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

[Xue Sheng]

Well….I liked it better when you called him a Stark Raving Moonbat …but ok

 

[billc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well, cynics call the network 'Faux News'

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

 

[Steve]

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.

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]

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