I have heard many attack Glenn Beck. But..

reply to post by jaynkeel

Well if your a progressive that is in a key position in our government that wants to "transform" our country into something that we are not. Then I'd say yes, but thats just me.

But the comments Beck made at the CPAC were not specified to progressive leaders in "key positions", it was towards any and all progressiveness, a"cancer that must be removed from America," he did not say from Washington, or the whitehouse.
Again are you saying ALL progressiveness is bad and NONE should be involved in our decisions? I just don't think it's an "either or situation," but rather how much is strived for. And statements like "eradicate the cancer" is not the answer, imo.

And no there is nothing anyone is going to find that the man says as being false, he is smarter than that to go against what he preaches, content of character.

There have already been several examples.
Edit To Add: For the record, I am not an Obama loyalist.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

To The OP: You asked for specifics and many members provided you with them....and you flat out ignored them.

So since you obviously missed them I will recap for you. Feel free to respond to each one individual if you have any self respect.


From post by speculativeoptimist

-In June Beck lied when he said that the US was the ONLY country that had a natural birthright provision. Here is the list of other countries that do:www.numbersusa.com...…

-Glenn Beck lied when he said recently that $1.4 million of stimulus momey was used to repair a door at Dyess AFB. The doors repaired were aircraft hangar doors and the cost was not $1.4 million.
The cost was $246000 out of $1.4 million in repairs funding.

-He said that no other President had never been sworn into office without a Bible. He said he 'checked'.
He either did not check or checked up his arsegraped butt because he's lying. John Qunicy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't even swear. He affirmed. Teddy Roosevelt used no Bible. Several Presidents kissed a Bible but did not swear on one.
www.washingtonpost.com...

From post by InvisibleAlbatross

Lie--All presidents have been sworn in using the Bible

Truth--
According to records compiled by the Architect of the Capitol and maintained by the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible at his 1901 swearing-in.

And in 1963, when Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One at Love Field airport in Dallas after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he used a Roman Catholic missal, a liturgical text.

Lie--
Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Truth--Too long to post, so here is the link. Holdren is in favor of abortion being legal and available. He does not advocate forced aboortions though.
www.politifact.com...

Lie--Nazis/fascists were liberals

Truth--Do we really need to debate this one? While it is true that were aspects of these idealogies that could be defined as "liberal" it is ludicrous to say that either the Nazis or Fascists in Italy were liberals. The Nazis slaughtered left-wingers. Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism. It is true that in the USA both the Left and Right are slaves to corporatism, but only the Right is militant about it.

From post by ~Lucidity

Glenn Beck Inc.

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. He gets $13 million a year from print (books plus the ten-issue-a-year magazine Fusion). Radio brings in $10 million. Digital (including a newsletter, the ad-supported Glennbeck.com and merchandise) pulls in $4 million. Speaking and events are good for $3 million and television for $2 million. Over several days in mid-March Beck allowed a reporter to follow him through his multimedia incarnations, with one exception, his 5 p.m. daily

The video In this post by IamBoon


The video In this post by lee anoma

In response to this YOU attacked the source...talk about hypocritical.



From post by ~Lucidity

Here's his latest pearl of wisdom...calling Americans terrorists and then telling his audience to lock arms as Americans with these terrorists

mediamatters.org...

The video in this post by InvisibleAlbatross



As you can see....many examples...all of which you completely ignored. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just missed them


So here they are again for you...all neat and in a list.

I look forward to your reply.

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

Any specifics? Any? Is there anybody out there who can take anything he has publicly said and prove to me that he is wrong?

America, we were invited to a party one day, and we were told we'd be home and in bed by 10:00 o:clock. Instead, we were kept out far too late, and excesses were rampant. You were dumped at your door at 4 in the morning, smelling like pot...ashamed.

That is one of beck's deliveries one night. Need I say any more?

