bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
Point conceded, she was the first bad writer that came to mind...and she's an atheist. I could have done better. (so could all of the people who have read her books).
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
People at Glenn Beck's Rally
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
Point conceded, she was the first bad writer that came to mind...and she's an atheist. I could have done better. (so could all of the people who have read her books).
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
LOL...Who'da thunk it?
Yeah, told you I could have thought of a better example than her. I had fun writing that little rant though. It was oddly cathartic.
Obviously, this is one area where my likings differ from Beck's.
Still like him, still can't stand her.
stphrz
Stuffed Tiger
Anyone who actually thinks.
I'm sure he has lots of fun with his own little rants too.
Among many many others, which you will find with a minimum of effort. I encourage you to do so.
Do some serious research and you won't like him for long. I promise.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
The thing that really made me realize Beck was talking out of his ass was how he analyzed the artwork at Rockefeller Center. He just made stuff up. Amazing. Also, his bullshit tears. Wow.
Also, his lies about the Canadian health care system, that bothered me a lot too.
Also, his lies about the Canadian health care system, that bothered me a lot too.
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
Anyone who actually thinks?
Why does it always have to get personal with you? Rise above that, you are obviously a smart person but the little personal attacks here and there aren't becomming of you. Are you able to have a civil debate? Or do you take some sort of perverse pleasure in trying to knock people down?
We aren't fighting for the last piece of fresh coconut on the desert island here...we are wrestling over opinions. But with you it seems that when the other person's opinion isn't in keeping with yours, you attack, accusing the other person of childish thought (or lack of thought), or poor research. We aren't playing chess here man, but you keep looking for a "check-mate", why is that? I've got some professional theories that I'd be happy to share..but I won't because personal attacks are for rookies in the debate game.
"Do some serious research"? Serious research...I'm the one who has read the guy's books, who was a listener for over 3 years. I'm the one who looked at the links that you (and others) posted and "researched" the authors of the bullshit you (all) referred me to. I'm the one who has found that these authors have long and storied histories of conservative bashing. I'm the one who has listened to the Beck quotes in question (the ones where he is made out to be a racist). I would dare say that I know Beck better than you, by your own admission you don't have a whole lot of time or respect for the guy. I know Beck's sense of humor. What more research do you want me to do? I'd be interested to know just what "research" I should be doing that I haven't done already.
The burdon of proof is on the people who started the thread and contributed to the personal attacks on Beck, and thus far no one has demonstrated that they have anything solid, non-biased, to prove that the guy is the monster that you all think he is. All you have is opinion reinforced by opinions of others, and you tell ME to do some serious research?
Do some "serious research"? I'm absolutely astounded that you would even dare to say that. I'm not the one posting links to op-ed pieces about how evil Beck is and refering to them as "proof" that he's an ass-hat. And YOU are telling ME to do some serious research. Pot, meet the kettle, but try not to call it black...oh wait, maybe that was a racist thing to say. There you have it, proof that I'm a racist. That must be why I like Glenn Beck.
I'm having a fucking stroke. I'd love to say that I'm done with you but I'd be lying to myself. If you want to engage in some logical, civil debate on things elsewhere on the board, I'm all for it and I'll even back you up when I think you are right about something. But I'm psychologically incapable of just walking away when someone tries to sucker punch me.
One more time:
Media Matters for America.
If you read the material about Beck there and still haven't gotten the message, I can't help you.
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
One more time,
I've read all I care to read, the website in question is biased.
It's no different than asking Michael Shermer for his opinion on UFO's...you aren't going to get an honest assessment of the issue. Why is this only clear to me?
No disrespect intended Gene, but you are right, you can't help me in this matter. This is one area that (until I'm shown something solid) I'm not going to budge. But that's the great thing about our Country, we can engage in civil debate, we don't have to agree.
My main beef isn't that you (or others) don't like Glenn Beck, the beef is that most of the opinions espoused in this thread seem to be based less in fact about the man and more on the simple regurgitation of the opinions of op-ed writers. It's as if some here simply don't like him because he's a conservative and they aren't supposed to like conservatives because they are liberals. I don't (nor will I ever) identify with this line of thinking.
I'm able and willing to pick and choose for myself what I like. I don't choose to like or agree with something because Mike huckabee or Glenn Beck tell me to do so. I identify with much of what Beck espouses based on my own set of values and beliefs. I don't like all of what he has to say, and I don't claim to know with 100% accuracy everything that Beck stands for. I only know what I've heard over the years (and what I have not heard).
Again, I do respect the opinions of others, even those that disagree with me on things. I just don't like when it turns personal and people simply "pile on" a popular issue because it's ben deemed OK to do so in a given setting. It seems like "group think" to me (at least superficially) and it's a turn off. I'm OK with you not liking Glenn Beck (or anything else), you are a smart man and you have arrived at your opinions honestly...but the same can be said of me. We can all agree to disagree once in a while as long as there is a measure of civility.
