What is it with Liberal Progressives Anyways

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is, no one cares. Because of the way Fox has positioned itself as counter-programing to the rest of the mainstream media it will always be seen as an ideological source that can't be taken at face value, lawsuits and surveys and polls won't change that. Whether or not Fox is actually as biased as it is commonly claimed to be is irrelevant here, if you want to gain any traction at all when arguing on this board you're going to have to branch out beyond Fox. If nothing else, an over reliance on Fox and talk radio points makes you seem like a political dilettante who's just repeating what he heard on an opinion show; by contrast many of the people here take a lot of pride in gathering their own information and forming their own opinions and won't take you seriously unless you show a similar level of understanding.

Yes he is.


Sometimes he does research, sometimes he just makes crap up. When he does research, it is usually very sloppy. No, he does not know what he's talking about. He is basically the right-wing version of Michael Moore (except he might be even more batshit than Moore, which is saying something).

Incidentally, since you are so infuriated about people playing the race card or making unfounded accusations of racism, how about Beck's claim that Obama is a racist? Oh right, you don't apply consistent standards so there is probably some excuse for that.

How many times do I have to repeat myself - Money is power. Allow the rich, the top 1%, to collect 50% of all additional production caused by growth every year, and you create a super-powerful group of people who will capture the government and become a collective tyranny. Surely this is something that should be prevented as it causes everyone else to be disenfranchised.

By contrast, this idea that we must "reward success" by giving the rich a bonus and "punish failure" through punitive surcharges on the poor is one that guarantees tyranny and the destruction of society. On the surface, this idea of rewarding success to encourage it, and punishing failure to discourage it, makes sense. In this case, it's simply Social Darwinism that will destroy society totally.

There's another point here. Monetary "success" and "failure" doesn't necessary flow out of social utility. Hedge fund managers and currency speculators by this metric are absolutely successful and yet they damage society far more than they help it. So not only is there not a real connexion between what should be done and what is rewarded, but then as success and failure is judged based on rewards that the system metes out, this idea of increasing the rewards to those who get most reward, and taking away reward from those with the least, is wrong and cruel and is guided by a "kick them when they're down" evil.

beat you to it several threads ago. He denies it completely - but who cares? The effect is the same.

Just cause you and the Liberal Left say that he is an idiot, doesn't mean he is an idiot.



sarcasm: Yeah, I seriously think he would still be on the air if he was just making stuff up.

Orwell, you are not being logical here. He isn't losing viewers because he is maintaining credibility, while the loony left wing driveby media continues to hemorage viewers cause they have lost credibility.



That explains why he has predicted the behavior of the Obama administration and the Democrats accurately...





Actually, you just completely destroyed your argument when you made that remark. Does the New Black Panther incident mean anything to you (specifically talking about DoJ dismissing the charges after they had already gotten a conviction)? How about Reverand Wright? He didn't sit in that guy's church for 20 years and not know that Wright was a racist. Don't give me the bull about only whites can be racists either. Then there is the cop incident where he started bashing this cop without even knowing the facts, because it was a white cop arresting a black professor. Those incidents to me make Obama look like a racist with his hatred directed towards whites.

Difference between Glenn Beck's remark about Obama, and Liberals generally using the race card to shut people up is quite simple. You can make a pretty good case to back up what Glenn Beck said about Obama. Liberals generally just call people racist when they can't legitimately win a debate (not referring to all liberals and yeah I realize I'm making a blanket statement for effect).

@ Vexcalibur & LKL

Uh-huh... I wonder which of us is really clueless and naive.

Do any of you actually know why the United States Constitution was written to limit the power of government. I know, why it was written that way, do you?

You are correct. The fact that Beck is an idiot is completely independent of my perception of that fact.


Why not? Michael Moore is still around.


What logic do you think I'm missing? Whatever notion of "credibility" that you are using is not a meaningful measure of whether someone is well-researched. Heck, people give credibility to astrologers. Besides, I would be willing to bet that your ideas of "credibility" are entirely dependent on your own personal perception rather than anything even resembling an objective comparison.


