I get it now. More deflection.

You dont intend to address Beck's offensive comment and the response (and pressure on advertisers) by those who were offended, but would rather play a game of "gotcha" with some dubious comparison by posting unrelated videos.

Hey, that is your right as well. :thumbsup:

I don't have a problem at all with advertisers leaving the glenn beck show. I've never liked the guy and think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He blasted Ron Paul when he had a slim chance of winning the nomination, but now praises him on his show all the time.

The guy is a total snake oil salesmen, but the left has become blind now that Obama is in power.

I think you're hallucinating. Obama is increasingly losing the support of many in his base.

Yep...many of the most liberal supporters have been very disturbed by some of Obama's national security policies, afghan war policies and his willingness to compromise on the recovery act and health care reform.....just as many supporters who are more centrist are upset by his deficits.

There is no "the left"...that is the biggest difference between the big tent Democratic party and Obama supporters (from the blue dogs to the near-socialists) and the small tent, much more ideological rigid Republican party.

those sorts of distinctions amongst different political viewpoints would require that conservatives and their libertarian copies actually make differentiations when they indulge the game of throwing around labels. who knows where that sort of thing would stop? maybe soon the fatuousness of the entire "reverse racism" meme would become obvious too.

Let's see ... Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, but his ears were covered during his "favorite uncle's" racist rants. Now, "them Jews" won't let Jeremiah near Obama.
Obama was caught making racist assumptions about a white cop. Backpedal time!
Obama chose a racist (okay, she's a sexist too) for the Supreme Court. Unless you wear blinders, by now it is obvious that Obama is a racist.

Tell me, did Walmart quit selling Kanye West cds after this little jape?

I knew Wright was coming back. Maybe we should start talking about Lewinski. Or the Keating 5. Or the Iranian hostages.

And for the record, Kanye West is retarded. Everything that comes out of his mouth is more stupid than what came before it. He's not the president and he's not a prominent member of the news media.

The clear instance I remember is that Limbaugh had a TV show back then and he had a timer up in the corner that said something like "America Held Hostage - Day 123". The day was the number of days Clinton had been in office. It was humorous play off the timer that appeared when the Iranians held the Americans in '79. Obviously, people were upset to lose the power base, but Clinton was very much a moderate. If Obama governed the way Clinton did, you would not see this hostility.

This thread is a great example of the strategy "If you've got nothing on defense, go on the offense."

Nice to see Marv has had no trouble fitting Obama into the "But Clinton did it too" paradigm.

That's pretty unfair to take Wright off the table. The point being, it isn't slander if it is true. There is some pretty conclusive evidence that Obama doesn't see "people", he sees "white people", "black people", etc. To me, that is racist. His presence in Wright's church for so long would be valid evidence of that assertion. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable when discussing whether Beck is telling the truth or racebaiting to examine the evidence used to come to his (Beck's) conclusion.

Lewinski was a white girl that sucked off a white president. I don't recall Obama ever publicly calling for Clinton to get hummers from black interns as well- in the interest of affirmative action.

Ya think?

Obama attended the largest church in Chicago where on occasion the minister made racist remarks (if taken out of context) = Obama is a racist.

Obama appoints a women who served on the board of an Hispanic advocacy group and ruled on the "wrong" side of an appeals court affirmative action case = Obama is a racist.

Color of Change, the organization promoting the Beck boycott, advocates to empower the minority community = Color of Change is a racist organization.

is this particular ad pulling campaign in any way similar to how the dixie chicks were treated?

In a thread about how Glenn Beck is losing advertisers? Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with Beck's race-baiting. In a thread about race-baiting in general I can see us talking about him, but this isn't that thread. I don't know why people don't understand this is a red herring. Look at the first response to my post about race-baiting: rahl didn't actually address whether or not Beck was guilty, but he started talking about other people guilty of race baiting, committing a both a tu quoque fallacy and a red herring fallacy. Then DK mentioned MSNBC possibly race-baiting. Then samcol followed suit. Notice how none of them actually talked about Beck?
Similar, but not the same. I'm not familiar with crowds of people burning Beck's books or people making death threats against him.

Now just hang on a second. I'm not trying to deflect anything, I had no idea what race-baiting meant so I asked. I then wanted to point out that when a white guy does it he's a raacist, but when a person of color does it he's a champion...well Bull shit. I understand this particular thread is about Beck and his racist comments. I'm just pointing out that no one of color gets called on the same thing

one way to look at the use of the "reverse racism" canard in all it's forms is as an attempt by those who wield conservative-speak to position themselves as arbiters of the debate. in the process, they try to set the terms of the debate. it's an obvious move for rhetorical power. to the extent that these moves seem to elicit short responses from others, they work for a time. but the fact that there's nothing to the term "reverse racism" or the logics built from it or the attempts to link one or another abitrarily chosen factoid that may or may not have anything to do with glenn beck or the boycott to it gets in the way.

conservatives are not in any position to try to take over the question of how glenn beck's actions are to be evaluated, or to set the terms for thinking about the boycott.

conservative discourse has lost it's power to speak to or for anyone but conservatives.

Also of note: racial awareness and advocacy isn't racism.

not sure if that was directed at me RB, but what your saying is that only white people are racist? there's no such thing as "reverse racism"? I'm not a conservative. I think people like beck and limbaugh are morons, who intentionally spew misinformation in order to scare people into their way of thinking. I know alot of people who take what they say as cold hard fact and it's infuriating. If beck is making racist statements on the air then I agree with the company boycotts. I honestly don't know if he is because I don't watch his show.

rahl---i should have made a separation. the attempt to insert conservative-speak over this debate is an attempt to control the debate itself. that i see no reason not to simply laugh at. conservative-speak isn't in a position to set the terms, particularly not when the action in question is directed against one of the talking heads who helps articulate conservative-speak.

my personal view of reverse racism is that it's utter nonsense. i'm not interested in going through this argument again here, not only because it's been done to death, but even more because doing it would basically hand conservative-speak what it's usage in this context is after---it would situate it as a necessary frame of reference.
it isn't.
it's an arbitrary frame of reference hodge-podged together that really functions to link petit bourgeois resentment in the contemporary period back to the reconstruction period. same idea, different register.
so no, i'm not arguing with you over this point.
you or anyone else.
that's the end of that.