Maybe HE was an alcoholic/coke freak who went to excess. It was the thing to do. Kelsey Grammer. John Claude Van Dam. Glen Beck. I don't need him teaching me falsehoods about the Founding Fathers. I don't need him demonizing a natural life enhancer and preventive herb. I don't need him spinning the work of the Founding Fathers to favor corporate greed and government irresponsibility (remember Bush?). He always whoops up a patriotic fervor which intentionally leaves out key sentiments of these men. You cannot tell me that he isn't indirectly in bed with big pharma, big oil, and zionism, and war for zionism. The Founding Fathers warned of things that he is paid to forget, namely, that they were somewhat against allowing jews into the Republic. I guess they needed slaves pretty bad and guess who provided them? They gave no more moral consideration to a bowl of hemp than they did to a cigar, except that the bowl of hemp was more satisfying, at least to George. Anyone can read the things that the Founders wrote. I don't need this circus clown to restrict my interpretations of where 'we' went wrong. I see it every time I slam on the brakes to make up for someone's big text message as they cut me off like I don't exist. He's not trying to restore America. He is trying to make it into what FOX needs it to be, in order for FOX to stay on top. The most powerful name in news. The most trusted name in news, bull roar. FOX was directly responsible for stone walling Ron Paul, who is not my saviour, by the way. FOX was as guilty as all other paid media drones when they said muslim terrorists smashed planes into buildings. Glen beck will use the patriotic fervor he generates to slap us as traitors for wanting the freedom of speech to say that FOX and all media outlets are in collusion. Beck never even considered telling the truth about what they'd done to hoax us into a 'patriot act'. He's saying a lot of truths, but mingling them with corporate thorns. I don't trust him. His job is to make it appear that there's a new media sheriff in town, a good guy, at last. I also don't like preachers telling me about Jesus. When I like something, it's meaning becomes personal, above the crude histrionics of feinting spells and crocodile tears.

I happen to agree with most of what he says, by the way. I haven't the time nor incentive to expose what he exposes, so thank God someone does bring things to light. But with it he is garnering trust, and with that trust he will gain power. When the lines cross on Murdoch's personal graph, on his signal, beck will lead us into status quo, but call it 'freedom'. Obama is nothing more than bush mach 2. Why doesn't he tell us that, and elaborate? It seems he ignores completely anything bush and cheney did. IT WAS THE SAME THING! A puppet president will do whatever he is told to avoid humiliation and public shame. His mission is to gain a market share of trust and confidence for his masters, and he knows it! I always cringe when I hear things I like to hear, when coming from the wrong source. The devil can quote scripture, you know.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by davidmann]

Guys, don't feed the troll. Your evidence will never suffice.

Why does anyone trust what Glenn says in the first place? He's simply a political commentator. He's not a historian, he's not a journalist, he's not a scientist. He's just a guy with a TV show.

The fact that this thread even exists is a joke.

All I know is if Obama doesn't win another term and a Republican gets into office then Beck and Rush are not going to have a thing to talk about. I don't agree with most of Obama's policies but Bush was a horrible president and they still defend his actions due the Republican party. Beck is on Fox after all and that would be biting the hand that feeds him.

I listen to Beck way more than you would suppose. I listen to both sides of the arguments and I still don't trust either side. He speaks a lot of truth but he is missing a big part of the picture and I see it as purposely.

What I find funny is how Beck is now becoming like a carbon copy of Alex Jones and they won't even acknowledge that among themselves. He is just saying a lot of things Jones has preached for years.

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

"Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population "

If it's true he said it, can you prove it's false?

This is quite possibly one of the most circular post I have ever seen. Per the OP, to take part in this post and bring up something that Glenn Beck says as outrageous we are required to prove him incorrect or false. Never mind the fact that it is alright for GB to say something like this without 'proving it is true!' Someone then actually posts examples showing that GB is full of crap and this is dismissed out of hand!

Hey OP, I heard that Glenn Beck is actually a far left-wing Marxist, who actually is just playacting as a crazy Neo-Con, Libertarian, whatever he is on ClusterFox each night. He is trying to subvert all conservatives in the election and his grand plan is to become the Czar of Telecommunications in the Obama Chairmanship to monitor all that is said on the airwaves.

Now prove this is not true! Anything else is nothing more than a vacuous argument that will simply be discounted.

here you go...this may not have shown up on google lol

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MrVertigo

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

Woah, You talked about his statements, yet gave no alternative to disprove his statements. That is what I'm looking for. Have you concluded he is wrong? Prove it.

When someone makes an outrageous statement like "science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population" It is their job to prove the statement is TRUE. It is not everybody elses job to prove the statement false.

Just as if I were to call someone a pedophile it's up to me to back it up with proof.

Hence the term "innocent until proven guilty"

It's kind of the foundation of most legal systems around the world

[edit on 5-8-2010 by MrVertigo]

I am trying to find the site now but Beck did not say CZAR Holdren "proposed" forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water.

What was said was that while Holdren was in college he wrote an essay that stated these things. It was years ago and he was not a Czar at the time. But you have to ask yourself if his views have really changed that much.
It has been awhile and I can not find it on Beck's web site now. I will keep looking and post when I find it.

I have read a lot of these posts and find them to be ironic. A lot say they listen/watch Beck but get turned off because he is so pro Bush/republican.
We must not be watching the same show. I mean, yes he does talk more about Dems. right now because they are in control. But on many many occasions I have seen him down republicans. He even says that Bush was a progressive (remember part of the cancer that needs to be cut out).
I do not like watching or listening to him. I find him to be over animated and childish, but I do read the transcripts from his shows and research a lot of what he states.
I have found some mistakes but not everyone can get their facts straight all the time. If we held everyone to that standard all of congress and our president would be out of a job.
I think Beck's batting avg on facts is pretty good considering what he exposes most of the time.