I'll make it simple for you. Take five articles about Beck, and explain where their quotes and vast background information is wrong, with specifics, not with a fast dismissal.
Call that your homework assignment. It's not a question of liking Glenn Beck. It's a fact that his grasp of history and current events is seriously flawed. He's a former shock jock, and says things for their entertainment value, not because of factual content. Look at his history and you'll see his background.
You need to do your research and stop the casual dismissals before you can speak knowledgeably on the subject.
And this site:
PolitiFact | Glenn Beck's file
won a Pulitzer. It's not liberal or conservative, and is an equal opportunity offender for both sides.
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
not to keep belaboring this issue, because it is wearing dangerously thin in my estimation but why (and this is a legit question, not trying to be sarcastic for once) is it not OK for Beck to analyze the artwork at Rock Center. He's entitled to an opinion, even if he wasn't "trained" as an art critic. And the guy will freely admit (a lot) that when it comes to things like critiquing artwork, that you shouldn't listen to him because he's an "alcoholic hack" (his words). The guy has been self depricating to a fault much of the time. And of course he was full of shit when he analyzed the artwork, that's what makes it funny.
Admittedly, I did not hear the segment in question so I cannot comment as to the context of his critique. But this sounds so much like lots of his other work, sometimes he's serious and emotional about things, other times he's so deeply sarcastic and self depricating that it's hard to tell (if you aren't used to him) if he's serious or not. I'm a sarcastic prick too and I think that this is one of the main reasons I like Beck so much. I find him funny and engaging.
Anyway, just a question. I appreciate your opinion.
Actually the whole idea was so wacky I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. You are far too trusting.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Beck is a failed comedian trying to make himself marketable through controversy using the old stand buys of patriotism and religion.
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
First, this isn't the same website as the one you mentioned previously. So, no, I can't and won't dismiss this one without first looking at it. If indeed the material isn't blatantly biased, and if it demonstrates that Beck is racist (or any of the other negative descriptions here), I will write a formal mea culpa and admit that I'm wrong to defend the man. But if it's the same as all of the other "evidence" (op-ed) then, well then, nothing I guess. But I will look and I will give it an honest evaluation. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it
But I would appreciate it if others were willing to admit when they have made flawed evaluations as well. Personal attacks (on me, or on anyone) are not acceptable. You want to attack my opinion? Fine, let's debate. But if you want to accuse me of being an idiot for having a different opinion than yours...not cool. Not to "poke" at you Gene, but I was respectful enough to you (and others) to say that I respect their (and your) opinions and that sometimes people have to agree to disagree, but I've not heard that sentiment echoed anywhere in this forum yet. (at least not with regard to threads that I'm involved in). I'm willing to concede points and give credit where it is due, I hope that you (and the others) have that same sentiment.
Second, I'll tell you what, I'll do your assignment...if you do one for me. Find me 5 solid examples (not op-ed) of Glenn Beck being racist (or a monster, or whatever else he is being accused of). Audio clips, direct & precise citations (with context), video clips, or anything. just copy and past legit, non-biased links to material that hasn't been taken grossly out of context and molded to fit an agenda. "A material" would be directly from his show notes or directly from his mouth, without having been edited and filtered through other outlets.
OR...think what it would do for your show to ask to interview the man. Seek a personal interview and hold him accountable for his "flawed" interpretation of history and current events. I know it's a long shot, but if anyone can do it, you can. Offer to debate the guy on the issues you have with him. Again, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's probably nearly impossible to get to him, but you never know until you try.
Lastly, my last post to you spoke about my respect for your opinion, it spoke to the need to occasionally agree to disagree and it issued a call for civil debate, to stop the name calling. I know that you are a stand-up guy and even when poked at (unmercifully) by people like JV (on that other forum thread), you remain professional and on topic, not succumbing to name calling. Will you aks the same of yourself and others in this thread and others? Without censoring, will you encourage people to refrain from personal attacks and name calling in the name of furthering civil debate? This applies to all topics and all people. Without suppressing free thought and expression of opinion, will you call for an end to name calling and personal attacks?
I ask this because the personal attacks on people like Louis Jarvis and even Glenn Beck don't help anyone to understand anything. In a very real sense, they are simply distraction from the main issues and a waste of time and energy. The bulk of my posts in the past weeks have been defending people who have been personally attacked for their opinions, and it seems that I'm the only one concerned about this. We wouldn't be having this exchange at all if it weren't for the attacks against Jarvis and Beck. I'm not asking you to stifle creativity or opinion, I'm asking you to call on everyone here (me included) to keep it above board and focus their "attacks" on material presented and not the individual. Surely you agree with this sentiment.
