# Glenn Beck, stark-raving "Wingnut:"-yet again!!!



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2013)

:lfao:....just, just...:lfao:






> Glen Beck claiming he has proof the federal government carried out the boston marathon bombing as a false flag opperation. He said that Obama has till monday to admit it or his show will reveal the evidence for his conspiracy theory!


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2013)

Is this just car-crash conspiracy TV or does the fellow seriously have a few 'issues'?  I know that whenever he's been mentioned on these pages it has ever been in a context that makes him seem 'on the verge', so to speak - is that an accurate perception?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 21, 2013)

Unbelievable. How are people still listening to this lunatic? He's a self-parody by now.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 21, 2013)

Well then. I'm oh so curious about his proof.

Beck is just like any of the other shock jocks. The problem is that his claims are so outlandish, that he often proves himself wrong. And yet people still listen to him. I'm waiting to hear his proof, and see if people still think he's worth listening to.
From what I've seen of this guy he has the intelligence of an eggplant.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 21, 2013)

Its called entertainment people.  He's not a news reporter he's an entertainer.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its called entertainment people.  He's not a news reporter he's an entertainer.



The problem is that a lot of people see him as a news reporter. Not an idiot put up there to entertain us with his red faced ranting nonsense. People actually take him seriously.

And he's not the only one. Both parties have this kind of nonsense. They're all ridiculous. And I have no idea why any of them are taken seriously at all.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its called entertainment people.  He's not a news reporter he's an entertainer.



Yup--and he'll say what he needs to to get ratings. I get it.


----------



## K-man (Apr 21, 2013)

Where do you guys find these people? Did they close down some mental health facility and just let the patients loose?


----------



## billc (Apr 21, 2013)

Uhhhh...I hope you have more of a clip than the one you posted...because it doesn't cover exactly what you posted.  I listen to Beck occasionally, I listen to Rush and Dennis Miller more, and the local guys on WLS.  

He doesn't say it is a false flag operation, for one, there was a nice, noticeable edit in the video that obscured what his actual point was, and he has long been pointing out that Islamic organizations in the country aren't getting the scrutiny they deserve, like CAIR and the other sympathizers with radical islam.  He implies that there is more to the Saudi national than the government is putting out right now...and that is about it from the clip.  Need a lot more to show he says the U.S. did Boston...especially since he is going to elaborate on Monday...you should probably listen to his show and see where he goes...otherwise this clip isn't impressive...

If you listen to the tape..he doesn't say anything really up to 1:05 other than it is important what we do going forward...and then they edit the video...

from 1:05 to 1:48 he says he knows who the Saudi national is and the government should say who he is or he will...

From 1:48 to the end of the video he says that the Saudi national in custody is a really, really bad guy and that he is going to say who the guy actually is...


Yeah, not exactly wing nut stuff..

He didn't say it was a false flag operation or that the government carried out the operation did he...if you listened to the video and what he actually said...

In fact, he is implying that at most, the government is going to conceal the real identity of the Saudi national...for whatever reason.  Considering I heard about the Jihadi tapes made by the two Boston Bombers on his show, vs. anywhere else, from Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert who found the videos in Russin and Arabic...he may have some info. on this guy...also, there may be more buddies of these *******s out there...

The F.B.I. are obviously following any leads that might show there were more than the two involved...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/4...s-tamerlan-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sleeper-cell.htm



> The FBI is hunting a 12-man terrorist "sleeper cell" linked to the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings.


----------



## Steve (Apr 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Uhhhh...I hope you have more of a clip than the one you posted...because it doesn't cover exactly what you posted.  I listen to Beck occasionally, I listen to Rush and Dennis Miller more, and the local guys on WLS.
> 
> He doesn't say it is a false flag operation, for one, there was a nice, noticeable edit in the video that obscured what his actual point was, and he has long been pointing out that Islamic organizations in the country aren't getting the scrutiny they deserve, like CAIR and the other sympathizers with radical islam.  He implies that there is more to the Saudi national than the government is putting out right now...and that is about it from the clip.  Need a lot more to show he says the U.S. did Boston...especially since he is going to elaborate on Monday...you should probably listen to his show and see where he goes...otherwise this clip isn't impressive...
> 
> ...



So, Ballen?  See the problem?  Not everyone sees him as harmless entertainment.  Some people think he is a legit news guy.  People like billc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 22, 2013)

Can`t wait to see the "evidence".


