This is the complete list of sources Beck used. I think it is a little more than one book.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
I agree with thunderbolt. Soros would make alot more money if he supported R’s, so he has to be an idealouge. . .[/quote]
i really disagree with this. It is about power, control, and slamming the door behind him. He wants to prevent others from taking the power that he has away from him or approaching approaching his level of power. He is not an ideologue, he has helped defeat socialist and communist regimes as well, a fact that his apologists are quick to point out. Money is not the only form of power, there are several forms of power.
[quote]mc.loaf wrote:
I usually just lurk this forum, get annoyed, and leave. But this is too much–seriously, you need to stop drinking the FOX kool-aid.
"On today’s Fox News show, Glenn Beck noted George Soros’ past support of various political movements in Europe and claimed Soros is attempting to recreate similar revolutionary changes of regime in America.
As examples, Beck cited Soros’ purported roles in the Rose Revolution (Georgia), the Orange Revolution (Ukraine) and the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia), as well as “coups” in Croatia and Yugoslavia. Author Richard Poe then connected Soros’ previous work to Beck’s accusation that Soros’ “target” is the United States.
Unmentioned in Beck’s program, but revealed in Shadow Party, the book Poe co-wrote and which appears to be the source material for a lot of the information being presented by Beck about Soros, is the fact that many of the governments Soros supposedly helped bring down were autocratic ones, often headed by former Communist leaders.
Shadow Party explains that “Soros helped bankroll the ‘velvet revolution’ that hastened the fall of a dying Communist regime and catapulted dissident playwright Vaclav Havel to the presidency of the Czech Republic.” (Shadow Party, p. 231) The Velvet Revolution led to the establishment of Slovakia as an independent nation and eventual inclusion in NATO.
Shadow Party also goes on to note that Soros’ support for the Otpor organization in Yugoslavia helped to bring about the end of Slobodan Milosevic’s reign, and points out that the International Criminal Tribunal later charged Milosevic with crimes against humanity.
Similarly, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was a non-violent response to a disputed election that involved poisonings and assassination attempts. And the Rose Revolution replaced Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, a former Soviet official, with Mikheil Saakashvili, who Beck himself has heavily praised.
Beck claims that Soros helped to engineer a “coup” in Croatia, but this seems to be a reference to Soros’ opposition to Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, who died in office and was replaced by Stipe Mesic. The BBC explained Mesic’s election this way: “He espoused a clean break from Mr Tudjman’s authoritarianism, which had left the country internationally isolated and in economic recession.”
Meanwhile, Beck disappears completely Soros’ role funding anti-Communist dissidents like Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.
These details were completely excluded as Beck sought to sell a story of controlled revolution within America, going so far as to exclude the accurate information from an otherwise unreliable book."
Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011090050 [/quote]
On top of that, Karl Poppers idea of an open society had very little to do with international socialism.
[quote]mc.loaf wrote:
I usually just lurk this forum, get annoyed, and leave. But this is too much–seriously, you need to stop drinking the FOX kool-aid.
"On today’s Fox News show, Glenn Beck noted George Soros’ past support of various political movements in Europe and claimed Soros is attempting to recreate similar revolutionary changes of regime in America.
As examples, Beck cited Soros’ purported roles in the Rose Revolution (Georgia), the Orange Revolution (Ukraine) and the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia), as well as “coups” in Croatia and Yugoslavia. Author Richard Poe then connected Soros’ previous work to Beck’s accusation that Soros’ “target” is the United States.
Unmentioned in Beck’s program, but revealed in Shadow Party, the book Poe co-wrote and which appears to be the source material for a lot of the information being presented by Beck about Soros, is the fact that many of the governments Soros supposedly helped bring down were autocratic ones, often headed by former Communist leaders.
Shadow Party explains that “Soros helped bankroll the ‘velvet revolution’ that hastened the fall of a dying Communist regime and catapulted dissident playwright Vaclav Havel to the presidency of the Czech Republic.” (Shadow Party, p. 231) The Velvet Revolution led to the establishment of Slovakia as an independent nation and eventual inclusion in NATO.
