what kind of action ? like after the health care bill passed ? a few threatening letters and bricks through windows ?

Oh I don't know.

The thing is, Beck was boasting how he, as an individual, managed to call hundreds of thousands to the Mall. Truly that is no easy feat (though I would argue it was clearly not just him). He has lots of people who like him and lots who hate him, but it has become quite apparent that people listen to him and are more than willing to participate with him in his quest to "restore the republic."

My question was loaded, I'll grant you that, but it wouldn't take much for Beck to mobilize large groups of people to various ends. If he can get hundreds of thousands to the Mall, I'm sure he can get large groups to do other things. If he wanted to orchestrate various forms of obstructionism to the "Marxist agenda," do you think he could pull it off? And despite what people think of his stance with the Tea Party, who's to say he isn't galvanizing them into an angry, "ain't gonna take it anymore" frenzy?

Oh, and there is this little bit from him as he recapped the rally on his show on August 30: "I believe we're approaching a last call, all aboard. I had nightmares last night, because I felt maybe I wasn't clear enough. The message I feel I'm supposed to give you is get behind the shield of God."

I know it was loaded, I'm susceptible to that sorta thing. ;) but I'm not a 'joiner' mobs of all sorts spook me.

can he pull what off is what I wonder, what is his agenda, or what is the agenda of his masters ? this is sorta why I made the Tea Party vs NAACP thread. it seems there is alot of effort going on towards misinformation, misdirection and division of the populace, ala what you see in the vid Wes Mantooth posted with the guy on the stump raging about Blacks, Jews and Freemasons. like what Roachboy has also been pointing out.

honestly I don't have much to say about this stuff, I hope to learn something from reading your conversations here.
the vapo rub vid has spawned another question in my mind though, hopefully just more paranoia though....:paranoid:

The thing to consider though is how much power he REALLY has. Its one thing to be a popular late afternoon talking head who puts on right wing rallies but how many of his listeners are willing to follow him over a cliff for the cause? I would imagine it would be a very small percentage of our overall country (lets remember roughly 50% of the voting public is on the left). Those rallies look impressive on tv but in a nation of 300 million whatever people its a drop in the bucket and lets also consider how many of those people go just because. There's a big difference between the housewife in Nebraska who's goes to see his live show and knits while he's on tv and somebody actually willing to take up his cause and do something about it (those would be the nuts I mentioned in the post above and they are scary).

I would assume (without putting words in our good friend Baraka's mouth) that a call to action would be something much bigger then a rally or protest...taking up arms maybe, responding with violence? But then what? Glenn Beck gets fired, maybe winds up in prison, nothing gets accomplished anyway and we never see or hear from him again. I doubt he could influence a major political shift in America either, the Republicans are still strongly in control of the Right and know they can't win elections with nothing more then the fringe, the Dems are never going to follow him and the moderates think he nuts. In the end whats he really going to be able to do that we Americans haven't seen before?

what happens when GB pisses off Opra ? :rolleyes: sorta kidding but really, I wonder ?

also, this whole thing I found quite weird and interesting.
The Saudi Prince, The Mosque And Fox News : NPR

This line of baseless fear-bating is nothing less than irresponsible. Do you blame Al Gore for the actions of James Jae Lee at the Discovery Channel? After all, Al recently called all of us to "action"... and this guy believes in everything Al Gore says. So did Mr. Gore call this dumb-ass to action? Aren't you worried about Al galvanizing folks into an angry, "ain't gonna take it anymore" frenzy? Well at least one of Al's minions apparently did get worked up into a frenzy and acted out. Are there more just now bubbling to the surface? "Oh dear, why does that crazy Al Gore want to kill us all?" ...ridiculous.

Although no Tea-Party types are taking hostages, there's always a crazy person somewhere that's going to act out. Just like the dead guy at the Discovery Channel, he was a crazy person acting out on "his own". The convenient "potentially violent mob" stereotype smells like the same lynch-mob rhetoric that immediately flooded the media, attempting to blame Tea-Party types for brutally murdering a Kentucky Census worker... I meant tosay suicide. oops...How did that happen?

Inventing mobs of fictitious angry white-folks... eek! Cliché much?

Irresponsible.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

Which lie? Who's lie?

"During his investigation, Scott (Baker) uncovered new information about the request ABC made to Amtrak. He even received an e-mail from Whoopi Goldberg."

Video investigative report: Seven-Minute Slam: The Inside Story of Glenn Beck’s Ambush on The View

Although Amtrak does not allow the reserving of cars/seats, somehow they did allow ABC to reserve seating in advance for Barbara Walters, Whoopie, and company. Apparently Barbara Walters knew this prior to Beck's appearance on the View. When confronted with evidence, Walters, Goldberg, and ABC refused to apologize or make a clarifying statement.

In Beck's case, I'm talking about a direct and actual correlation between parties. You know, like his rally. Also, I'm not talking about terrorist actions. "Obstructionist" doesn't not necessarily mean people have to die. It happens all the time where no one gets hurt.

If you want to claim something to be baseless and irresponsible, you need to take responsibility yourself for demonstrating it is the case. Instead you decided to speculate about a connection between a guy with a gun and a manifesto and a politician-turned-activist who made a film, and then assume it to be a similar situation to the one I'm discussing. You know, a situation with an actual, direct correlation between parties.

Next time, try writing about the same things I'm I writing about rather than producing a false equivalence. If you don't quite understand what I'm getting at in any of my posts, please ask for a clarification. At the very least, try to focus on what's there rather than bringing other topics into it. I'm open to criticism; I just kindly ask for it to be fair.