Really? He predicted that Obama would cave to the right on almost every major issue and promote overall centrist policies? I would love to hear that clip of his.


Um... the cop was wrong. If you don't have a problem with arresting a man outside his own home, there is something wrong with you.


Obama is half white, and a large portion of his administration is white.


Not really. Even on Fox Beck was immediately called out and destroyed on that issue.


I suspect that this doesn't happen nearly as frequently as actual instances of racism where the racist just uses this right-wing persecution complex myth as a way to deflect any criticism of their racist views.

Beck is ADHD, however he is not an idiot. You seem to think everyone that is a conservative is somehow stupid or evil. Is that how you really think, or is it just poor wording.



Moore, doesn't have his own radio show, nor is he on a news network.



He earned my trust, after I did my own research and found that he could back up what he was saying. Furthermore the fact that Obama pre-emptively fired someone so they wouldn't end up on Beck kinda looks like Glenn Beck has actually got President Obama worried. If he was just spewing hot air, I think Obama would have just brushed it off and not cared what the man said. Instead, he has directly attacked Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (verbally by name), you didn't see that kind of behavior from George W. Bush towards Keith Olberman.



You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Obamacare's individual mandate represents an assault on this Country that would give the government virtually unlimited power. Have you ever taken any courses on Constitutional Law?



Actually it turned out that while the man hadn't committed a crime, the cop wasn't at fault. The Professor reacted in a manner that was extremely provocative and the cop had responded to a neighbor phoning in that someone had broken into the man's house. Your response shows that you have absolutely no clue what happened, even Barack Obama had to backtrack on his condemnation of the cop.



Doesn't mean he doesn't harbors a dislike towards white people.



That was more of you don't call a sitting President a racist without more to go on.





Sad thing is all you have to do is listen to Chris Matthews, CNN pundits, etc. rant about the Tea Party for 5 minutes and your argument is completely destroyed. Are you completely oblivious to the left using the race card to try to silence people or are you just in denial.

I am not a Liberal. I'm probably, in theory, closest to a libertarian. (though I might sound like a green to the average libertarian). And I still think Glen Beck is... to put it nicely, not a reliable source of any information.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. Glen Beck is not to be trusted.

Have you watched Glenn Beck at all or are you just going off of what someone told you?

Neither; you are hallucinating again. I do not think all conservatives are evil or stupid. I think Beck in particular is stupid.


Fine, substitute any given leftist commentator (though I can't think of any mainstream ones that are really equivalent to Beck). Olbermann is still on the air; obviously this means he has amazing credibility and thus everything he says must be true, right?

Let me explain this more clearly for you since you're not good with math and logic:
I used the exact same structure as you did to construct an argument with true premises and a conclusion that contradicts your original argument. This means your argument structure can lead to contradictions, that is, it is not valid. Any conclusion derived from it is meaningless.


Reading different right-wing bloggers does not constitute your "own research."

Beck is not stupid, he is shallow. But he has turned his shallowness into a large income. If you are smarter than Beck, why aren't you richer than Beck?

ruveyn

And by that standard money is the mark of intellect.

Not exactly. But it is hard to become ueber rich without some smarts. At the very least one must know whose advice to accept. And often there are clever ways of earning money (within the law). Clever. Which means not stupid.

ruveyn

"sexual orientation card", thats a new one on me...

then again, so is the "aspie card"...

Because I do not fetishize wealth and seek after it to the exclusion of other things I wish to do. As long as my finances are such that I can live reasonably comfortably, I have no further need or desire for money.


I know some phenomenally stupid rich folks. Even granting that those are likely the exception rather than the rule, I would bet that the typical math professor is much more intelligent than the typical corporate executive, but the former is paid quite a bit less.

Ecclesiastes 9:11: Against I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.

The Bush administration's re-election pollsters were extremely concerned about Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" costing him the election back in 2004. Apparently they even tried to stop a screening of the film in New Zealand. If Michael Moore's film was just spewing hot air, what was the Bush administration so worried about?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/another-wikileaks-cable