies and most is hypocritical.

151

[quote]waht wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL[/quote]
It’s very simple. He uses fallacies to explain his opinions.

I’ve heard him talk about less government, more freedom and all that stuff that most people would prefer. But that doesn’t mean anything if you try to prove why, for instance, the Obama administration is communist, islamist, fascist or whatever he has been trying to prove. It’s lies, fallacies and most is hypocritical.[/quote]

In all sincerity and kindness please post several very specific examples where he was wrong about something of major significance that he has been speaking about on a regular basis.

152

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]waht wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL[/quote]
It’s very simple. He uses fallacies to explain his opinions.

I’ve heard him talk about less government, more freedom and all that stuff that most people would prefer. But that doesn’t mean anything if you try to prove why, for instance, the Obama administration is communist, islamist, fascist or whatever he has been trying to prove. It’s lies, fallacies and most is hypocritical.[/quote]

In all sincerity and kindness please post several very specific examples where he was wrong about something of major significance that he has been speaking about on a regular basis.

[/quote]

He’s wrong every time he compares someone to hitler.

153

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]waht wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL[/quote]
It’s very simple. He uses fallacies to explain his opinions.

I’ve heard him talk about less government, more freedom and all that stuff that most people would prefer. But that doesn’t mean anything if you try to prove why, for instance, the Obama administration is communist, islamist, fascist or whatever he has been trying to prove. It’s lies, fallacies and most is hypocritical.[/quote]

In all sincerity and kindness please post several very specific examples where he was wrong about something of major significance that he has been speaking about on a regular basis.

[/quote]

He’s wrong every time he compares someone to hitler. [/quote]

That is the sort of generality that I’ve come to expect from those who hate Glenn Beck. They hate him, but they can’t really pin point anything. And that’s because what they really hate is the fact that he is not spouting their politics. And I can tell you openly I don’t like John Stewart for the same reason. BUT, I am honest enough to say that’s the reason I don’t like him. Not that he’s a liar, or an idiot. I don’t like him because about 80% of his political humor is against republicans. Now why can’t the liberals on this board be that honest?

If you’re going to jump in, and I’m glad you have, please try to answer the question specifically. Give me an exact quote from a reliable source as to who he “compared” to Hitler. And don’t take it out of context. Or, you can just repeat what I’ve said above about Stewart. You just don’t like Beck because of his politics.

Either way is good.

154

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
ZEB, your arguments are more ridiculous than your assertion that Limbaugh is relevant because he’s numerous followers.[/quote]

And Obama was elected because more people thought he’d be a better President than McCain. So, yeah there’s plenty of relevancy in numbers. Lots of money is spent on something called the “arbitron” ratings to determine the most popular and relevant newscaster. I hate to burst the liberal bubble that you live in but having 30 million listeners does in fact make you relevant. But what you have is part of the mental disorder that many liberals suffer from. You live in your own little world and within that world Limbaugh is looked down upon, so therefore he is not relevant to you and your cronies. But to the rest of the world outside the liberal bubble he is quite relevant. Most would have the good sense to say “love him or hate him he’s relevant”. But not you, your disease forbids that sort of logical non pc thought process.

I understood that the first time you posted it. My response is that we are at war with muslim terrorists and prior to 9-11 we were not worried about that 8 year old, or that blonde. By the way you still have not posted any examples of either of the two creating terrorism on our shores. I gave you several chances, so therefore your examples are meaningless, just like your argument. It’s a bunch of politically correct crap!

Not at all, but if we were at war with Estonia does that mean that we now have to bear down on all Americans or pretty much just Estonians?

Your arguments are pathetic, go back to your liberal bubble where the people in your finite circle will stroke you for your pc nonsense.
[/quote]

What I find unfathomable is how I hold the position of stringent searches for anyone wanting to board a commercial aircraft and you equate it to being a “PC liberal”. [/quote]

That’s the pc position. To not profile anyone, to treat everyone exactly the same. That’s why I brought up WWII. We won that war in about 4 years. And part of that victory was being smart enough to profile those who looked, or behaved like our enemy. I can’t be any clearer than this.

