Glenn Beck had us all fooled.
 

Where some people might have thought he was a extreme Libertarian in search of truth and freedom, exposed himself today as nothing more than a right wing hack in pursuit of keeping the entrenched neocon party in power.

His setup and hack job of TX gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina proved that today.

I never really thought that beck beleived all the idiocy that comes out of his mouth. I think he markets himself well to the extreme right

dksuddeth: You are, perhaps, the only person surprised by this.

maybe on this forum, but in my state, thousands of people were surprised.

The guy was an apolitical top-40 dj for 20 years, then Lou Dobbs light on CNN, and then total right wing conspira-nut on fox. You can smell the opportunism a mile away.

I will say, he has a nice radio voice.

and now we smell the cronyism from even further

Libertarians have a pretty simple non-aggression principle that's spelled out across the internet in simple Helvetica. Glenn Beck has repeatedly supported insane, neoconservative, chicken hawk war policy. He supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now pushing toward Iran and Yemen. I hate to pull a no true Scotsman, but it's antithetical to my understanding of libertarianism to engage in wars of aggression.

SImilarly, libertarians believe in limited government and strong civil liberties if I'm not mistaken. Glenn Beck supports still to this day the Patriot Act and its successors.

Libertarians believe strongly that the government has little to no business interfering with the free market, but Glenn Beck supported and supports the bailout.

BTW, Glenn Beck associated Ron Paul supporters with domestic terrorism. Repeatedly.

He's a neoconservative, Bush's policies on steroids.

He's Talent. After so many years in the industry, I'm not surprised aside from the fact that they are all good at keeping people entertained and tuned in.

Yeah... he exposed Medina for being a 9/11 Truther and for placing banner adds on the Neo-Nazi Stormfront website.

The first time in my life I thanked Beck.

I never understood why people take Glenn Beck (or the rest of his infotainment ilk for that matter) seriously. He's in the entertainment business, he says and does what he needs to to get ratings. His show on Fox is a goldmine right now and the more he appeals to his audience the more the money will continue to roll in.

Honestly he'd probably be to the left of Nancy Pelosi if he thought he could get a bigger audience and more money.

Now that I've listened to the interview, I've got to agree with Seaver.

First time I saw you being a sucker. too bad.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

and you're in the same group with him.

dksuddeth: aww come on, don't lie, it's not the first time you thought I was a sucker ;)

Anyway, what's hard to understand about this: he asked her what she believed about 9/11, and she hemmed and hawed with her answer and avoided flat out denying that she believes the government was involved. It was a classic politician answer, trying to deny she's a truther without lying.

maybe, maybe not.

so from this position, I can assume that ANYTIME Obama, Reid, or Pelosi hems and haws with an answer, we can automatically assume the negative, correct? Because my main issue is with This particular interview is that of the 6+ hours of airtime she's had on local radio stations, not one single time EVER has there been any intimation or rumor of her being a 'truther'. Not one single time..........so how did this 'coincidence' happen now?

dksuddeth: Yes, when Obama, Reid, or Pelosi hems and haws in an answer, they're not giving the full answer either. Isn't that obvious?

that is not what I asked or said.

What I asked was that, with your current position, if Obama, Reid, or Pelosi answer a question with some hemming and hawing, we can automatically assume that their answer is in the negative sense, not that they are not giving the whole answer. And then, when we assume that negativity, we won't have to worry about you being any sort of defender or apologist for the negative answer we assume, you'll just agree with us. do we have that right now?

Glen Beck admitted to "becoming" religious because his then-future wife wouldn't have sex with him before marriage, and wouldn't marry unless he was religious. His words, not mine.


Found the exact quote:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...t-mormon-wife/

Well first of all it depends on the question. This was a very simple question: either you believe the government may have been involved in 9/11 or you don't. If you're incapable of saying that you don't believe the government was involved in 9/11, it's pretty clear that you're a truther.

Onion article related:

He tells the audience what they want to hear. It's too bad that most of it is thinly supported meaningless information in the grand scheme of things.

Why does it matter if she is a 9/11 'truther'? There was a 10+ page discussion here and I'm not sure we came to any real conclusion except there weren't enough publically-available facts to prove either side.

I don't blame him for becoming religious for a hot girl. I'm sure there is a large percentage of men who that applies to. I know I would start going to church if it gets me laid on a regular basis.

I've never thought Glenn Beck believed everything he says...

He's a willing puppet, and laughing all the way to the bank.

dksuddeth: After the hubbub, I went back and listened to this interview. You have this completely twisted. She said EVERYTHING right in Beck's eyes until that question. He asked her "Do you believe the government played a role in bringing down the buildings on 9/11." He asked it TWICE. All she had to say - EITHER TIME - was "No" and she would have had his support. You have no one to blame but Medina. You should thank Beck for asking the question. Frankly, ALL of us should be thanking him for asking that question and giving her the chance to state her position...twice.

Do YOU believe that the federal government attempted to exterminate up to 30K of its people on 9/11?

I don't listen to Glenn Beck and know nothing of Texas politics, so I ask this purely out of curiosity: Does he normally go after 9/11 truthers on his show? Are they are regular target for his rants? Has he been fairly consistent in his dismissal of a 9/11 government conspiracy?

From what I understand, he didn't "go after her". There were whispers around her campaign that she had surrounded herself with people who were all truthers. Since he knew no one else in the media would ask her if SHE was a truther, he did. He was as much putting the whole thing to rest as anything else, he didn't know what her answer would be.