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its called entertainment people.  He's not a news reporter he's an entertainer.



Glenn Beck is Alex Jones-lite.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 22, 2013)

Well, it's Monday. So a few hours wait should but further info on the table. I'm curious to see what he sites as evidence if any to support whatever allegation he makes against this mystery man.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, Ballen?  See the problem?  Not everyone sees him as harmless entertainment.  Some people think he is a legit news guy.  People like billc.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


And?  Why is it a problem he's paid to get raitings and he is.  That's his job.  He says something extreme on Friday to get everyone talking about him until Monday.  Now even people that don't like him are still going to want to know "what's he going to say on Monday".  Mission accomplished.


----------



## crushing (Apr 22, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Well then. I'm oh so curious about his proof.
> 
> Beck is just like any of the other shock jocks. The problem is that his claims are so outlandish, that he often proves himself wrong. And yet people still listen to him. I'm waiting to hear his proof, and see if people still think he's worth listening to.
> From what I've seen of this guy he has the intelligence of an eggplant.



He may actually be fairly intelligent and what we see is a character that he has developed and plays.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/glenn-beck-net-worth/


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 22, 2013)

K-man said:


> Where do you guys find these people? Did they close down some mental health facility and just let the patients loose?


Could be, but I don't believe he's mentally ill.  I think he has found a market for his platform and does what he needs to to keep his audience happy.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Apr 22, 2013)

I think Glen Beck comes from the same place Rush Limbaugh came from. They were both DJs who figured out that they could make more money and get a bigger audience by being a right-wing talker.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> I think Glen Beck comes from the same place Rush Limbaugh came from. They were both DJs who figured out that they could make more money and get a bigger audience by being a right-wing *nutter*.



there, fixed that for you.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Apr 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> there, fixed that for you.



For what it's worth, I agree with you. I just didn't want to antagonize any of his fans who happen to post here. People can get pretty passionate about these right-wing talkers.


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2013)

First, the post alleged he claimed that the government was responsible for Boston...which wasn't true of the clip.

If someone is going to smear Beck, then at least use an accurate smear...just saying...

Second, there may be something to do with the Saudi national having his deportation records altered...by Janet Napalitano...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/20/Saudi-National-Questioned-Record-Changed




> *Breitbart News has learned that the Saudi National questioned after  the Boston Marathon Bombing had his deportation order records altered,  rescinding his deportation order.
> *
> 
> The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano  vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony  before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these  matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry's  closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the  time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on  Wednesday evening.
> ...



It may be that Napalitano committed perjury before congress...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2013)

Well&#8230;.I liked it better when you called him a Stark Raving Moonbat &#8230;but ok


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2013)

Well...I managed to listen to the part that was covered in the post...

The Saudi national had the highest level terrorist event file started on him after the bombings.

He was flagged on a terrorist watch list yet still managed to get a student visa.

He was supposed to be living in ohio but was living in Boston.

After it was announced he was in custody, Saudi officials talked to John Kerry, Secretary of State, and President obama, and the highest level terrorism designation and file for this guy were gone...

Nothing to do with accusing the U.S. government of being behind the bombing...and pretty much focused on what was actually in the video clip vs. what the "wing nut," lefties were panting about in regard to Beck...


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And?  Why is it a problem he's paid to get raitings and he is.  That's his job.  He says something extreme on Friday to get everyone talking about him until Monday.  Now even people that don't like him are still going to want to know "what's he going to say on Monday".  Mission accomplished.


Wait... and what?  You dismissed him as being a harmless entertainer, implying that everyone sees him that way.  Billc provided a clear (and timely) reminder that you are mistaken.  Billc and others of like mind take him seriously and believe that he is credible. 

And personally, if this thread didn't exist, I'd have no idea what he's doing or saying.  And even with this thread, I don't care.  My only concern in this thread is that he is not viewed by some as a harmless entertainer.  He's viewed as a credible source.  Billc's post is a perfect example.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 22, 2013)

Sad but true, Steve.  BillC is an anomaly I think in that he is actually quite a clever chap but still takes on board the sort of thing put forward by pundits - those with lesser processing power between the ears may well take it all in as gospel truth and that is why it should not be taken lightly.  As you know I am all in favour of America's Second Amendment but stupid people with guns and an odd sense of moral rectitude are dangerous when you add 'bad facts' (and probably beer too ).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 22, 2013)

I think that saying Bill thinks Beck is a "news source" is misleading...isn't Beck just a guy with an opinion and a show to voice it? You can't think a persons opinion can have validity w/o being accused of confusing that opinion with fact?