You have it backwards, but I’m not surprised given your corrupt thought process. It’s not his listeners that cause his statements to be credible. It’s because his statements are credible that he has 30 million listeners. Got it?

And when 5 million people lay out 45 bucks to watch the next UFC they are not doing so because Randy Coture, or GSP have some significant political statement. We have to be select in our comparisons. When your hero Obama won the Presidential election most the voters expected him to solve the financial problems in the country, not make them worse (which he did). When people tune into Rush Limbaugh they know that he will deliver the sort of red meat political assessments that have skyrocketed his career. AND…most would not tune in if they didn’t agree with his opinions. You don’t think he’s credible because you’re a lefty. But to say Rush isn’t relevant only makes YOU look like yet one more self delusional liberal who runs in a certain circle and anything outside that circle is irrelevant. My advice? Wake up!

You forgot to say…“and always has been”. But that does not negate the fact that WE ARE at war with muslim terrorists. Simple…for most to comprehend.

Your arguments trump mine in your own mind and in the limited sphere of influence that you call truth. In the real world you are no closer to understanding how the system should work than some a 10 year old. And at least the 10 year old is usually willing to listen so maybe you’re a litte worse off.

By the way you still have not given me examples of the 8 year old, or the blonde woman who has caused terrorism in the US. See what I mean about your faulty logic? You throw nonsense out and expect to be respected for it. And you do this because in your limited circle of influence you are probably stroked for such statements like “that Rush is an idiot” and “Glenn Beck is a liar”. But in reality you cannot back up any of this. So you better stay where you’re being stroked because everywhere else you’re just looking bad.[/quote]

It’s an authoritarian position, you just label it a “PC Liberal” position because it contradicts your beliefs and people you get your talking points from also label people with opposing views “PC Liberals”.

They’re probably listening to him because he thoughts coincide with their own, just like why most people watch the mainstream news network they do; it appeals to their beliefs. However, no matter the amount of listeners he’s, he will not and will never be relevant to the discussion.

It doesn’t matter if America is at war with Muslim terrorists, America is attempting to prevent any terrorist from using a commercial aircraft to carry out an attack. Muslims also aren’t the only group to have committed terrorist attacks in this country so it’d be pointless to narrow the focus to one group in a country with such a diverse population. Anyone from any religious or ethnic background is capable of committing a terrorist attack and that’s exactly why I couldn’t care less for your complaints about whites having to be thoroughly screened as Arabs are thoroughly screened.

No, my arguments trump your arguments in reality.

No, the only faulty logic was you taking my my statement of “a child could be used to smuggle illegal items on a plane and a white blond woman is just as capable of committing a terrorist attack” and misrepresenting my position as me saying it’s happened in a terrorist attack against America. Pretty pathetic but not surprising considering your primary methods of debating are just appeals to emotion and logical fallacies.

155

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

It’s an authoritarian position, you just label it a “PC Liberal” position because it contradicts your beliefs and people you get your talking points from also label people with opposing views “PC Liberals”.[/quote]

Is that right? Why don’t you do a poll of every left wing nut that is in one of the two houses. See which way they lean. I assure you that there is not one politically left person who wants to check only those who look Arab. And you don’t know this? (eye roll)

Not if you define relevancy as preaching left win nut ideas. But if you define relevancy the way the rest of the world does getting his message out and adding to the national debate, yeah he’s quite relevant.

Yeah, you’ve said that multiple times and it’s still not true. (yawn) Remember, then I said we are at war with muslim terrorists? Then you said something about 8 year olds and blonde haired women can be terrorists? Then I asked you to give me examples…then you couldn’t? Remember? We had this conversation and you lost.

Then you woke up.

You said that it could happen and I asked for examples of which you could not provide. But there are many examples of muslim terrorists who have tried to harm us – so let’s focus on them.