The general position on truthers is this: If you sincerely believe that your government is capable of exterminating it's own citizens, then you need to quit paying your taxes and you need to pick up your pitchfork. I mean, imagine what it says of your government if that is true.

My understanding of Beck's position on truthers is this: It is a ridiculous conspiracy theory and does not warrant any consideration. I think he feels the exact same way about the birthers - it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Truther questions aside, anyone who doesn't think the american government is willing to accept and contribute to american casualties in exchange for the achievement of policy goals hasn't been paying attention to history.

She never had a chance at Governor anyways, she was in a VERY distant 3rd.

For those unaware of Texas Politics. The governor has VERY few jobs. The position holds fewer responsibilities than most Representative positions within the State. The Lt. Governor actually holds the most power, the Governor position is simply a nice title and a coushy job. In the current race the 1st and 2nd place people are both Republicans, and the only reason he's running opposed is due to the Texas Republican party having issues with his executive orders.

For Example: The Senate and House of Reps in the state were both passing bills (running pretty much unopposed through both) that the HPV vaccine would be mandatory for all attending public schools. I dont know anyone who would oppose this measure, and had a 90% approval rating through the states (a few hardcore christians opposed as it'd increase sex in schools). Rick Perry then made an executive order calling for it. This isn't a big deal from the outside but VERY few executive orders have ever been made in the state, it was a grab for credit on his part and pissed off a lot of Reps who spent time writing and putting the bill through.

Thats why it's a split between Perry and Kay Baily Hutchinson. All others are considered Ron Paul's at this point, no one even knew Medina's name until Beck outed her as a 9/11 truther.

I live in Houston and I don't know anyone here who takes Beck literally. I like Beck, but he's an entertainer before anything.

maybe you could explain her 20 point rise in the last few months? or how just 4 points behind KBH is a 'distant' 3rd?

For the ignorant here who just don't pay attention to life as it passes them by, couldn't you give us a couple examples of the american goverment accepting (???) american casualties, and further contributing to american casualties for the achievement of specific policy goals.

The two most obvious are the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident and Pearl Harbor, the attack on which was allowed to proceed unchecked in order to 1: protect MK-ULTRA and the Anglo-American possession of Axis codes, and 2: ensure US entry into WWII -before- England was conquered. The Churchill Gov't made the same decision in th weeks leading up to the firebombing of the city of Coventry.

Thanks, Dunedan. Also, war itself is a perfect example of the government accepting casualties to in the name of enacting policy.

All it takes is for a person in power to accept the notion that it is kosher for them to knowingly send his/her own people to their death in the name of achieving his/her goals. These deaths are justified as being the price one pays to bring about the greater good.

I would expect my government to kill its own people in any situation where there is moderately plausible support for the notion that the greater good could be served by an upfront investment of spilled american blood. Please note that expectation is not the same as agreement or endorsement.

Clearly, the Bush admin had pretty questionable judgment about appropriate ways to invest spilled american blood. I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, just that I wouldn't put it past a bunch of chickenhawk neocons to do the calculations in their head and decide that one teensy-weensy terrorist attack would make a great slide in their "Why we should engage in nation building in the Middle East" powerpoint presentation.

This is off topic; not being in Texas and not watching Beck, I have little to say about this.

However:

I hope that was a typo. Around 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, not 30,000.

To put that in perspective, around 1840 people died due to Hurricane Katrina, around 230,000 in the Christmas 2004 tsunamis. We don't have a death toll in Haiti yet, but it's been estimated that 100,000 were dead within 60 seconds after the earthquake started.

Meanwhile, smoking kills around 430,000 americans a year, and something like 45,000 a year die in car accidents. Wouldn't it be something if we spent even 0.1% of the defense budget on car safety and helping people quit smoking? I wonder why Congre$$ ha$n't thought of doing $omething about that!

I'm sorry but the belief that the US knew Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed ahead of time is complete BS. It actually started by Dewy when he was running against FDR during the war. It was BS, he knew it, and quickly redacted it during the campaign. The codes weren't MK-ULTRA, and the codes which they had weren't military codes but diplomatic. You see, we were in diplomatic talks with the Japanese. We also assumed that if they were to attack us it would be Guam or the Philipeans , we never assumed they could take a full armada accross the Pacific without us knowing. We were caught off guard, end of story.

Churchill deciding not to abandon the fire-bombed cities was accurate, they wanted to protect their knowledge of the codes. Tough choice.

MK-ULTRA wasn't codes, it was the LSD/Marijuana tests.

I don't know what happened in the days following Pearl Harbor, but I wonder why Japan didn't stay on the offensive and attack other places or send in ground troops to take over Hawaii?

Unless FDR sent the message to the Emperor to attack us, I doubt it was an inside job. Japan probably had people on the ground that radioed back that a lot of ships were in the harbor. But their tactics weren't the best in the early days considering what happened in the years following in the Pacific.

Stated well.

The Japanese did attack parts of America. Alaska's Aleutian islands, California, Oregon, British Columbia. The Japanese also launched thousands of explosive balloons from the Japanese islands, some of which made it to the USA, causing little damage and only 6 deaths. The Japanese didn't intend to go to war with us, they just wanted to make a single strike that would knock us out of any war. Their intention was to destroy our Pacific fleet so we couldn't strike back. They didn't invade because they didn't have any islands close enough to do so. Their army wasn't strong enough or large enough to invade as well.

Basically, they had no intentions of fighting us at all. They just wanted to score a quick knock out blow on us.

Not only that, they are forgetting a LOT of people made A FUCKTON of money.

if you have ever been fooled by Glen Beck, it's time self-evaluate