I didn't see the clip...did Beck clearly state that Boston was a false flag incident? That should be simple to verify as fact.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2013)

> I think that saying Bill thinks Beck is a "news source" is  misleading...isn't Beck just a guy with an opinion and a show to voice  it?



Exactly.  Beck isn't my news source and of the people I enjoy listening to he doesn't even really get any air time.  If the guys in Chicago are talking about something I'm not interested in I turn on his show.  I didn't even know he was the #3 radio host in the country until a few years ago, and had never heard of him before that.  What made me post on this thread is the misleading attack on Beck by a left wing site.  He didn't say the government was part of a conspiracy that detonated those bombs, and all he did was point out some fishy things going on with this other Saudi national.  The left hates Beck and will try to smear him.  I watched the clip and saw that the post was inaccurate, and all the guys on the other side of the aisle assumed it was what Beck actually said, probably not having watched the actual video clip in the post....who looks foolish with those facts?

Beck is one guy who goes against the democrat media agenda, and the left hates him for it.  He is a libertarian leaning guy from what I can tell, recently converted anyway, and he gets the conservative guests on when they are making the rounds.  

Notice the assumptions made and who made them about where I get my news...



> I didn't see the clip...did Beck clearly state that Boston was a false flag incident?



If you watch the clip you will see he never even comes close to saying that...he concern is the Saudi national and the fact that he is being ignored by the press.

Keep in mind, Beck is one of the guys who covered Bhengazi, and he talks about obamacare and other issues from a non-democrat media perspective...we can't have that now can we...


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2013)

This is what the post said about Beck's video clip...



> Glen Beck claiming he has proof the federal government carried out the  boston marathon bombing as a false flag opperation. He said that Obama  has till monday to admit it or his show will reveal the evidence for his  conspiracy theory!



Can anyone who watched the clip in this post say that that is what Beck said...go back and actually watch the clip guys and you'll see you were hoodwinked by a left wing Beck hating website...

The poster probably suspected that those who don't like Beck, by reputation, wouldn't actually watch the clip and just go off of what the website said, rather than what was actually in the clip.  Heck, the poster may not have even watched the clip...considering what he posted about the clip...


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wait... and what?  You dismissed him as being a harmless entertainer, implying that everyone sees him that way.  Billc provided a clear (and timely) reminder that you are mistaken.  Billc and others of like mind take him seriously and believe that he is credible.
> 
> And personally, if this thread didn't exist, I'd have no idea what he's doing or saying.  And even with this thread, I don't care.  My only concern in this thread is that he is not viewed by some as a harmless entertainer.  He's viewed as a credible source.  Billc's post is a perfect example.



I didn't say no one takes him serious I said he's an entertainer.  If people take his entertainement as truth that's not becks fault.  No more then people claiming if I play Ozzy backwards it tells me to kill my dog or people that watch Michael Moore and all of a sudden think well Cuba has great healthcare.  His job is to get ratings and as you said even people that don't listen to him like you and I know know what he's up too.  
What's he supposed to do if people view him as creditable tell them don't listen to me?  He hosts his show and that's it.  What someone does with that isn't his responsibility.


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2013)

Ok.  Fine.  So then can we bookmark this thread for when someone brings up Jon Stewart?   If you understand the distinction here, why is it so hard to understand it there?

Both share opinions. Both entertain. Both preach to the choir. Both make people laugh, although I think Stewart does it in purpose.   

Let's just call it a day. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2013)

Keep in mind, college kids believe Jon Stewart is real news...and they voted for obama...

Did you watch the video clip yet Steve?


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2013)

billc said:


> Keep in mind, college kids believe Jon Stewart is real news...and they voted for obama...
> 
> Did you watch the video clip yet Steve?


Couple of things.  First, you believe your entertainers and let the college kids believe theirs.  That was my point.  If you get the distinction for this guy, be consistent.  They fill the same role.  They are influential entertainers.   

Second, no way, bill.  I wasn't kidding when I said I don't care what he says, one way or the other.  I really don't.  I didn't say he was a nutjob. I also didn't say he was right.  I said that, were it not for this thread, I wouldn't be thinking about him at all.  And even with this thread, I don't have any interest in what he said or didn't say.  As an entertainer, he fails to entertain me.  