You wouldn’t know a relevant point if it fell from the sky and hit you on the head. You’re an almost perfect example of the pc know nothing. You and your friends accept nothing but the gospel of the left. You proved that by the wild assertion that Limbaugh isn’t relevant LOL. Get back to combat forum where you belong. At least over there the topics are within your grasp of understanding.

156

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

It’s an authoritarian position, you just label it a “PC Liberal” position because it contradicts your beliefs and people you get your talking points from also label people with opposing views “PC Liberals”.[/quote]

Is that right? Why don’t you do a poll of every left wing nut that is in one of the two houses. See which way they lean. I assure you that there is not one politically left person who wants to check only those who look Arab. And you don’t know this? (eye roll)

Not if you define relevancy as preaching left win nut ideas. But if you define relevancy the way the rest of the world does getting his message out and adding to the national debate, yeah he’s quite relevant.

Yeah, you’ve said that multiple times and it’s still not true. (yawn) Remember, then I said we are at war with muslim terrorists? Then you said something about 8 year olds and blonde haired women can be terrorists? Then I asked you to give me examples…then you couldn’t? Remember? We had this conversation and you lost.

Then you woke up.

You said that it could happen and I asked for examples of which you could not provide. But there are many examples of muslim terrorists who have tried to harm us – so let’s focus on them.

You wouldn’t know a relevant point if it fell from the sky and hit you on the head. You’re an almost perfect example of the pc know nothing. You and your friends accept nothing but the gospel of the left. You proved that by the wild assertion that Limbaugh isn’t relevant LOL. Get back to combat forum where you belong. At least over there the topics are within your grasp of understanding.

[/quote]

Alright, Zeb. Colleen LaRose and Jaime Pauline-Ramirez. Two blond, white, blue eyed American women connected with terrorist plots.

What would be the purpose of only screening Arabs at airports? Terrorist attacks aren’t limited to them which is probably why the improved TSA screening regulations are applied to anyone wishing to board a plane. We wouldn’t want anymore blond, blue eyed, white terrorist women trying to board planes do we?

Prove that he’s relevant to the topic of security screenings at airports.

I was awake when I typed up the reply, you just typically support your position with weak arguments so you like to try to make little quips.

There are multiple white terrorists that have attacked this nation too, we need to focus on them as well. Prior to 9/11 two white men were responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

You’re right, for me to know a relevant point from an opposing view you’d have to provide one. That will never happen so I suppose I’ll just have to go without.

157

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

Colleen LaRose and Jaime Pauline-Ramirez. Two blond, white, blue eyed American women connected with terrorist plots.[/quote]

Colleen LaRose called herself Jihad Jane and Ramirez converted to Islam over the past year - So two more Islamic terrorist nut cases. ANd one more point that may have escaped you. Neither tried to board a plane. And where is the 8 year old terrorist you promised? Still among the missing huh?

For the fifth time we’re at war with muslim terrorists…DUMMY

No one ever introduced into the topic that Rush had to be relevant to airport security. I used him as an example of someone who thinks liberals have a mental disease. That’s when you said he was not relevant. I’ll keep you posted don’t worry you don’t have to remember anything.

Hmm…let me think, yes this is the fourth time I’ve addressed this. Here we go again, we tightened airport security and other forms of security only AFTER 9-11. That is AFTER the muslim terrorist attacks on our great nation. Wake up you’re embarrassing yourself.

No, It’s that you don’t understand relevant points. As I said you need to stay in forums where the material is basic and there are a lot of teens who might be impressed by your superficial analysis - Then you’ll actually be able to understand the relevant points and follow the dialogue without repeating yourself endlessly - problem solved.

158

They’re both blond, blue eyed, white female terrorists. That means that your assumption of all possible terrorists conforming to a stereotype is null. In fact you asked specifically for white, blond, and blue eyed female terrorists then with provided with them you try to ignore them. You deny them boarding a plane when one was arrested abroad and the other was arrested while returning to America as well. Well played, ZEB. Just ask for evidence of something then downplay it once it’s provided.