Shadow Party also goes on to note that Soros’ support for the Otpor organization in Yugoslavia helped to bring about the end of Slobodan Milosevic’s reign, and points out that the International Criminal Tribunal later charged Milosevic with crimes against humanity.
Similarly, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was a non-violent response to a disputed election that involved poisonings and assassination attempts. And the Rose Revolution replaced Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, a former Soviet official, with Mikheil Saakashvili, who Beck himself has heavily praised.
Beck claims that Soros helped to engineer a “coup” in Croatia, but this seems to be a reference to Soros’ opposition to Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, who died in office and was replaced by Stipe Mesic. The BBC explained Mesic’s election this way: “He espoused a clean break from Mr Tudjman’s authoritarianism, which had left the country internationally isolated and in economic recession.”
Meanwhile, Beck disappears completely Soros’ role funding anti-Communist dissidents like Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.
These details were completely excluded as Beck sought to sell a story of controlled revolution within America, going so far as to exclude the accurate information from an otherwise unreliable book."
Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011090050
[/quote]
it is absolutely laughable at this point that their are people still out there that believe media matters has any credibility on anything. Forget soros funding of it. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they will distort the truth in order to further their agenda on any topic.
There aren’t that many people who are true “political ideologues”. Most political parties certainly aren’t. For someone to be a political ideologue, their beliefs AND their actions must remain consistent over a long period of time. To me, the only true ideologues exist within ideological third parties, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Both of these parties take consistent, principled stands on issues. Republicans and Democrats may be ideologues, but the parties themselves certainly are not, especially the Republican Party.
The birth of the Tea Party movement within the GOP is a clear-cut example of the GOP’s failure to remain politically consistent. There is nothing conservative about legislating against gay marriage for example. There is also nothing conservative about the stimulus package that Bush introduced a few years ago. There is nothing liberal about Obama giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans and then re-introducing an even larger stimulus package than the one Bush introduced.
Here in California (well, at least here in Butte County. I’m not sure about the rest of the state) the Libertarian Party was very much behind Prop 19, which would have legalized weed here in Cal. But there is nothing Libertarian about legalizing something with the intent to tax and regulate that for profit. So, you could argue that even the LP is not truly ideological.
Regarding Glenn Beck: I’m not sure that I would call Beck an ideologue because most of his beliefs simply reflect those of whatever he’s reading at the time, especially people like W. Cleon Skouse and Michael Allen. Most universities in this country tend to be liberal. Beck has a total of one college course (in theology) to his credit. So I would argue that he has never really had to challenge his own beliefs and that whatever knowledge he has sought on his own only reaffirms his political beliefs rather than challenges them.
I don’t think there are any “liberal” books on his 9/12 Project reading list, except for “The Coming Insurrection” (which I’m not even sure is on the list anymore). But given his rigid set of beliefs, I doubt that he ever gave the book any creedence or took it seriously at all when he read it. He went off on some diatribe about it on his show as an example of the leftist agenda. But that book is no more representative of the leftist agenda than the “god hates fags” people are of the rightist agenda.
My point is that ideology must be challenged by the ideologue in order for it to be truly ideological. Otherwise we are not talking about beliefs here. Beck certainly isn’t. What he believes in he views as factual; he is right and those who disagree with him are wrong, and there is no possibility of him being wrong. To me, this sentiment is not a reflection of beliefs, it is a reflection of an opinion toward another group who Beck (in his mind) KNOWS are wrong.
You do not believe that 2 + 2= 4, you KNOW so and those who disagree are empirically wrong. This is how Glenn Beck’s “belief system” works, and in my opinion this negates the possibility that he is an ideologue. He is simply a reflection of the beliefs of ideologues who he agrees with.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
There aren’t that many people who are true “political ideologues”. Most political parties certainly aren’t. For someone to be a political ideologue, their beliefs AND their actions must remain consistent over a long period of time. To me, the only true ideologues exist within ideological third parties, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Both of these parties take consistent, principled stands on issues. Republicans and Democrats may be ideologues, but the parties themselves certainly are not, especially the Republican Party.