Oh, and the angry white people are real. I've seen them.

One it doesn't sound like all the ladies knew about ABC's actions. Two Beck claimed, in a weird "evil" sounding mimicking voice that Ms. Walters called him over the to them. The ladies pointed out he in fact approached them... when asked why he would LIE about that he states "I have no idea."

Catching beck in a lie really isn't that hard. For example he stated one night that Fox News was the only media outlet bold enough to air footage of the Israeli flotilla raid. The Daily Show of course showed that footage and then aired footage from just about every other major news channel airing footage of the raid.

Another easily proved lie is back when Obama was sworn in Beck stated “I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.” But as many have point out that's not true at all... 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. He's either lying when he says he checked, because a simple search of "US Presidential oaths" will get you this info. Or he's simply lying about the other POTUS not using a bible. Either way he's lying.

I could go on, Beck provides plenty of material, but if you want to believe what he's saying feel free and my guess is no one's going to convince you otherwise.

People defending Beck and his lies remind me of people on the left defending Micheal Moore. Every time a lie was exposed there was a reasonable explanation for it or it was a simple "misstatement" or he "misspoke." The old "he accidental lied, so it doesn't count" defense.

I'm sorry, did I miss Al Gore getting a daily radio and TV show that is watched by millions?

It would be lovely if Gore's detractors held Beck to the same high standards of honesty and integrity as they hold Gore.

no shit.
I mean, ditto.

So, a year or two ago, Al Gore called for "civil disobedience" to prevent the creation of new coal plants.


Last week, a man took Al Gore's encouragement, using a "bomb and a gun" to terrorize a television station until the police were forced to end his life. (Link was chosen specifically for the giggle-factor.)

FOXNews.com - Gunman Shot and Killed After Hostage Standoff at Discovery Channel Building

Can anyone find a first-hand account of Beck calling for "civil disobedience"? I can't find one.

That's a non-sequitur, Cimarron, and I'll point out again the false equivalence of this current tack with Al Gore and the Discovery Channel attacker's "civil disobedience."

Can we stick with the topic, please?

It wasn't a question of whether he has, but I find that he tends to work in implication and nuance. As far as I can tell, doesn't tell people what they should do, except invest in gold and get right with God, and that sort of thing. He at least says to his viewers that they should "wake up" and "be concerned" and "see that the country is being ruined by Marxists, progressives," etc.

The game-changer was his rally. He stepped out of the studio and into the street, and hundreds of thousands of people followed him. His influence shouldn't be underestimated.

You mean like this...

LOON WATCH: Glenn Beck Show issues a wingnut call to arms • videosift.com

Where he gets some actor to spew 'code words" like the "time for talk is over" "our enemies will fear it" all while dressed up as Thomas Paine?

All this type of blow hard bull shit has lead people to show up at rallies with signs such as "We came unarmed... this time."

Recently Becks been hyping a work of fiction by Arthur Gardner, it's basically a call to arms and ends with the line "We're everywhere. . . . The fight starts tomorrow." The book, The Overton Window, is basically an anti-government novel in the same vain as The Turner Diaries by William L. Pierce. I wonder how long it will be before it produces another Timothy McVeigh?

Beck and his right wing nut jobs have already lead to people like Richard Poplawski who shot several Pittsburgh police officers because he was convinced by listening to them "the nation was secretly controlled by a cabal that would eradicate freedom of speech, take away his guns and use the military to enslave the citizenry."

I'm not really going to engage in the quarterly "OMG, I hate Glenn Beck! / OMG! I do to!" circle jerk you guys have going on.

The thread had morphed into comparing and contrasting the influence of two specific people on society, as well as the actions those influenced people might or do partake in. I'd say a Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award winner has the ear of the people and the influence is equivalent.

See, BG, this is why it is relevant. Tully believes Beck will create another T.M. because Beck has asked people (GASP!) to go to church, and to tell the truth in their dealings, and to give even more to those in need. What horror! I didn't see the rally, but I am trying to tie this post to the OP.

Al, on the other hand, has explicitly called for the breaking of laws, and that is what we got.

The only false equivalence is your stating that the "nuances" and "implications" of Beck's speeches are somehow identical to the actual calling for criminal acts - a thing which Al Gore has done on more than one occasion.

You guys can get back to it now. Whose turn were you on?

For the record I do not hate GB, or anyone else for that matter. To me hate says a lot about about the person doing the hating then the person being hated.


I do find his rhetoric and calls for action concerning.

Tully, in fairness, I edited after you posted. I apologize and wanted to direct your attention to that fact.

Ok, I'll play...

You think I'm concerned due to Beck suggesting people "to go to church, and to tell the truth in their dealings, and to give even more to those in need?" Umm, no I'm concerned when he has people dress up like Thomas Paine and spew spiteful anti-government language. It makes me concerned because people listen to it then fly planes into IRS buildings and shoot police officers.

As for his call for people "to tell the truth in their dealings" that pretty much flies in the face of his constant lying, doesn't it?

I don't understand why you guys are making the link between Beck and Gore's followers going postal. The criminally insane will latch on to anything, whether that be Beck or Gore or anyone saying something they can agree with.

Gore made a call for "civil disobedience" and he inspired a guy to take people hostage. Civil disobedience is clearly not arming yourself and taking a building over. Beck wrote a fiction book and if that inspires a guy to go batnuts, I wouldn't blame Beck for it. Batnuts Man was already insane and ready to act violently, he just needed something to fight for.