They were called on it in this very thread. Don't strawman. Remember this?
But this thread isn't about black people being called on anything, this is about Glenn Beck race-baiting, which is incredibly irresponsible and is directly responsible for this campaign against him. Now that I posted what race-baiting is, you understand Beck is guilty of race-baiting, right?

Yes

Sweet.

It was actually a response to Cimarron29414's concerns that Beck didn't seem to be guilty of anything but having unpopular opinions. I'm fairly sure the reason this boycott thing is all happening is the "Obama is a racist" or "Obama has a problem with white people" comments. He's certainly not the first person to race bait, and he's not even the worst offender (see the Lincoln-Douglas Debates for what I think was the worst race baiting in American history), but he sure is guilty.

Question, is it also race baiting when Al Sharpton makes the same kinds of statements about white folks?

yes

Fortunately, that question has already been asked and answered, so we can stay on the topic of Glenn Beck.

thanks, i have little interest in this discussion since I am not a fan of race-baiting at all. just was curious when I perused the new posts and say your comment to rahl.

I'm all for the commerce to work the magic it works, voting with your wallet is a great way to get your point across.

Really? I triple-dog-dare you to try to start the "White Entertainment Television" network...see how far you get.

But that's not racial awareness and advocacy. That would be a creation out of ignorance.

Get real. Inversion of ideals and situations seldom gets you "the inverse is true, otherwise the initial concept is a sham." The world isn't that simple and cut & dry.

I confess that my example was poor and didn't represent advocacy, so much as cultural media. I apologize for choosing quickly and poorly. My point is that if you created an non-profit called "the Association for the Advancement of White People", the media would attack you relentlessly as a racist organization. To say there is not a double-standard in this regard is naive.

Of course there is a double standard. That's because of our history. The key thing, however, is to realize that the double standard applied against non-whites is not so bad as it has been in the past—but they are still there.

The term double standard doesn't quite work for me, though. We normally use it to imply an unfairness. For example, it would be a double standard to pay minorities less than whites based on race.

What we're talking about is more of a differing standard, as we wish to view things from both directions, not only what is deemed unfair historically. The standard we apply to issues of blackness differs from what we apply to issues of whiteness, and this because of our history. There is no White Entertainment Network or White History Month for a reason.

this is based on a false dichotomy of ethnic relations. We have multiple Associations for the advancement of Irish descendants, Italian descendants, Jewish descendants, and so on and so forth.

Italian-American Civil Rights League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IRISH AMERICAN HERITAGE

Polish American Historical Association

PAN - Polish American Network Website

There's a reason I've never heard of any of those. Their roles in society are quite small compared to the work the NAACP.

Beck's race-baiting and race based fearmongering are a serious issues. When Beck said President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", what he was doing was not informing people of factually verifiable information, but was inventing an issue where it doesn't exist with the clear intent of causing racial tensions. There are already going to be racial tensions when we elect our first non-100%-white president, but exacerbating it by giving racists validation is inexcusable. This is something people need to take seriously.

More of Glenn Beck's race-baiting...

Because the issues and matters specific to their communities are currently very small too. Irish associations were much more visible and consequential when discrimination against the Irish was more prevalent.

I am not saying that to discuss what ethnic group does this or that, just to point that when someone says "you don't have a white version of this or that Black group," that is incorrect.

/end of derail

I'm coming around to your point that it is indeed race-baiting - encouraging whites to feel threatened by him (based on the fact that they are white). I can see that been a potential side effect of his statements. I am white and I don't believe that Obama is a threat to me because of that fact. He is a threat to me because I have a dollar in my pocket.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------

Not the same, those were minorities (as to origin) coming into this country. I am a member of a German group, whose origin links back to the first German families in my town looking out for each other. The group still exists, but does not serve that purpose any longer - it's a social organization now.

And you're perfectly welcome to have that opinion. We may respectfully disagree about it, but I recognize that you're not trying to cause or inflame hatred. I'd much rather you were a host/personality on Fox News than Glenn Beck. :thumbsup:

That's cause we have all the other 400 channels to claim.

BA-ZING!

HA! Probably not. I wouldn't go as far as these guys go, but I would get as much flak. There's big money in the media for demonizing those with whom you disagree. I can say that I am exponentially better looking that Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh! :P It's amusing how people with faces for radio always seem to make it on TV eventually.

Ya they took faces built for radio then added high definition to the equation :eek:

I agree with Will. I welcome and encourage factual information, from pundits and talkshow hosts, on why Obama would potentially be trying to screw Americans, or why his plans wouldn't work, or why government-run healthcare will suck.

But lies with potentially dangerous consequences I am definitely not OK with. I would not have stood for "Bush hates jews," or other inaccurate things without proper backing up. If somebody actually did have a taped conversation from Obama in office where he did show hatred for an ethnic group, I would definitely like to be informed.

Simply put, this is not their function. "Just the facts" is not something they hope to air.

These shows are meant for one thing: rabble-rousing. These men are demagogues, and they get high ratings for being that way.

Anyone looking for facts--or even rational criticism--need to seek elsewhere (and likely already do).