My only purpose in posting in this thread is to point out that he is taken seriously by some.  You, for example, seem to find him credible.  Like the college kids, you listen to Beck.  And let me guess.  You voted for Romney.  Right?  It's the same.  

As I said before, let's call this one early and just bookmark it when someone brings up Stewart.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 22, 2013)

billc said:


> Keep in mind, college kids believe Jon Stewart is real news...and they voted for obama...
> 
> Did you watch the video clip yet Steve?


Being the father two college kids, I don't know that they think he's real news.  He is viewed as a pundit but as Steve said, he is a pundit who is preaching to the choir.  So while I don't think they see him as "real news," he does reinforce views his audience already holds.  

As for who Jon Stewart's or Glen Beck's fans vote for, I see both men as a symptom of a broken two party system.  Each is ardently one side versus the other.  I'm independent, so I don't sing in the choir of either gentleman's fan base.  I tend to find Stewart more palatable than Beck, but that has more to do with presentation than content.  I think that both men make some valid points, but I also feel that people should view/listen to their programs to enrich their political outlook rather than to form it.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Being the father two college kids, I don't know that they think he's real news.  He is viewed as a pundit but as Steve said, he is a pundit who is preaching to the choir.  So while I don't think they see him as "real news," he does reinforce views his audience already holds.
> 
> As for who Jon Stewart's or Glen Beck's fans vote for, I see both men as a symptom of a broken two party system.  Each is ardently one side versus the other.  I'm independent, so I don't sing in the choir of either gentleman's fan base.  I tend to find Stewart more palatable than Beck, but that has more to do with presentation than content.  I think that both men make some valid points, but I also feel that people should view/listen to their programs to enrich their political outlook rather than to form it.



Jon Stewart is an equal opportunity fun-poker. And sadly, as entertainer he delivers better news than the news outlets....
Beck on the other hand....Instigator is more like it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ok.  Fine.  So then can we bookmark this thread for when someone brings up Jon Stewart?   If you understand the distinction here, why is it so hard to understand it there?
> 
> Both share opinions. Both entertain. Both preach to the choir. Both make people laugh, although I think Stewart does it in purpose.
> 
> ...



I would say the same thing about Stewart rush hannity ext.    I'm not sure what you want beck to do?  You don't like his opinion don't listen to him.  I don't not because I agree or not with him because in don't know in don't listen.  My radio at work is on sports talk 99% of the time.  In my personal vehicle about the same %.  
Would you like him to offer a disclaimer or censor him?


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I would say the same thing about Stewart rush hannity ext.    I'm not sure what you want beck to do?  You don't like his opinion don't listen to him.  I don't not because I agree or not with him because in don't know in don't listen.  My radio at work is on sports talk 99% of the time.  In my personal vehicle about the same %.
> Would you like him to offer a disclaimer or censor him?


Here's the big difference, though.  Jon Stewart is on a network called Comedy Central.  What network is Hannity on?  That's right... Fox NEWS.  I honestly wouldn't know how to find Rush or Beck.  They're basically AM radio guys.  Right?

I don't recall ever suggesting that Beck have a disclaimer or that he be censored.  But, that said, I think that having a self-described "Fake News" show on the Comedy Central network is about as frank and open a disclaimer as can be made.  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't think I'd mind if Fox News changed it's name to Fox Comedy and described Hannity's show as "fake news."  I think that's actually a pretty darned good idea.

As for what I want Beck to do, I don't care one way or the other.  My impression is that he's struggling to remain relevant.  More power to him.  I wish him well on his inevitable b-list run through bad reality TV shows.  As I've said before, what prompted me to post is the assertion you made that people consider Beck to be "just an entertainer."  Some people, as Billc demonstrated, consider Beck to be a credible source of information and opinion.  That's different from being an entertainer.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's the big difference, though.  Jon Stewart is on a network called Comedy Central.  What network is Hannity on?  That's right... Fox NEWS.  I honestly wouldn't know how to find Rush or Beck.  They're basically AM radio guys.  Right?


But hannity does give a disclaimer and says many times he is not a reporter he is paid to give his opinion.  I dont know where Rush or Beck are either I dont listen to them  I know beck has his own TV station you pay to subscribe too on the internet thats all I know.


> I don't recall ever suggesting that Beck have a disclaimer or that he be censored.  But, that said, I think that having a self-described "Fake News" show on the Comedy Central network is about as frank and open a disclaimer as can be made.  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't think I'd mind if Fox News changed it's name to Fox Comedy and described Hannity's show as "fake news."  I think that's actually a pretty darned good idea.