Just because Beck has thousands (millions?) of followers, doesn't they will all follow him into a fight. In fact, I'd be willing to make a bet saying less than .5% of them would do anything violent.

Phrases Beck has used: "wake up" could mean to educate yourself. "Be concerned" could mean that the country is going no where fast, we should be concerned about that.

Tully, I'm surprised that you ou of all people took that Beck/Thomas Paine video out of context. "Time for talk is over" and "our enemies will fear it" were both in reference to the DC rally Beck had. He's saying our enemies will fear our free speech and ability to say what we want; "time for talk is over" means instead of only talking about things, we should get up and try to be the change we want to see.

I don't think I'm taking it out of context at all. He using a familiar figure from an armed revolution, our armed fight for freedom from the British, to call people to action. Maybe you hear "time for talk is over" and you hear it "means instead of only talking about things, we should get up and try to be the change we want to see.' I know from talking to a lot of other people that is not what they hear. One of my favorite dive shops here is owned my a small group of folks from Texas. They like Beck and when they hear him they do not hear what you're hearing. In fact they have a jar on the counter where anytime someone kills a lion fish, a predatory fish not native to the Caribbean, 20 peso is added in the pot. The label on the outside of the jar used to read "support the Playa del Carmen Fire Dept." It now has the AOF on it. When I asked what that stood for one of the shop's owners told me "Assassinate Obama Fund." I said "you're joking, right?" "OK, let's say I'm kidding."

Stuff like that concerns me.

I'm sorry, Cimarron, this whole thing with Gore is a nonstarter for me. You're not even talking about civil disobedience.

Out of all the people you've talked to who like Beck and make jars like that, how many do you think would really act out in the wrong way?

To me, people who bring signs saying "we came unarmed...this time" and have "AOF" jars do it for shock value. "Hey, look at me, I made a clever sign." That type of thing. If it came down to a choice and there were only two options: take violent, aggressive action or wait and see what happens, what do you think most Beck followers would do? They're not going to start riots and kill people, that's for sure. It's easier for people to sit and watch, 99.99% of the time that's what will happen. Sure, Captain Insano will be inspired by a mis-quoted Beck line, but everyone else? Nah, they won't do jack shit. Cost is greater than the benefit to the people making stupid signs and "AOF" jars.

Tully,

I think it is only fair to make a distinction between people who directly attribute their acts to inspiration from another person and those who do not. People sharing similar political views with a famous person does not mean they were inspired by them - unless they state that they were.

I find what your dive shop buddies did repugnant. I would have torn that sticker of the front of the jar.

If you don't think there's a significant number of nut jobs who would gladly engage in violence to further their agenda, visit the comment section of a Fox News article. They're too cowardly to initiate any action themselves, but they're more than willing to go to the gun cabinet if someone else calls them to arms.

Good Lord MAN! Why are we even discussing whether Beck followers might or might not follow him into armed conflict when he hasn't even suggested that they do? Tell you what, when Beck calls on us to grab a rifle and meet him at the Capital, then we can speculate as to how many will show up.


Tully,

Does it matter that that guy was making Paine videos for years before Beck showed one of his videos on his show? Here's one from July, 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Funbobba.../5/pKFKGrmsBDk

My only point is that Beck didn't finance or encourage this guy. He just found it on the internet and showed it on his show. I think that point is relevant, as you implied Beck was speaking of insurrection through his paid actor.

You actually believe they mean what they comment? That mindless trolling shit is on CNN too, it's everywhere. Don't try to make it seem like Fox readers/watchers are the only ones spilling hate on the comment sections.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/GifsadJ...s2/MEDIA21.JPG
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City. Destroyed by explosive-filled truck put there by conservative Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols due in large part to anti-government fearmongering on the right, specifically the NRA's assertions about how President Clinton was going to take people's guns. 168 dead, nearly 700 injured. Should this rest squarely at the feet of the NRA? Should the NRA take responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing? If you're going to lay the attack on the Discovery Channel at Al Gore's feet, why shouldn't we apply that same line of thinking to other examples of domestic terrorism? What about Joseph Stack? What about Scott Roeder? What about James von Brunn? Or Jim David Adkisson? I can go on all day long. I can link these sick people to Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the slew of hate-mongers on the right who don't have an altruistic, caring bone in their body. All they want is their side to win so they get more money.

Al Gore is trying to save the planet and he gets this shit?

Tell you what, Will, I'll throw down the gauntlet. You go ahead and do what you said - directly link every single one of those people to at least one of those on your list. To keep it fair/equivalent, it needs to be a two way match.

All I want is a first person video or written word verifiably attributed to the criminal where he says he was inspired by one of them. I also want a first person video or written word verifiably attributed to any one of those famous people you mention who has called for "civil disobedience." Obviously, that "call to arms" needs to have occurred prior to the act of violence.

This all should be fairly simple, considering the copious notes you have taken on these right wing lunatics.

In lieu of this project, you could simply agree that the acts of criminals who DON'T state their inspirations can not be fairly linked to famous people just because they share similar views....and that people who DO state their inspirations CAN be linked to people who call for civil disobedience.

Third option is to ignore this post, you guys have gone bat-shit crazy and I just need to laugh you off.

Because that's what you did with Al Gore above? Nice try. If you get to use a completely dishonest reading of "civil disobedience" to link Al Gore to something he clearly had nothing to do with, I get to use the same deceitful, intentionally dishonest tactic. With your line of reasoning, I could probably conclude Sarah Palin's responsible for the sacking of Rome.

I'm surprised you missed the point of my post. I'll try to include a neon sign next time.

I really don't know what % are serious or how many would take actual action. I have two thoughts on that subject... it's doesn't take too many people to blow up a building, McVeigh proved that and two- almost all of these people talking that way now were the same ones saying stuff like "like him or not he's the POTUS, out of respect of the office if nothing else it's unpatriotic to speak ill of him." Now Bush Jr. is out and Obama is in and suddenly it's funny to make make stupid signs and "AOF" jars.

Plus I really do think the more Beck et el hammer on this the more likely we're going to see more stuff like the Pa. cop shootings.

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

No I really don't care how long he's been making them, Beck gave him national air time to do it and I think it was wrong.

And for the record when people on the left talked about (yes, even jokingly) about killing Bush Jr.I thought they were wrong too.

Not dishonest. Did Lee take Gore's invitation to the extreme? Yes. And that's why it is irresponsible to use those words. Regardless, I don't think you will find any of those people who explicitly said they were inspired by someone on the list. You won't even get a one-way match. If you find it, I want a neon sign, damn it.

---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

Well, considering that video had been viewed around 5 million times before Beck put it on his show, I'd say he didn't give the man a platform any larger than the one he already had.

Look, we can do this all day - and I don't want to.

I get it, Beck is a horrible person to you guys because his views don't represent your views. That's fine. We'll all vote in November and then we'll deal with those consequences.

No Beck's a horrible person because he consistently lies and uses his national TV platform to make jokes about poisoning the speaker of the house and "pondering " "what if a million people stopped paying taxes?" Not to mention calling the POTUS a racists. Again what happened to all the conservatives who thought it was disrespectful to make derogatory statements directed at the POTUS? Especially during time of war, right?

Reverse the political leaning of the current POTUS, if he were a conservative and an entire TV network devoted as much time as Fox does currently insulting him and flat out being disrespectful would you seriously not think that was wrong? I mean I remember pundits like Randi Rhodes making some pretty far out there comments regarding Bush Jr. and conservatives went nuts. It was wrong when she did it and it's wrong when Beck does it now.

But you're right we could do this all day everyday... I have no interest. You want to believe Beck, fine by me. Myself I'm not buying his "Aw shucks" act.

I don't "believe" him. I have a system of values which were established long before Glenn Beck existed in our visibility. Beck has not altered those values.

Well at least we can agree on that... I don't believe him either.

curious--i spent a few days in the wilderness of meat-space without recourse to the net and when i return not only is this thread still alive but it's now taken a turn into that projection-space that has served the right so well, it seems---finding isolated factoids that can be (mis)interpreted in such a way as to imply (or say) that what conservatives are doing is reactive (so not radical) and anyway just mirrors what the Bad People are already doing (so is necessary). one function of this is that it enables the illusion that conservatism as a whole has not been shifted significantly to the right.

you can see beck et al playing a similar game with their emphases on imaginary losses of imaginary virtue which can be restored if only americans would get down on their knees. the question of who's standing in front of those americans is left open, but he calls himself "god" in the glennbeckian context and i expect the koch brothers have hired many focus groups to determine whether it's ok for people to call them god. fired the groups that didn't say yes likely.

but i digress.

Again, what lies? In response to the ABC Barbara Walters/Whoopie episode you mentioned before, they were given an itinerary from ABC which included their scheduled limo arrangements and a police escort to their reserved seats on the Amtrak train. What other facts are required to demonstrate that Walters and Goldberg knew of these arrangements in advance? Beck had not lied.

So what are the other "lies" you are referring? From comedy bits where they often joke about purposely absurd things to fuel the leftist bloggers and pundits? They do it all the time... "okay, here's something for the bloggers listening in your parents basement, ready at your computers, eating Cheetos in your underwear..." and then "blah, blah, blah". Then BINGO!... minutes later, they're reporting the absurd statements purposely fed to them by Beck. The Huffington Post falls for these special "quotes" every day. Beck and crew will even even say... "OK, here's one for the Huffington Post"... They (THP) post this stuff as headlines. It's hilarious fun! It's really very entertaining to sit back and watch the media go ape-shit over this stuff.

You guys who hate (Beck) so much should just admit you don't like the investigative accuracy and persistence from the likes of Beck and Andrew Breitbart. With their limited resources, they've produced some amazing investigative reporting that mainstream "real journalists" should be doing if they truly were "real journalists"... and not in the bag for all things Soros.

The calling of the president a racist may have been in bad taste. It came from a week-long examination of Obama's positions on reparations to be paid to blacks from whites, statements from the book "Dreams of my Father", and his 20 year membership of a church which teaches Black Liberation Theology. Perhaps a bit over the top? Could be...I'll give you that. It's indeed fashionable these days calling someone a "racist". Like saying "yo" and "dawg".

So why did he state no other POTUS had ever not used a bible to take the oath of office? Look we could do this all day and I'm not interested. As I've said before you want to believe him, fine go for it. I really don't care... but there's no way I believe him as an investigative reporter... something even he claims not to be in the "View' segment.

Really that's a new fashionable thing? Like "Hey, my main man you racists, what up?" I don't live in the US but I never heard the cruise ship folks or tourist use the word "racist" in a joking manner. I have heard them make racist statements directed at the locals, which is kind of sad. I followed one couple who remarked "this would be a nice place if it wasn't for all the Mexicans." Dumb asses... you're in Mexico, probably going to be Mexicans here.

"Obama is a Socialist" is a good start

Not really. It's too muddied. There's enough to point at and say, "he's more socialist than Bush here" - which, of course, isn't the same as "he's a socialist" - to make this a less-than-obvious lie, if it's even close enough to being a lie.

I'd hope there's a more clear lie. I'd be surprised if there wasn't.

It seems enough to me, from the little I've seen of Beck, to say that he makes terrible arguments. It hurts more than helps to claim lies in debateable areas. It sets up a "that's the best they've got?" kind of mindset.

How about using vics vapo-rub under his eyes to fake crying ?

I agree it's much easier to prove he lied about if any other POTUS had ever taken the oath on anything but a bible. Or simply watch the "View" clip. At about 2:40 into it Joy (whatever her name is) asked him why he would lie about whether Ms. Walters approached him or he approached them and he says "I don't know." Or when he claimed CO2 wasn't a poison because it occurs naturally. Lots of poisons occur naturally. Just like beck's lying, it just comes naturally. But most of the things that are out and out lies are usually small things. But he uses them, blended with a lot of opinion and a few facts, to paint a picture. A picture that makes a lot of Americans appear pretty un-American.

What he does isn't different then any other talking head on TV or radio. Right or left, red or blue they all do it. They skirt the truth and bend it just enough to make it "gray." Most of the time you really can't verify or disprove their statements to any "true believer."

I have the feeling that Beck operates more in half-truths than outright lies. I'd bet dollars to donuts that his whole operation could be downed by an eighth grader with a netbook, sitting next to him onscreen.

Here again you have an example where it could easily be seen as lying or it could be seen as him simply hamming it up for a photo shoot. Personally I find his comment that "it's not working, my eyes are getting use to it" interesting. I find it very difficult to believe any ones eyes could get used to it if it were a one time thing. But I'll bet money that his follows and "believers" will see this as nothing more then a pro-mo photo shoot where he's seen hamming it up for the cameras.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

I think you're going to need a college aged journalism student.... eighth graders have better things to spend their time on.

I'm only going to explain this once because I feel like spending more time on it would just be feeding a troll. Civil disobedience is a resistence to a specific laws or other governmental demands. If I refuse to comply with a law to protest that specific law, I am engaged in civil disobedience. The only possible way anyone could interpret this man's actions as any kind of civil disobedience is if he was protesting murder laws. He absolutely was not. There is no way at all to interpret what this man did as civil disobedience even if you accept this man was emotionally unstable.

Al Gore had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened, even in the most abstract sense. He's no more linked to this than I am linked to the fall of the Egyptian empire or you to the fall of Lindsay Lohan. It's not that your argument is weak, it's that it's nonexistent. No argument can be made, short of new and compelling evidence, to support your assertion.

Simple question, what is he? He certainly is not a free market capitalist. Is he some kinda hybrid. and if so a hybrid of what? And what is he closer to? Of he major legislative victories, have they been steps in the direction of socialism or steps in the opposite direction?

On a side note, I am very curious why socialists are not proud to be what they are? Can you name any proud socialists currently on the US political scene? Capitalist don't seem to have any shame, I am one, and I don't understand the other side.

I view him as a liberal. He's generally a centrist...left of centre ever so slightly.

I didn't think the U.S. political scene had any socialists. Is that allowed?

As for proud liberals....could we say Dean, Kucinich, and the late Ted Kennedy? Maybe Al Gore?

It should also be noted that there are many socialists who aren't opposed to capitalism and free market exchange. There are entire political parties here in Canada who are such socialists.

Yeah they are allowed and do exist (so do communists and a million other political ideologies) and from time to time they even get elected. I think Sen Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Socialist or at least a self described one but like any third party they just completely get lost in shadows of the big two.

Maybe because the US is a capitalist society and socialism is viewed negatively by the vast majority.

And there are all kinds of socialist groups who are proud to say "I'm a socialist." You just have to look for them and do some research.

Assuming a socialist falls under the general concept of a liberal and that (in current US vernacular), a socialist is never a conservative - you have not really said anything. Drill it down another few levels for us. A centrist is nothing, on big questions, you can not be on the fence. A person has to believe wealth redistribution is a proper role for government or not. what is a centrist point of view on something like that?

Yes, but they won't come out of the closet for some reason, I don't get it. Sure I understand the history and the McCarthy era, but this is 2010. As a capitalist I would love to openly discuss political and economic issues with a real socialist. I can not find any who will admit to being a socialist.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

Being a greedy capitalist pig is view negatively. Being an arrogant SOB is view negatively. Being a card carrying NRA member is view negatively. Displaying a ego the size of Texas is view negatively. All of which I proudly claim.:thumbsup: But that's just me, and I don't care what others think of me.

I will watch where I step, now that I am on notice.

A centrist to me isn't somebody who sits on the fence over big issues but is usually more likely to be open to ideas coming from either side instead of dismissing them out right because of the letter next to the name. But often once they do decide which side they agree with on any given issue they tend to hold firm on that belief...sort of like a person who is maybe pro gun and pro choice or fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Anyway I actually know a lot of socialists...I especially knew a lot of them when I was younger and in college but I think the ideology is often so at odds with our way of life as they grow older they simply adapt to the system and "socialist" is slowly replaced with the much broader "liberal"

I don't want to write a treatise on modern liberalism in a thread about Glenn Beck, but to put it in a nutshell, liberals tend to support the idea of a social safety net, that people shouldn't suffer falling through the cracks of a purely capitalist system, that the state has some role in striving toward an egalitarian society. You get things like social security, health care, unemployment insurance and support, and welfare. They believe that people should have a minimum standard of living. They also support the idea of progressive taxation to help pay for it. This is where you get into "redistribution of wealth," but that has become a pejorative term. Liberals believe in capitalism and the markets, but they see the stability of a mixed economy. But you also get support for women's rights, gay rights, and the like, so there's clearly a social component as well.

Being a socialist in the U.S. must be difficult. Even democratic socialism gets much resistance. Hell, when you get the consensus that liberalism is socialism, what are you supposed to think? It'd be like taking right-of-centre/moderate conservatives and calling them fascists.

Centrist in the big picture. If you add all of his policies up and what his take is on issues, he is a centrist. Of course if you break it down to any specific issue, you'll find he is either one or the other, more liberal or more conservative.

I think that's what Baraka was saying.

More or less. Liberalism occupies that space between socialism and conservatism. It came about as a surge towards bettering the life of the common citizen on the backdrop of exploitation and injustices meted out by the ruling elite.

It came to a point in the 19th century, when the public began pressuring government for changes to the way businesses operated (i.e. treated their employees). You had economies made up of robber barons who were, ironically, protected by the government via tariffs and other protective "nanny state" policies established for the benefit of businesses. Through the establishment of labour rights and laws, the workers, too, eventually received protection.

I think this is what drives Beck mad. This idea of a mixed economy. I think he would rather a pure capitalist or free-market economy, which is just as viable as a pure communist economy. Of course he'd want that. I'm sure he's pretty wealthy.

Yeah I think it does too, he wants the US to operate the way HE thinks it should because it benefits him and only him (and I guess those like him) which completely ignores both reality...hell its just plain old bull headed stupid. Personally I've never understood how anybody can choose one side or the other, assume it has all the answers, dismiss all other ideas and opinions and somehow that's going to deliver us into some kind of utopian nation. No nation is going survive very long let alone thrive when one singular ideology rules all without question and yet its a very common for people to believe that.

I don't think the problem is with the economic system in the U.S. (it's ingrained as a mixed economy, which is good). The problem stems from the world becoming a hell of a lot more competitive over the past 20 years or so. Combine that with a post–Cold War headache, a burgeoning debt, a global recession, and massive social change brought about by communication technology, and you get conservatives who freak out like Glenn Beck is.

Rather than playing on America's strengths, he would rather stick to the formula of cut taxes, cut spending, but without any real plan. Yes, you need to balance the books, but America is already paying low taxes compared to other nations, and cutting taxes at a time where debt is one of your worst problems doesn't sound like a good idea.

It's like telling an individual to request a pay cut and spend a bit less to help pay for his debt.

Neither you, I, nor Glenn Beck can truthfully say that the president is a socialist or not. It's opinion. Where's the proof? A membership card?

However - based on the president's own words, deeds, and associations, you may have a harder time demonstrating otherwise. This is one of those "if a duck quacks" scenarios where deeds speak louder than words.

So again, where is the lie?

Like a Libertarian? I was in the Libertarian Party once, I did not consider them to be centrists.

Are you saying their personal greed for money, property and individual security sort of takes over, but that they still want to balance that with trying to control other people's, money, property and individual security?

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

I support a safety net for people, I don't speak for Beck but I bet he does too. the difference is in the details of the safety net and who/how it is administered.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

Here is the visual picture a centrist presents to me based on what you wrote:

A drunkard trying to get from point A to point B wildly weaving left to right and right to left, at the end perhaps you can look back and say his travel was in the center of the road, but I don't see it that way. So for example, to have a guy talk about social justice but do nothing about "don't ask, don't tell", may mean to you that he is centrist, but to me it says he lack conviction and has no real core values. You either support social justice and equal rights for all or you don't. Obama is the President, he needs to act like it - he needs to be decisive not a centrist.

Or perhaps begin by demanding the government act responsibly with with our money and stop spending like an unsupervised child with its parent's credit card. Discipline begins with the individual. Honor, integrity, and compassion must guide our decisions. Until our leadership can demostrate these core competencies, what fool would hand them another dime? I'll take my chances with the free market anytime over a bloated undisciplined fat kid with his parent's ATM PIN (fat kid = Obama and congress).


If you want to better understand or classify the president's "isms", I'd look to the actions of Woodrow Wilson as an example. Obama is a classic re-branded Fabian progressive.

I don't think you understand what "center" or "centrist" means. Let's say I'm in the middle of the political spectrum, a centrist. I still have opinions, ideas, and convictions. I believe in things. You think that a centrist sits in the middle, does nothing, believes nothing, doesn't care. Your definition of being a centrist is wrong from what it really is.

A centrist is just as valid as a conservative or liberal. Being a centrist means you agree with some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas. You can be a decisive centrist or an indecisive centrist, the same with liberals and conservatives. A centrist doesn't subscribe to one side or the other, but that doesn't mean they don't believe anything.

If you're a liberal, you agree with most liberal ideas. If you're a conservative, you agree with most conservative ideas. If you're a centrist, you cherry pick from each side (nothing wrong with that right?)

http://hibalazs.net/uploads/2008/06/...calcompass.gif

http://www.politicalcompass.org/imag...aries_2008.png

and your point is... ?

really, all this blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah from the right is about red-baiting. good old fashioned all fascist american red-baiting. and it's no surprise given that the daddy of the koch brothers founded the john birch society.

what's a bit more surprising is discovering that despite the myriad economic catastrophes caused by conservative economic ideology that people still repeat it as if it has anything to say about the way out of the current mess we're still in. it's more a map of the ways of thinking that caused alot of the mess. but the right has somehow managed to persuade itself that it's not linked to the policies of the bush administration or to the history of the new ultra-right since the reagan period. go figure.

that Obama is right of center, just like most of us have been saying

translation:
liberal social progressivism = good
conservative capitalism = bad
... that sound about right?

i believe that's roachboy's personal opinion, yes. Doesn't mean you're not entitled to yours

not exactly otto.

translation: the economic ideology you rehearse is responsible for the disastrous economic reality all around us--so why should anyone take it--and by extension you, since you choose to repeat it---seriously at all?

and it makes no sense that anyone would vote for candidates who espouse exactly the ideology that is responsible for this mess---they'd be the last people capable of fashioning ways to address it.

So as long as it's different, then it's better? Which economic ideology do I practice? The one where I don't live beyond my means? Where I plan and budget for the care and welfare of my family? Donate my time, talent, and hard earned money in the service of others in need? Are we talking about that economic ideology? If so, then yes. And I expect our leadership to honor their office by ruling with these similar basic values.

How does that fit into your world of stereotypes?

That economic theory is fine, and I wish the government lived within it means and taxed people the right amount when it needs the money, instead of lowering taxes to boost the economy and then say that is the new standard.

The problem I have with Beck and the conservative tea party is that I am afraid of them lowing taxes for corporations and the upper 10%, while sitting by while the rest of America turns into Detroit and they don't care. Now if the Libertarian tea party led by Ron Paul took office, or a Green tea party that would really lead to personal freedom from government and corporations, that would be another story.

Ah... a consensus! So Hitler, Stalin, all conservatives, the Green Party, Gandhi, and Obama all got together and filled out a questionaire? No doubt labcoats and clipboards were involved.

Thread seems to have taken yet another turn.

Derwood, what is the source for your graphs?

i'll dig up the links. The bottom one was from a site that came out around the time of the 2008 primaries. It asked you to answer a battery of questions about a variety of social, economic and policy issues, then plotted you on a graph based on your answers. The graph I showed had real politicians plotted based on where THEY stood on the given issues

Yes, and we'll know nothing about Obama until he fills out a questionnaire for us. :rolleyes:

Hitler, Stalin, and Ghandi are dead. So we'll never know their stance on anything. Pity.

I am still trying to get past this:

..."the investigative accuracy and persistence from the likes of Beck and Andrew Breitbart. With their limited resources, they've produced some amazing investigative reporting..."

Otto, I guess I was asleep again and missed the insightful, honest and objective reporting of these two intrepid "journalists."

We all know this isn't entirely the case, and even Beck has admitted as much. These are commentators, not journalists whose modus operandi is objective reporting. Beck has admitted that. Calling commentators journalists is like calling columnists journalists.

Beck would like to believe he's being insightful and honest, but he knows he's not being as objective as a journalist. Let's call a spade a spade.

He frequently admits they are not journalists and routinely begs for investigative reporters to look in to the things they uncover. He maintains an open challenge to prove him right or wrong on a topic. If wrong, he will lead with the correction. They also created a direct phone line for the White House to call with corrections.

Again... there's frequent references here to Beck's honesty. And again and again it turns out that these claims are emotionally driven rather than factual. It's OK to dislike someone deeply. But perpetuating the perception that someone is dishonest doesn't make it so without substantiaton. You are entitled to to your opinions.

I read that and really just assumed why bother. When dealing with people who think beck et el are accurate, insightful or honest it's pretty much a lost cause I think.

I mean using Beck's logic and caulk board I could connect the hail bop comet, the ice age and the idiots on the "Jersey Shore" to the raise and fall of Obama's poll numbers.

But his "believers" seem to eat it up with a "wow, that's so true!" awe about them.

Anyone who believes Libertarianism is equivalent to Anarchy is too ignorant to debate.

As soon as I saw that graph, I disregarded it...as all others should.

So what about telling people he checked and no other Potus had ever been sworn in on anything but a bible? Or claiming CO2 wasn't a poison? What about the simply fact he stated Walters approached him when he in fact approached her... something he himself admitted wasn't true?

Well... you are a sleepy-head. There's time to catch up.

Well I think taken to an extreme it could become anarchy just as authoritarian societies could become fascists.

I'd still like to know the sourse or study behind the graphs but I wouldn't dismiss them entirely over that wording.

otto---it's always a pleasure to see you trying to dress up your projection-based relationship to "journalists" like glenn beck or breitbart as if they are somehow based on something else, laughable fictions like journalism or integrity. what these two buffoons have in common, though, is that they allow people like you to float in the warm yellow liquid of a sense of solidarity and to imagine yourself a bubble of foam amongst lots of others, all cozy and nice and together against those mean nasty socialists/liberals/progressives/terrorists/devils/pinkos blah blah blah. shame about the metal handle overhead. someday someone's going to pull it.

I don't believe I said Beck is always accurate. He's as human as anyone. He consistantly makes corrections for errors. A lie requires the intent of deception. However, in your dismissive statement, it's evident that you have no first-hand basis for your opinion. Is it your intent to be inaccurate or are you just content with sources that are emotionally appealling?

You're defending Beck and his antics and you think it's possibly my intent to be inaccurate or content with sources that are emotionally appealing?

Do you own any mirrors?

Wow... that must be big-boy talk. You want to break any of that down and talk about it? I'm sorry to dare challenge all the neat stereotypes and stray outside the group-think. It's the same on conservative forums... don't dare dispute the broad brush. It pisses them off too.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

Yes and yes... I can provide complete mirror inventory. I noticed you haven't answered the question.

no worries, otto. i expect your dissonance filters would have treated almost anything that doesn't square with your view of the world in the same way.

but poor you, subject to all these unpleasant stereotypes because the media characters you defend are obvious charlatans. poor you that the deep Thinking hidden behind all these one-dimensional and fatuous sentences you write isn't appreciated. the indignity of it all.

but it all that from your informational world. but frankly, once we move beyond the tenuous interest of these "debates" that never ever go anywhere, it's really of no consequence to me what you choose to fill your little head with. enjoy your favorite charlatans and chimeras and whatever patterns of repeating exactly what you're told to repeat floats your boat.

btw if you have trouble with the big-boy speak, move your lips when you read. go slow and you'll be fine. i have faith in you, otto. always have.

Oh, I get it you make a quip about my "dismissive statement" and expected a serious response to yours.

Umm, ok...


So, according to you Beck has "investigative accuracy and persistence" but you never meant to imply he's always accurate? Yet you acknowledge that he himself states he's not a journalists. Sure that all makes sense. Now go ahead and break out Beck's caulk board logic and show me how these statements are compatible.

No wonder you like Beck your logic goes in as many, if not more, circles then his.

How is my "first hand knowledge" any more or less lacking then yours? And seriously Beck's whole act is being emotionally appealing. Even brings him to tears on a occasion.

This is nothing more then the old "yeah what he said wasn't true but he didn't really mean (or know) it was untrue defense, ergo no lie." It's a BS defense and if people used it to defend the likes of Micheal Moore I seriously doubt you'd believe it for one second.

You think he told people he checked and no other POTUS hadn't used an bible to take the oath of office accidentally? Or did he accidentally forget he didn't really check? Personally think his intent was to incite as many Christians as he could by inferring Obama is not like them, he's not a Christian and you should be fearful of him.

Beck doesn't lie?

So you mean that Rockefeller was indeed a communist mastermind that created the rockefeller center as a massive tribute to global communism, and that his one world communism agenda has been picked up and is being promoted today by the UN, George Soros and Barack Obama?

It's not meant to be read as anarchy = libertarianism or vice versa, nor is it meant to say that authoritarianism = fascism (or vice versa) or left = communist, right = neoliberal, etc., you get the point.

It's generally stating that moving into the realm towards pure anarchy is what libertarianism does, whereas moving into the realm towards fascism is what authoritarianism does. These things work in degrees, not absolutes. That's how you get libertarian socialists who are by no means outright anarchists.

otto:

Please provide some examples of the amazing investigative reporting of Beck and Breitbart.

It should be enlightening or at least entertaining.

The Political Compass - Test

that should get you an answer to where YOU fit on that graph

here's mine:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...6.12&soc=-5.44

That shows how you scored... how or who came up with the scores for the other people you posted?

presumably the people at the site took the test using each politician's viewpoints

anyone ever heard of this?

someone tells a lie (with intent and possibly even through mass media channels)

it's proven to be a lie (maybe even the liar invites people to expose the lie because they are so cocky, uh, I mean ethically, politically and financially disposed to the truth)

but people continue (prefer) to believe the lie even though the truth has been told

that never really happens, does it?

The phrase "death panels" comes to mind.

yeah, or how about 'Swift Boaters'
that's a real blast from the past

"trickle-down economics"
i like that one.

I've always been fond of "Al Gore claims he invented the internet." Which of course wasn't true yet many Cons to this day believe and repeat it.

---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

Ok, well really then without further info on who created the profiles for people and really how the test was created and by whom it doesn't seem like a very credible source. From the web site you link all I could find was it's a product of "Pace News Limited" which seems to be an on-line newspaper out of L.A. started in 1995. I really don't know much about them. Do you?

It might be more credible then I've been able to verify. For all I know it was created by the political science dept. of some highly regarded university and the profiles entered by credible historians. But it seems like if that were the case they'd have a banner on the page stating such and they don't.

Fair enough. I'm sure if I dug deeper I'd find more websites of that kind that might give more info on how they did things. I'll see what I can find

Like I said the test and the data it presents maybe more credible then I've been able to verify. Simply without knowledge of how or who actually did it it's impossible to say, IMO.

I will tell you one of the reasons I quickly questioned it was, much like Cimarron, I glanced at it and immediately thought "that doesn't seem right." I had different questions then him(?) but still had questions. Mainly how does the "Green party" and Nader score closer to libertarians then authoritarians? I mean IMO Nader and the "Green Party" are very interested in telling people how they should live. They want all kinds of control, don't they?

or this, just in case you imagine there's a bottom to the stupidity that conservatives feel authorized to say:

Gingrich: Obama?s ?Kenyan, anti-colonial? worldview - The Corner - National Review Online

so to the extent that this latest bit of gringrichiana makes any sense at all, he's saying that---somehow---obama is connected to the mau-mau---which is a fucked up way of---i think----calling him a "terrorist" in modern parlance.

this is quite possibily the most idiotic statement i have seen from anyone in public life ever.

for an overview of the puzzlement it's generated:

Gingrich: President Exhibits 'Kenyan, Anticolonial Behavior' - NYTimes.com

it's hard to know what else to say about this.
sheesh.