Again, Gene, I respect your work and I enjoy the show. I think you know my opinion on the new format (co-host) and the direction of the show. I wish nothing but the best for you and the Paracast. Can we agree to simply disagree and move on with a mutual respect?
---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------
It's a good gig if you can get it. He certainly has made himself marketable, that can't be argued.
stphrz
Stuffed Tiger
It isn't personal. It's to goad you into putting more effort into your posts. To check your facts before you post. Whether you realize it or not I'm the best friend you have on this forum and I'm telling you you are making an ass of yourself.
Listen to what I'm telling you.
You claim to know so much about Glenn Beck, but his admiration of Ayn Rand somehow escaped you. Think about this. Please. However much you dispise Ayn Rand, you don't despise her enough. You can't just dismiss this as "oh well, this is just one little area where my opinon differs with Beck." It is something very fundamental and should prompt you to really, truly re-examine your opinons of the man. The only thing I can conclude about you from your posts is that you really do not know anything about Ayn Rand or Glenn Beck.
You go on and on about bias. Cries of bias are the last resort of the apologist who cannot defend their stance in any other fashion. It is a signal to your opponents that your arguments are weak and that you have no facts or data to back up your position. Here's a tip. When debating someone, never, ever bring up bias.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
The problem is that he is telling people that the work is full of communist propaganda on the news network that they trust. His assessment of the work is completely wrong, I can tell you that with full confidence. Whether he's being serious or not, well that doesn't matter right? People will believe him and he hasn't said otherwise.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWL-pfCao-U?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWL-pfCao-U?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWL-pfCao-U?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWL-pfCao-U?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
bmadccp
BS Bloodhound
Read your own words again...
First you say "go about your bias"
Then you say "Cries of bias are the last resort...."
You are not my best friend here, if you were truly interested in "helping me", you would not make publicly viewable, little barbed insults. You are engaged in trying to "win", nothing more. You don't care about truths, about learning, you care about being right. And what is your prize for winning? For being right? It's not money, it's not a trophy, it's not even a free Paracast t-shirt No, your prize is internal. Your motivation is internal, you bully your way into an engagement and when the other person defends his message and exposes your flaws in reasoning, you turn and pick at the messenger. It's classic and it's obvious. You are like a dog who wants to be the alpha so bad that you will attack your own brothers if you have to.
Please don't pretend like you are doing me any favors. And please don't pretend that you had the first clue that Beck was an Rand reader. And didn't I concede this point? Haven't I said time and time again "I don't pretend to know everything about Beck" and "I don't agree with all of Beck's views"? I have. But you lock in on whatever you can to try and check-mate me for some reason (again this goes back to internal motivation and it's suggestive).
First, you engage me in the Jarvis forum and try to lecture me on logic, citing that I was engaged in fallacy when I defferred to Christopher O'Brien..."appeal to authority" was it? Then, a few posts ago, you post a link to the Miami paper (to an op-ed) peice as your "proof" that Beck is a monster as yet another attempt to check-mate the discussion. Appeal to authority?
Then you give me the "advice" to never mention bias in a debate. I wonder why you would do that? You and I have gone round and round about bias, sacred cows. I believe that my stance was that we all have biases, and you claimed to have slain your sacred cows long ago...after Nam maybe. But what are we both talking about here? Wouldn't you know it, this current debate is all about bias and sacred cows. But I'm not supposed to mention bias, somehow that's "off limits"?
The fact, the ultimate fact is this. You don't know shit about Glenn Beck. Neither do I. Neither of us has ever met the man, and we don't know for sure if he's some sort of "charachter" designed to appeal to the conservatives for profit. Neither of us knows. Maybe he's the anti-christ and maybe he's a good person...we don't know. You don't and I don't. But I'm not the one posting my opinion (bias) about Glenn Beck being the savior of the American right. I never even came close to that stance. It's you, and the others here who are posting your opinions and acting as though they are fact. Maybe it's because you are in the majority on this thread. Don't lecture me on bias, sir.
I'm the only one who has stepped up and said that if evidence was presented to me that made me rethink my stance, I would stand up and say I'm wrong. Thus far, this hasn't happened. It might...and it might not...time will tell. Out of all of our exchanges, I've never seen you write that you COULD be wrong about something, You are more than willing to tell ME when MY thinking is wrong, but I've gotten no real impression that you have even challenged yourself and questioned whether YOU just may be in error. But you will post words like above instructing me to examine my own thinking and biases...take just a drop of your own medicine, please.
You tell me that my arguments are weak, but it is you who keeps resorting back to making these little personal attacks. HOW, pray tell, is this not a weakness on your part? You claim that my arguments are weak yet you post a link to an op-ed piece as a reinforcement of your knowledge about a man that you have never met. Play by your own rules.
Do me a favor and please don't do me the favor of taking me under your wing and trying to "school me" on the rules of debate. Please don't act as if you are above name calling and personal attacks, you have proven otherwise. Please don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. You may be able to get away with it with other people on this forum but not me. Is my thinking "wrong" sometimes, yup. And I've conceded that. I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not a hippocrite. You need to worry more about your own logic and opinions than about mine. Just as you find me flawed, I find you flawed. At least I'm willing to cop to being wrong when I'm wrong.
Tell you what, since I can predict that you will fire back and point out my flaws (again), and maybe even point out a few more "fallacies" or even typo's as your evidence of how dumb I am and how perfect you are, just spare me the critical thinking 101 lecure and write this off as irrational skreed.
To everyone else:
You are right, Glenn Beck is the devil, he's all of what you say he is and he IS those things simply because YOU say he is. YOU are your ultimate authority, there's nothing wrong with that logic at all. Whether you KNOW this because you have been told what to think, or you have done so much research that you could write your own book about the guy. I don't give a shit and I was foolish to expect anything else. I was wrong...I admit it. I'm an idiot. I cannot debate my way out of a wet paper bag, my thinking is soft and short sided. I am going to write to Glenn Beck and ask him to rename his book from "Arguing with Idiots" to "bmadccp is an idiot for arguing". Is this good enough for you?
Let the personal attacks commence...
I am done defending anyone but myself. Hell, maybe I'll even jump on the bandwagon and get my personal attacks out and on the table. I do hereby today stoop to your level, knowing that I can give my unfettered opinion about things and not be held accountable Actually it's a lot of stress that's off me now.
Louis Jarvis was a crack-pot idiot, ha ha ha ha, that fool believes in God, what a sheep. He smells bad and I'm sure I read an op-ed piece that told me that he's a pederast. All people who believe things are stupid.
Feels good.
!
nn!nL
---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------
So what does the artwork represent if he is wrong? I'm curious. (and I'm not trying to be difficult or a smart ass). This is THE closes thing I've seen to real evidence that he's full of shit thus far. Let's ride this out..Is there some documentation as to the art displayed that will refute him?
Since you refuse to actually read a few Media Matters reports about Beck and his misstatements, I'm about to close off this discussion. You refuse to take 10 minutes to do research and thus your views are suspect.
stphrz
Stuffed Tiger
Bias is not off limits. It just reveals the weakness in your arguments. Refute things point by point by point.
The op ed piece I linked was full of facts. Try to refute them. Go ahead.. I dare you. Refute the quotes Beck made about "taking back the civil rights movement" Refute the history lesson the author gave about who the people who really were the one who put themselves on the line. I double dare you.
Yes, I can be wrong about things. I have been wrong about things. Many things. You wouldn't believe the opinions I held on some things. But someone showed me different and I altered those opinions.
And yes I really did know about Beck's admiration of Rand. This isn't the first forum debate I have engaged in about Glenn Beck. What I didn't know about was your opinons of Rand. When you stated them along with your incorrect assessment of Rands politics I saw a chance to inform you. Using ridicule may not be the best way to point something out, but sometimes for me it is irresistable. Ridicule when it is on point has validity. The fact that I'm a dick has no bearing. You really need to develop a thicker skin.
Finally about your assessment of my motives. You are just wrong. Skeptical critical thinkers are the heretics on a paranomal message board. The fact is your sentiments are the popular ones, not mine. I know every post I make tends to drive me further into the wilderness, make me even more of an outcast. Explain how in hell I'm trying to bully myself into a position of dominance again?
In this thread however, people aren't being swayed by sentiment. They are armed with the facts. Since you have none you cry about how you are being picked on.
Since it appears that there's an unfortunate inability to actually search and read material at Media Matters, here's a listing of items about Glenn Beck.
Nobody has ever been able to disprove any of the Media Matters research pieces on Beck. Some complain, some deny, but neither can be classified as disproof.
Search Results: Glenn beck | Media Matters for America
Enjoy.
Nobody has ever been able to disprove any of the Media Matters research pieces on Beck. Some complain, some deny, but neither can be classified as disproof.
Search Results: Glenn beck | Media Matters for America
Enjoy.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
The problem with Beck is that he gets most of his analysis wrong. His audience members, most of which don't have a degree in Art History take his word for it and think that he's right.
Here are a few experts responding to him. They are understandably irritated by how Beck treated the art.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/davis/glenn-back-art-critic9-11-09.asp
Glenn Beck, his critics and Rockefeller Centers public art - Seattle Conservative Culture | Examiner.com
Glen Beck Takes on Rockefeller Center - Looking Around - TIME.com
Here's another classic Beck moment where he attempts to tells his viewers that under Obama, the country his turning into an Oligarchy.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H-D_S7WOnjg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H-D_S7WOnjg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>