I didnt say you wanted him censored you just seem to have a huge problem with people that listen to him I was asking what you wanted him to do.


> As for what I want Beck to do, I don't care one way or the other.  My impression is that he's struggling to remain relevant.  More power to him.  I wish him well on his inevitable b-list run through bad reality TV shows.  As I've said before, what prompted me to post is the assertion you made that people consider Beck to be "just an entertainer."  Some people, as Billc demonstrated, consider Beck to be a credible source of information and opinion.  That's different from being an entertainer.



But my point is Beck has nothing to do with what someone perceives him to be.  Beck is an entertainer thats what he is, how you or I or someone else sees him does not change that.  Just because someone think its real does not make it so.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Here's the big difference, though.  Jon Stewart is on a network called Comedy Central.  What network is Hannity on?  That's right... Fox NEWS.  I honestly wouldn't know how to find Rush or Beck.  They're basically AM radio guys.  Right?
> 
> I don't recall ever suggesting that Beck have a disclaimer or that he be censored.  But, that said, I think that having a self-described "Fake News" show on the Comedy Central network is about as frank and open a disclaimer as can be made.  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't think I'd mind if Fox News changed it's name to Fox Comedy and described Hannity's show as "fake news."  I think that's actually a pretty darned good idea.
> 
> As for what I want Beck to do, I don't care one way or the other.  My impression is that he's struggling to remain relevant.  More power to him.  I wish him well on his inevitable b-list run through bad reality TV shows.  As I've said before, what prompted me to post is the assertion you made that people consider Beck to be "just an entertainer."  Some people, as Billc demonstrated, consider Beck to be a credible source of information and opinion.  That's different from being an entertainer.



Well, cynics call the network 'Faux News'


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> Well, cynics call the network 'Faux News'


And the realists call it "*Not* 'News'" :lfao:


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2013)

You know, I think you're confusing me with someone else, Ballen, because you keep quoting me, but I think must be responding to some other person's posts.





ballen0351 said:


> But hannity does give a disclaimer and says many times he is not a reporter he is paid to give his opinion.  I dont know where Rush or Beck are either I dont listen to them  I know beck has his own TV station you pay to subscribe too on the internet thats all I know.


So then what's your problem?  Seriously.  You brought up censorship and disclaimers.  Not me.  The only one of these shows I watch is the occasional Daily Show, and that's only when he's got a good guest.  





> I didnt say you wanted him censored you just seem to have a huge problem with people that listen to him I was asking what you wanted him to do.


I do???  Dude.  You brought up disclaimers and censorship.  Not me.  You're downright exasparating, ballen.  Is this some kind of cop interrogation trick, where you literally confuse the perp with nonsense to disorient them and make them confess?   Because I'm pretty sure I've said several times now that I could care less one way or the other.   If anything, you're the one who has a problem with people who listen to Beck.   It's right here: 





> But my point is Beck has nothing to do with what someone perceives him to be.  Beck is an entertainer thats what he is, how you or I or someone else sees him does not change that.  Just because someone think its real does not make it so.


 You don't see that as a critique of people like Billc who clearly DO believe that it's real?  Because, that's what it looks like to me.

So, once again, for the record.   He's either "an entertainer' in which case, so is Stewart.  Or, he's not just an entertainer, and you're barking up the wrong tree by suggesting that he is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> You know, I think you're confusing me with someone else, Ballen, because you keep quoting me, but I think must be responding to some other person's posts.So then what's your problem?  Seriously.  You brought up censorship and disclaimers.  Not me.  The only one of these shows I watch is the occasional Daily Show, and that's only when he's got a good guest.  I do???  Dude.  You brought up disclaimers and censorship.  Not me.  You're downright exasparating, ballen.  Is this some kind of cop interrogation trick, where you literally confuse the perp with nonsense to disorient them and make them confess?   Because I'm pretty sure I've said several times now that I could care less one way or the other.   If anything, you're the one who has a problem with people who listen to Beck.   It's right here:  You don't see that as a critique of people like Billc who clearly DO believe that it's real?  Because, that's what it looks like to me.
> 
> So, once again, for the record.   He's either "an entertainer' in which case, so is Stewart.  Or, he's not just an entertainer, and you're barking up the wrong tree by suggesting that he is.


nevermind


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> Jon Stewart is an equal opportunity fun-poker. And sadly, as entertainer he delivers better news than the news outlets....