I think what your trying to do here is leading you down the wrong path. Beck is a human and therefore will make errors and mix his own opinion and ideology into the mix.

Any person talking about as many things as he does will have individual instances where he can be proven wrong, even if he is factually accurate most of the time.

People who don't like him will use the disingenuous method of pulling out any mistakes he has made and knowingly pretend it represents him and who he is. These are the same people who we see here who latch onto every little error or misunderstanding and use it as a weapon.

Lots of people have no interest in the truth and will fight to defend a lie if it agrees with them and also fight to prove a fact wrong if it does not agree with them.

It has been correctly pointed out here he is not a Reporter and his show is for entertainment and is his opinion.

You will never get anywhere trying to debate the things he says in this manner. So much of what he talks about is open to honest people disagreeing, there simply is no way to do what you want.

4 pages and only like 3 things brought to the table. Looks like most of them have been shot down already.

Hey, hear about the $500 million dollar plant the new Government Motors is going to build for the American workers? NO? Oh because you people do not watch Beck.

Have you heard about the Brand New plant going to be built?

IN MEXICO!?

Maybe you can move down there and get a job with GM?

Hey OP, Beck covers a LOT of what I write about here. Hell, sometimes I think he is reading my threads to get some ideas.

Attacks from the loons will always come.

I have a CHALLENGE to all those posting sources AGAINST Beck.

Follow that source to it's true source and tell me what you find.

Is it black propaganda?

I like Beck and I liked Bush, I am trying to figure out how Bush was so much worse than any other President. Yes our economy took a dive. But dosnt the economy take a dive everyonce in a while its sort of the general nature of things. I served in the military under Bush and respect him for defending America and I wish he would have done more to get rid of are Islamic enemies.

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

Any specifics? Any? Is there anybody out there who can take anything he has publicly said and prove to me that he is wrong?

On his radio show he always emphasizes that people can talk about him all they want but leave his kids out of it. A few months ago I remember him making fun of one of Obama's daughters for a question that she asked her father. Kind of hypocritical of him don't you think?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Procession101]

Obama himself opened up the door to this one by referencing his daughter asking him the question about the deep horizon well leaking. You gotta do better than that.

Czar Holdren
Sorry I am no better than Beck. I made a mistake in the previous post. It was not a paper Holdren wrote while in college. It was a TEXT BOOK he co-aurthored for College students:
------------------


WND has obtained a copy of "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," published in 1977 and co-authored by Holdren with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. As WND reported, the authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change." To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."
_____
He also says that they should have the power to SIEZE new borns from unwed mothers. WOW! this guy creeps me out. Exactly how did he get to be science czar? Oh yea I remember ....... Obama

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I like Beck. I know that he isn't right all of the time. You just proved that he has been wrong (although one source provided is Media Matters). Now, if that is ALL that people can come up with to prove him wrong, we're in big trouble!!!

Originally posted by vtcajun

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

Any specifics? Any? Is there anybody out there who can take anything he has publicly said and prove to me that he is wrong?

On his radio show he always emphasizes that people can talk about him all they want but leave his kids out of it. A few months ago I remember him making fun of one of Obama's daughters for a question that she asked her father. Kind of hypocritical of him don't you think?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Procession101]

Obama himself opened up the door to this one by referencing his daughter asking him the question about the deep horizon well leaking. You gotta do better than that.

I did not even know that he said those things until after he apologized for doing so. The first part of his show was dedicated to the apology. Sure he had a few different reasons for apologizing but at least he did. Maybe he could have a Beer summit or something. I heard somewhere that works to, instead of apologizing that is.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
I really wonder what happened to Beck. When he was on CNN, he seemed to fire at the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. But now, he seems to have lost his mind.

Sorry, I know that was not an answer you wanted to hear.

Which party has been in control since he has left CNN?
He does rag on Republicans btw.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Czar Holdren
Sorry I am no better than Beck. I made a mistake in the previous post. It was not a paper Holdren wrote while in college. It was a TEXT BOOK he co-aurthored for College students:

Sounds like a theoretical interpretation of the constitution. Doesn't sound like he's actually condoning it, or suggesting that we implement these measures today. Just what might be allowed, constitutionally, in extreme situations.

For those saying that he does not rag on Republicans, watch his show from yesterday. Wednesday Aug 4th.

Glenn Beck-Lesser of two evils.

My main problem with Beck is not what he exposes,he usually backs that up pretty well but his belief that 'God' is a major part of the answer,hell it took nearly 1000 years for civilisation to be able to get a beer on Sunday and he wants to hand the country back to damn preachers.