And the TSA is screening anyone capable of harming other passengers on a plane which is anyone, so your constant repeating of “we’re at war with Muslim terrorist” is irrelevant when anyone of is capable of committing an act of terrorism as history has already shown in this nation. You know, like the numerous white male terrorists that have attacked this country. Or would you prefer they only receive a minor pat-down?

How are liberals even relevant to the topic, is it because you think anyone that disagree with you is one? Rush Limbaugh is completely irrelevant to this discussion in every possible way. Other than your appeals to authority of course.

And since terrorist attacks aren’t limited to Muslims why only impose strict screenings on them? That’s the most nonsensical thing I’ve ever heard of.

Zeb, your argument has amounted to logical fallacies and the repeating of “we’re at war with Muslim terrorists”. You’re about as capable of accomplishing something in this discussion as a chimpanzee is capable of building a spacecraft. Just save yourself the embarrassment and attempt to weasel yourself out of this one.

159

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
They’re both blond, blue eyed, white female terrorists. That means that your assumption of all possible terrorists conforming to a stereotype is null.[/quote]

I really wonder about you. Are you being purposely obtuse? It’s certainly not impossible for someone other than a muslim to cause damage to our country, and I never said that it was. But, there were never any TSA agents feeling people up BEFORE 9-11 do you think there’s a reason for that? You found two people who are not born muslims but turned into muslim terrorists. Big deal. How many blonde haired blue eyed people ride planes each day? Now multiply that by 365 days in a year. Millions of non muslims ride planes each year and you give me two and now you want applause for it. And they were still muslim terrorists. Now take a look at how many arab muslim terrorists have been caught over the past 9 years trying to do damage to us. Use your freaking head will you?

Liberals do not like to profile. If you don’t know that by now turn in your ACLU card -Ha

That’s not what you said in the beginning. You said that he was not relevant- PERIOD. I’ll refresh your memory for the 4th time. I quoted Rush as saying liberalism is a mental disorder. Your retort was “Limbaugh isn’t even relevant”. Now you want to change the context in which he was mentioned for your own purposes. You are not only wrong you’re intellectually dishonest. Why am I not surprised?

As I’ve told you twice now (see how I remember things?) go to another forum where the level of proof and sophistication of the participants is not as challenging. You might impress someone over there. But here on the PWI forum you’re just another bleeding heart, brainless lefty who cries out for attention and wants dearly to be right, and is disappointed each time.

160

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]waht wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And yet people who call him and idiot cannot back it up. It’s almost like they’re against him because he does not agree with their politics — No that couldn’t be it could it?

LOL[/quote]
It’s very simple. He uses fallacies to explain his opinions.

I’ve heard him talk about less government, more freedom and all that stuff that most people would prefer. But that doesn’t mean anything if you try to prove why, for instance, the Obama administration is communist, islamist, fascist or whatever he has been trying to prove. It’s lies, fallacies and most is hypocritical.[/quote]

In all sincerity and kindness please post several very specific examples where he was wrong about something of major significance that he has been speaking about on a regular basis.

[/quote]

He’s wrong every time he compares someone to hitler. [/quote]

That is the sort of generality that I’ve come to expect from those who hate Glenn Beck. They hate him, but they can’t really pin point anything. And that’s because what they really hate is the fact that he is not spouting their politics. And I can tell you openly I don’t like John Stewart for the same reason. BUT, I am honest enough to say that’s the reason I don’t like him. Not that he’s a liar, or an idiot. I don’t like him because about 80% of his political humor is against republicans. Now why can’t the liberals on this board be that honest?

If you’re going to jump in, and I’m glad you have, please try to answer the question specifically. Give me an exact quote from a reliable source as to who he “compared” to Hitler. And don’t take it out of context. Or, you can just repeat what I’ve said above about Stewart. You just don’t like Beck because of his politics.

Either way is good.[/quote]

stop with this. I’m not the one calling him a liar, you’re the one accusing me of it. Of course I don’t like his politics, it’s no secret and I’ve said it before. There are many people whose politics I don’t like. What compels me to comment about Beck are his histrionics. Why can’t he make his point in a sane manner? Beck makes more hitler/nazi references than the history channel.