The birth of the Tea Party movement within the GOP is a clear-cut example of the GOP’s failure to remain politically consistent. There is nothing conservative about legislating against gay marriage for example. There is also nothing conservative about the stimulus package that Bush introduced a few years ago. There is nothing liberal about Obama giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans and then re-introducing an even larger stimulus package than the one Bush introduced.
Here in California (well, at least here in Butte County. I’m not sure about the rest of the state) the Libertarian Party was very much behind Prop 19, which would have legalized weed here in Cal. But there is nothing Libertarian about legalizing something with the intent to tax and regulate that for profit. So, you could argue that even the LP is not truly ideological.
Regarding Glenn Beck: I’m not sure that I would call Beck an ideologue because most of his beliefs simply reflect those of whatever he’s reading at the time, especially people like W. Cleon Skouse and Michael Allen. Most universities in this country tend to be liberal. Beck has a total of one college course (in theology) to his credit. So I would argue that he has never really had to challenge his own beliefs and that whatever knowledge he has sought on his own only reaffirms his political beliefs rather than challenges them.
I don’t think there are any “liberal” books on his 9/12 Project reading list, except for “The Coming Insurrection” (which I’m not even sure is on the list anymore). But given his rigid set of beliefs, I doubt that he ever gave the book any creedence or took it seriously at all when he read it. He went off on some diatribe about it on his show as an example of the leftist agenda. But that book is no more representative of the leftist agenda than the “god hates fags” people are of the rightist agenda.
My point is that ideology must be challenged by the ideologue in order for it to be truly ideological. Otherwise we are not talking about beliefs here. Beck certainly isn’t. What he believes in he views as factual; he is right and those who disagree with him are wrong, and there is no possibility of him being wrong. To me, this sentiment is not a reflection of beliefs, it is a reflection of an opinion toward another group who Beck (in his mind) KNOWS are wrong.
You do not believe that 2 + 2= 4, you KNOW so and those who disagree are empirically wrong. This is how Glenn Beck’s “belief system” works, and in my opinion this negates the possibility that he is an ideologue. He is simply a reflection of the beliefs of ideologues who he agrees with.
[/quote]
You must not know much about Beck. The only book by Clouse he has read is the 5000 year leap, and he said he disagrees with some of the stuff in there. He still says to read the coming insurrection. On his show, he says not to take his word for anything. He says to do your own research, and see if you agree or not. He has in fact read many liberal books, if you watched or listened to him at all you would know this. The Tea party did not start with in the Republican party, there are plenty of independent and dems as well.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
There aren’t that many people who are true “political ideologues”. Most political parties certainly aren’t. For someone to be a political ideologue, their beliefs AND their actions must remain consistent over a long period of time. To me, the only true ideologues exist within ideological third parties, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Both of these parties take consistent, principled stands on issues. Republicans and Democrats may be ideologues, but the parties themselves certainly are not, especially the Republican Party.
The birth of the Tea Party movement within the GOP is a clear-cut example of the GOP’s failure to remain politically consistent. There is nothing conservative about legislating against gay marriage for example. There is also nothing conservative about the stimulus package that Bush introduced a few years ago. There is nothing liberal about Obama giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans and then re-introducing an even larger stimulus package than the one Bush introduced.
Here in California (well, at least here in Butte County. I’m not sure about the rest of the state) the Libertarian Party was very much behind Prop 19, which would have legalized weed here in Cal. But there is nothing Libertarian about legalizing something with the intent to tax and regulate that for profit. So, you could argue that even the LP is not truly ideological.
Regarding Glenn Beck: I’m not sure that I would call Beck an ideologue because most of his beliefs simply reflect those of whatever he’s reading at the time, especially people like W. Cleon Skouse and Michael Allen. Most universities in this country tend to be liberal. Beck has a total of one college course (in theology) to his credit. So I would argue that he has never really had to challenge his own beliefs and that whatever knowledge he has sought on his own only reaffirms his political beliefs rather than challenges them.