Agreed.  Part of why Stewart gets some of the traction that he does is that aside from being truly engaging with his chosen audience (and I think Stewart's is a bit broader than Becks), the qualilty of news outlets has declined to such a degree that not-newsmen are just about as informative, sometimes more so.



granfire said:


> Beck on the other hand....Instigator is more like it.


In truth, I haven't listened to Beck for long enough at a stretch to form an opinion of how informative he_ actually _is.  I don't care for his delivery or his manner all that much, and some elements of his platform simply rub me the wrong way.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> But my point is Beck has nothing to do with what someone perceives him to be.  Beck is an entertainer thats what he is, how you or I or someone else sees him does not change that.  Just because someone think its real does not make it so.


I disagree.  Beck creates the persona specifically to create, appeal to and perpetuate the perceptions that people have of him.  And while he may technically be an entertainer, he does have a platform that he puts forth and he does so by tapping into the very real concerns of a specific audience.

We all affect the perceptions that people have of us.  We aren't all conscious and deliberate about it, but people in the media are.  And they are consious and deliberate specifically because they want people to perceive them in a specific way.

The other end of the equasion, which I touched on in my response to Granfire, is that the major news outlets have become tabloid news and the line between entertainers and actual reporting has become blurred.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I disagree.  Beck creates the persona specifically to create, appeal to and perpetuate the perceptions that people have of him.  And while he may technically be an entertainer, he does have a platform that he puts forth and he does so by tapping into the very real concerns of a specific audience.
> 
> We all affect the perceptions that people have of us.  We aren't all conscious and deliberate about it, but people in the media are.  And they are consious and deliberate specifically because they want people to perceive them in a specific way.
> 
> The other end of the equasion, which I touched on in my response to Granfire, is that the major news outlets have become tabloid news and the line between entertainers and actual reporting has become blurred.



So what's he supposed to do?  Say hey don't listen to me.  Hey I'm full of crap but tune in anyway.  You can't hold some accountable for what others do.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what's he supposed to do?  Say hey don't listen to me.  Hey I'm full of crap but tune in anyway.  You can't hold some accountable for what others do.


Methinks you need to step back and read what I've posted.  Where have I held any one person accountable while not holding others accountable?  

As for whether he's full of crap or not, I don't go that far.  I'd have to really listen to him consistently for long enough to determine if he's simply reflecting political bias or he actually is full of crap.  The same goes for Stewart.  Both men present themselves as being politically relevant.  Technically, everyone knows that Jon Stewart is a political comedian.  But he goes to great lengths to influence the political system and to sway his audience to his political preferences.  Beck does the exact same thing.  So does Rush Limbaugh.  Any and every pundit is aware of how they are perceived and they go to great lengths to perpetuate those perceptions, regardless of how correct they are.

So to answer your question, Beck is supposed to do the job for which he is getting paid.  And by all accounts he seems to be doing just that.  It isn't about what *he's* supposed to do.  It's about what *we*, the people are supposed to do.  The people are supposed to be informed enough to already know the issues and vote responsibly.  Part of having a government of, for, and by the people is that the people are the government.  We select officials from amongst ourselves to facilitate operation of the government so that we can live freely.  

The problem is that people collectively look to the government to solve their problems and they look to pundits to furnish them with political opinions.

I have no hard criticisms of Glen Beck.  What little I have seen of him has led me to conclude that his show is not for me.  Shostakovich isn't for me either; I'd rather listen to Beethoven.  No value judgement.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 23, 2013)

So, Im reading through this thread and making some observations. 

I see post after post of people trying to be funny, calling Beck a nutter or moonie or whatever. Your standard name-calling fare thats typical here. I guess because its easier than rubbing two brain cells together. 

I see billc actually trying to make a point or two which are actually in relation to the OP for a change, and they are largely ignored. Again, I suppose attempts to be witty are more important than addressing an actual point related to the supposed topic. 

I see the thread further degenerate into a comparison between Back and Jon Stewart and what news is really news, and whats not. 

What I dont see, is much of anything in regards to what Beck was referring to in the OP. Instead I see 3 pages of pretty much nothing of any value. 

If youre capable of putting aside your personal feelings about Mr. Beck for a moment, lets attempt to actually discuss some actual findings in regards to his concerns with this particular Saudi, shall we? Or shall we continue with the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] grade playground antics instead? You decide; however, Ill give you the opportunity to participate in the former. 