I don’t think there are any “liberal” books on his 9/12 Project reading list, except for “The Coming Insurrection” (which I’m not even sure is on the list anymore). But given his rigid set of beliefs, I doubt that he ever gave the book any creedence or took it seriously at all when he read it. He went off on some diatribe about it on his show as an example of the leftist agenda. But that book is no more representative of the leftist agenda than the “god hates fags” people are of the rightist agenda.
My point is that ideology must be challenged by the ideologue in order for it to be truly ideological. Otherwise we are not talking about beliefs here. Beck certainly isn’t. What he believes in he views as factual; he is right and those who disagree with him are wrong, and there is no possibility of him being wrong. To me, this sentiment is not a reflection of beliefs, it is a reflection of an opinion toward another group who Beck (in his mind) KNOWS are wrong.
You do not believe that 2 + 2= 4, you KNOW so and those who disagree are empirically wrong. This is how Glenn Beck’s “belief system” works, and in my opinion this negates the possibility that he is an ideologue. He is simply a reflection of the beliefs of ideologues who he agrees with.
[/quote]
You must not know much about Beck. The only book by Clouse he has read is the 5000 year leap, and he said he disagrees with some of the stuff in there. He still says to read the coming insurrection. On his show, he says not to take his word for anything. He says to do your own research, and see if you agree or not. He has in fact read many liberal books, if you watched or listened to him at all you would know this. The Tea party did not start with in the Republican party, there are plenty of independent and dems as well. [/quote]
First of all, while there are many dems and independents who identify with the Tea Party movement, it is largely a conservative movement. I’ve been to two TP events, including a huge one in Sacramento about two years ago. Virtually everyone there espoused traditionally conservative values. Given that the Tea Party candidates all had R’s next to their name on the ballots (there might have been some independents as well, but NO democrats) it’s clearly a reaction to both Democratic policies and inconsistencies within the GOP’s conservative ideology.
Regarding Beck and Skouse: take a look at his 9/12 Project reading list. 4 of the 10 books are by Skouse, including another of his favorites which I have personally heard him recommend on his radio show, “The Naked Communist”. Unless Beck is recommending books he’s never read, it seems that perhaps you are the one who does not know much about him.
And while I have also heard him voice disagreements with Skouse, most of them are insignificant grievances that address specific things in Skouse’s books rather than the totality of Skouse’s message. He may have disagreed with some of Skouse’s writings in “The 5,000 Year Leap”, but apparently these disagreements were so minimal that they did not prevent Beck from writing the forward to a new edition of “Leap” a few years ago.
I also acknowledge that Beck still recommends “The Coming Insurrection”, but he does not do so in an attempt to provide a reasonable view of the other side of an argument. He does so as a scare tactic, as a way to show that this is where liberalism and progressivism is headed. This has no more bearing on the direction of the Dem Party than the “God hates fags” people have on the direction of the GOP.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
There aren’t that many people who are true “political ideologues”. Most political parties certainly aren’t. For someone to be a political ideologue, their beliefs AND their actions must remain consistent over a long period of time. To me, the only true ideologues exist within ideological third parties, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Both of these parties take consistent, principled stands on issues. Republicans and Democrats may be ideologues, but the parties themselves certainly are not, especially the Republican Party.
The birth of the Tea Party movement within the GOP is a clear-cut example of the GOP’s failure to remain politically consistent. There is nothing conservative about legislating against gay marriage for example. There is also nothing conservative about the stimulus package that Bush introduced a few years ago. There is nothing liberal about Obama giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans and then re-introducing an even larger stimulus package than the one Bush introduced.
Here in California (well, at least here in Butte County. I’m not sure about the rest of the state) the Libertarian Party was very much behind Prop 19, which would have legalized weed here in Cal. But there is nothing Libertarian about legalizing something with the intent to tax and regulate that for profit. So, you could argue that even the LP is not truly ideological.
Regarding Glenn Beck: I’m not sure that I would call Beck an ideologue because most of his beliefs simply reflect those of whatever he’s reading at the time, especially people like W. Cleon Skouse and Michael Allen. Most universities in this country tend to be liberal. Beck has a total of one college course (in theology) to his credit. So I would argue that he has never really had to challenge his own beliefs and that whatever knowledge he has sought on his own only reaffirms his political beliefs rather than challenges them.
I don’t think there are any “liberal” books on his 9/12 Project reading list, except for “The Coming Insurrection” (which I’m not even sure is on the list anymore). But given his rigid set of beliefs, I doubt that he ever gave the book any creedence or took it seriously at all when he read it. He went off on some diatribe about it on his show as an example of the leftist agenda. But that book is no more representative of the leftist agenda than the “god hates fags” people are of the rightist agenda.
My point is that ideology must be challenged by the ideologue in order for it to be truly ideological. Otherwise we are not talking about beliefs here. Beck certainly isn’t. What he believes in he views as factual; he is right and those who disagree with him are wrong, and there is no possibility of him being wrong. To me, this sentiment is not a reflection of beliefs, it is a reflection of an opinion toward another group who Beck (in his mind) KNOWS are wrong.
You do not believe that 2 + 2= 4, you KNOW so and those who disagree are empirically wrong. This is how Glenn Beck’s “belief system” works, and in my opinion this negates the possibility that he is an ideologue. He is simply a reflection of the beliefs of ideologues who he agrees with.
[/quote]
You must not know much about Beck. The only book by Clouse he has read is the 5000 year leap, and he said he disagrees with some of the stuff in there. He still says to read the coming insurrection. On his show, he says not to take his word for anything. He says to do your own research, and see if you agree or not. He has in fact read many liberal books, if you watched or listened to him at all you would know this. The Tea party did not start with in the Republican party, there are plenty of independent and dems as well. [/quote]
First of all, while there are many dems and independents who identify with the Tea Party movement, it is largely a conservative movement. I’ve been to two TP events, including a huge one in Sacramento about two years ago. Virtually everyone there espoused traditionally conservative values. Given that the Tea Party candidates all had R’s next to their name on the ballots (there might have been some independents as well, but NO democrats) it’s clearly a reaction to both Democratic policies and inconsistencies within the GOP’s conservative ideology.
Regarding Beck and Skouse: take a look at his 9/12 Project reading list. 4 of the 10 books are by Skouse, including another of his favorites which I have personally heard him recommend on his radio show, “The Naked Communist”. Unless Beck is recommending books he’s never read, it seems that perhaps you are the one who does not know much about him.
And while I have also heard him voice disagreements with Skouse, most of them are insignificant grievances that address specific things in Skouse’s books rather than the totality of Skouse’s message. He may have disagreed with some of Skouse’s writings in “The 5,000 Year Leap”, but apparently these disagreements were so minimal that they did not prevent Beck from writing the forward to a new edition of “Leap” a few years ago.
I also acknowledge that Beck still recommends “The Coming Insurrection”, but he does not do so in an attempt to provide a reasonable view of the other side of an argument. He does so as a scare tactic, as a way to show that this is where liberalism and progressivism is headed. This has no more bearing on the direction of the Dem Party than the “God hates fags” people have on the direction of the GOP.[/quote]
He did not say that the coming insurrection was where the dems are going, he said it is where he believes the country is headed thanks to progressives, which he points out are in both parties.
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.
[quote]mc.loaf wrote:
I usually just lurk this forum, get annoyed, and leave. But this is too much–seriously, you need to stop drinking the FOX kool-aid.
"On today’s Fox News show, Glenn Beck noted George Soros’ past support of various political movements in Europe and claimed Soros is attempting to recreate similar revolutionary changes of regime in America.
As examples, Beck cited Soros’ purported roles in the Rose Revolution (Georgia), the Orange Revolution (Ukraine) and the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia), as well as “coups” in Croatia and Yugoslavia. Author Richard Poe then connected Soros’ previous work to Beck’s accusation that Soros’ “target” is the United States.