Some of those nasty fact-thingies: 


A Saudi national, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, was initially identified as a person of interest in the Boston Marathon bombing.
He was set to be deported under section 212 3B (Security and related grounds in relation to *terrorist* activity)
This designation is not easily applied to an individual nor is it easily removed. Solid evidence is required in support of said designation before tagging someone with it.
DHS Secretary Napolitano has refused to answer any questions about him, even when confronted by Jeff Duncan [R] who is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee
Since Napolitano refused, Duncan and the House Homeland Security Committee (_who seem to be kept out of the loop on this_) have sent her an official letter requesting a classified briefing on the matter.
Alharbi was allegedly previously flagged on a terrorist watch list as reported by FOX News. However, he still received a student visa
Alharbis student visa specifically shows him attending school in Findlay, Ohio yet his apartment is in Boston, Massachusetts *approximately 800 miles away*.
Following the bombing, Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud. Shortly after their meeting, the FBI changed Alharbis status.
The day after Kerrys meeting, President Obama had a chance encounter with Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. How fortuitous!
 
Entertaining the thought that something is indeed rotten in Denmark, why would this Saudi national get the royal treatment? Alharbis status as a suspect was dropped altogether, but hes still being deported. 

Some other key points to ponder: 


Several Saudi nationals were allowed to leave the country following 9/11 even though flights were grounded
The Bush administration blocked the investigation into the Saudi involvement of 9/11 and forced redaction of 28 pages from the 9/11 Commissions report in regards to Saudi support for some of the Al-Qaeda hijackers.
Even though 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were Saudi nationals, Saudi Arabia was just granted *Trusted Traveler* status, a status not granted to some of the USs most trusted allies.
 
On what planet does any of that qualify as common sense policy? 

Still think its nonsense? Fine, please provide a logical, well-though out retort. Fact-thingies are appreciated and if you cant tell the difference between them and fee-wings please do not bother to reply.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

Seeing as how Monday has come and gone, has Beck delivered on his promise?


----------



## billc (Apr 23, 2013)

Yeah, he did.

From Celtic_Crippler's post above on the previous page...



> Some of those nasty &#8220;fact-thingies&#8221;:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  He said he would talk about the Saudi national who was taken into custody and he did.  He went through information on his status on the terrorist watch list, the beginning of an event file on the guy after the bombing, his designation at the highest level of risk and the National Counter Terrorism Center designation code that he recieved...and then it was lifted without explanation...

Now since he never accused the government of participating in the bombing, which the post said he did, he didn't go into that at all...

What is funny to me is that Beck is a commentator on the News.  He brings up stories that the democrat media is covering and more importantly a lot of the stories the democrat media don't cover or barely cover...for example the attack in Bhengazi, the trial of serial killer abortionist Kermit Gosnell, which some of the journalists for the democrat media have actually stated they haven't covered because it might put abortion in a bad light.

Beck gives opinions on these stories, and then he has knowledgeable guests on...Senator Rand Paul, Former Presecutor Andrew McCarthy, the man who got the conviction on the "Blind Sheik," the master mind of the first attack on the World Trade Center, Steven Emmersen, an expert on radical islam...and he interviews them.  And yet people who admit they never watch his show, when it was on MSNBC or was it CNN, and then when it was on FOX cable news, and have never listened to the show on the radio...define him as a wing nut...

As to FOX cable news...the actual news portion of the evening here in Illinois is from 5-7 at night, and then the opinion hosts come on...O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta...Keep in mind that the FOX news hour is hosted by a raging liberal, Shepard Smith.


----------



## granfire (Apr 23, 2013)

so he produces a lot of people who have to sing for their supper....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

billc said:


> Yeah, he did.
> 
> From Celtic_Crippler's post above on the previous page...
> 
> ...


I read through that.  I was wondering if the video was incomplete.



billc said:


> Now since he never accused the government of participating in the bombing, which the post said he did, he didn't go into that at all...


I was wondering where that came from.  Perhaps the OP could elaborate.  Again, I was wondering if the video was incomplete.



billc said:


> What is funny to me is that Beck is a commentator on the News.  He brings up stories that the democrat media is covering and more importantly a lot of the stories the democrat media don't cover or barely cover...for example the attack in Bhengazi, the trial of serial killer abortionist Kermit Gosnell, which some of the journalists for the democrat media have actually stated they haven't covered because it might put abortion in a bad light.


Gotta love corporate news.



billc said:


> Beck gives opinions on these stories, and then he has knowledgeable guests on...Senator Rand Paul, Former Presecutor Andrew McCarthy, the man who got the conviction on the "Blind Sheik," the master mind of the first attack on the World Trade Center, Steven Emmersen, an expert on radical islam...and he interviews them.  And yet people who admit they never watch his show, when it was on MSNBC or was it CNN, and then when it was on FOX cable news, and have never listened to the show on the radio...define him as a wing nut...


Defining someone as a wing nut is a way to marginalize what they have to say.  I think that it is important to listen to what someone has to say before defining them.



billc said:


> As to FOX cable news...the actual news portion of the evening here in Illinois is from 5-7 at night, and then the opinion hosts come on...O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta...Keep in mind that the FOX news hour is hosted by a raging liberal, Shepard Smith.


While I'm not a fan of Fox, they're no less credible than other media outlets in my opinion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> so he produces a lot of people who have to sing for their supper....


By singing, you mean going on television and radio programs I assume.  If they are actually singing, I'd love to know how they sound.


----------



## granfire (Apr 23, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> By singing, you mean going on television and radio programs I assume.  If they are actually singing, I'd love to know how they sound.



Probably no better than the handful of soldiers trying their hand - or mouth and vocal chords - on the Army song.....it was rather bad last Saturday


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 24, 2013)

K-man said:


> Where do you guys find these people? Did they close down some mental health facility and just let the patients loose?



Yes, several years ago that began in the USA.  I don't know if that explains the likes of these people thought.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 25, 2013)

Thinking about it further&#8230; 

And I don&#8217;t know why this didn&#8217;t occur to me sooner&#8230;

I wonder how much of this &#8220;favoritism&#8221; is tied to the agreement Nixon brokered with the Saudi&#8217;s in 1973 regarding &#8220;oil for dollars&#8221;&#8230; US dollars to be exact. 

With today&#8217;s international &#8220;Currency Wars&#8221; it wouldn&#8217;t be prudent for the US to *not* kiss the Saudi&#8217;s collective buttocks whenever they demanded.  

If you have absolutely no idea what I&#8217;m referring to or talking about, I recommend you do yourself a favor and research it. If you&#8217;re _here_, then you have internet access and there&#8217;s no excuse. 

Read up on it and compare it to international current events as well. Let us know what _you_ come up with.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 29, 2013)

I thought I'd share this interesting interview Glenn Beck conducted about the Muslim plan to take over the USA from within:

[video=youtube_share;IotQJmCt1O0]http://youtu.be/IotQJmCt1O0[/video]

A closer look at Obama's credentials: 

[video=youtube_share;l-HqHSkYG-Y]http://youtu.be/l-HqHSkYG-Y[/video]

What happens to Christians in Dearborn, Michigan for sharing the Gospel: 



 & 




An instructor at Florida Atlantic University required his students to stomp on the name of JESUS written on sheets of paper:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I thought I'd share this interesting interview Glenn Beck conducted about the Muslim plan to take over the USA from within:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;IotQJmCt1O0]http://youtu.be/IotQJmCt1O0[/video]
> 
> ...


Okay, I have question for you, Grumpy.  As a Christian, why are you so concerned about who runs the US?  Christian theology teaches that we are pilgrims who are in the world, not of the world.  We await the return of Christ and our place in either Heaven, or in the new earth that is to come.  This earth, according to Revelation, is transiatory and will fade away.  So from that perspective, the fate of the US shouldn't really be a concern, so why chase conspiracy theories?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2013)

And the wingnut just keeps it comin'! :lfao:



> To prove his case against global warming, which Beck labels a &#8220;load of socialist, communist crap,&#8221; the right-wing talk-show host announced his war against energy-efficient light bulbs. On air, he asked a staffer to write a memo that threatened to fire anyone caught using one. The YouTube video of the moment was picked up by Grist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 28, 2013)

saw that...and in all honesty my first thought was "stark raving moonbat"


----------



## arnisador (Aug 28, 2013)

Wow.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 28, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> grumpywolfman said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I'd share this interesting interview Glenn Beck conducted about the Muslim plan to take over the USA from within:
> ...



It's been a few months.  I'm still curious as to your answer, Grumpy.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Aug 29, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It's been a few months.  I'm still curious as to your answer, Grumpy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


>


Ah, I see.  You don't have one.  Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Good day.


----------