Unmentioned in Beck’s program, but revealed in Shadow Party, the book Poe co-wrote and which appears to be the source material for a lot of the information being presented by Beck about Soros, is the fact that many of the governments Soros supposedly helped bring down were autocratic ones, often headed by former Communist leaders.
Shadow Party explains that “Soros helped bankroll the ‘velvet revolution’ that hastened the fall of a dying Communist regime and catapulted dissident playwright Vaclav Havel to the presidency of the Czech Republic.” (Shadow Party, p. 231) The Velvet Revolution led to the establishment of Slovakia as an independent nation and eventual inclusion in NATO.
Shadow Party also goes on to note that Soros’ support for the Otpor organization in Yugoslavia helped to bring about the end of Slobodan Milosevic’s reign, and points out that the International Criminal Tribunal later charged Milosevic with crimes against humanity.
Similarly, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was a non-violent response to a disputed election that involved poisonings and assassination attempts. And the Rose Revolution replaced Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, a former Soviet official, with Mikheil Saakashvili, who Beck himself has heavily praised.
Beck claims that Soros helped to engineer a “coup” in Croatia, but this seems to be a reference to Soros’ opposition to Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, who died in office and was replaced by Stipe Mesic. The BBC explained Mesic’s election this way: “He espoused a clean break from Mr Tudjman’s authoritarianism, which had left the country internationally isolated and in economic recession.”
Meanwhile, Beck disappears completely Soros’ role funding anti-Communist dissidents like Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.
These details were completely excluded as Beck sought to sell a story of controlled revolution within America, going so far as to exclude the accurate information from an otherwise unreliable book."
Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011090050[/quote]
It reads like James Bond’s “The World is Not Enough”. I didn’t realize MI6 was concerned with Soros ;). Beck plummeted not just off the deep end, but off the damn world with this one.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]
Hey T the liberal mind set is a simple one. If someone comments negatively on their chosen one then he must be a republican. They don’t understand the concept of libertarian as it is the polar opposite of big government taking care of everyones needs. They certainly don’t understand that a government large enough to give you everything that you want is also large enough to take everything you have - Including many freedoms.
Back to Beck: I was in a debate on another thread where they were cursing out Beck yet not one of them could find a single thing of substance that he was wrong on over the past 5 years. They were reduced to trying to nail him for slips of the tongue or having a wrong date on something.
Also, keep in mind that liberals are still upset over the great defeat that they just suffered. It was truly monumental as you know.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]
It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]
It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]
Well Lifty you are probably right, but I think there is at least a glimmer of hope given the democrats disastrous record over the past two years.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]
It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]
Agree.
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]
Hey T the liberal mind set is a simple one. If someone comments negatively on their chosen one then he must be a republican. They don’t understand the concept of libertarian as it is the polar opposite of big government taking care of everyones needs. They certainly don’t understand that a government large enough to give you everything that you want is also large enough to take everything you have - Including many freedoms.
Back to Beck: I was in a debate on another thread where they were cursing out Beck yet not one of them could find a single thing of substance that he was wrong on over the past 5 years. They were reduced to trying to nail him for slips of the tongue or having a wrong date on something.
Also, keep in mind that liberals are still upset over the great defeat that they just suffered. It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]
I’ve never voted anything but Libertarian or Republican Zeb. Your assumption that my stance comes from a liberal viewpoint is wholly inaccurate, as do all of the conclusions about me that you arrive at based on your erroneous premise. Try again pal.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]
It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]
This monumental victory ZEB speaks of only happens about once every two to four years. It’s not uncommon at all for Congress to see the party affiliated with the sitting President get defeated in midterm elections. Hardly monumental.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]
His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.
But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.
If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:
“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”
That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:
. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.
It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]
His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.
But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.
If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:
“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”
That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:
. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.
It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]
So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]
I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]
His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.
But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.
If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:
“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”
That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:
. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.
It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]
So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]
The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.
Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.
The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake.