[quote]molnes wrote:
[/quote]
LOL
If Beck and that Cnn reporter where in jail, beck would be his bitch.
that makes me smile 
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[/quote]
LOL
If Beck and that Cnn reporter where in jail, beck would be his bitch.
that makes me smile :)[/quote]
Think so?
What most people do not realize is that Beck is a corn-fed giant.
if Glen Beck is mentally challenged, making publicly fun of him is unethical.
if he is just a propagandist making outrageous claims, it doesn’t worth a serious answer (and more negative advertising).
either way, i don’t see the point.
Glenn Beck get owned? The reporter is the one who is “owned” for spending as much time as he did on some miniscule statement. You know you are good when people have to disect your every word to find something to refute.
Glenn Beck is extremely intelligent, and extremely well informed. He does get a little carried away from time to time, but he has the right idea.
Yinz are all foreigners, so shut up cause we all know you just hate our freedom.
J/K BNR.
Really though, pointing out an error, fallacy, or even a flat out lie with someone like Beck is just shooting fish in a barrel.
I’d rater that if someone were going to be a self appointed spokesperson for a party or political movement that they not be a stark raving lunatic, but most people who aren’t just don’t give nearly enough of a fuck to appoint themselves.
[quote]-LL- wrote:
Glenn Beck get owned? The reporter is the one who is “owned” for spending as much time as he did on some miniscule statement. You know you are good when people have to disect your every word to find something to refute.
Glenn Beck is extremely intelligent, and extremely well informed. He does get a little carried away from time to time, but he has the right idea.
[/quote]
Now, there’s some logic for you…
And, I was just wondering how a douche like Beck can have an audience.
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Even I’m tired of talking about beck. But dude, we all know what’s going here. Beck doesn’t convert people. He’s popular as shit with his audience because his show is one big confirmation of everything they already thought. We know that he brings up facts but we ALL (including his fans) know that he acts like a complete jackass lunatic.
I know that you can see that a lot of his chalkboard shenanigans are completely asinine, but I also get that his overarching message is something you were already on board with, so it gets overlooked. It is what it is. He’s not a threat, political zealots are a threat, and they just happen to be in his audience.
Also, in regards to the 10% thing, it’s obvious what he’s suggesting. Let’s not bullshit about it. It’s what he does. He makes suggestions, not hard claims, which is why they aren’t disproved. I never said he isn’t good at what he does.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No corrections about Goerge Soros? [/quote]
I am no fan of Beck, but he was dead-on about Soros.
Soros, in his autobiography, readily admitted that, he (who isJewish) when he was a teenager, he worked with the Nazis (prending to be Christian) to confisicate Jewish property and assist in the deportation of Jewish people. While not directly responsible for their deaths as Beck stated, Soros certainly “put them on the train” so to speak.
I could forgive Soros for Nazi collaboration as a teenager — times were tough, but in a recent 60 Minutes interview, Soros bragged about his Nazi collaboration, saying it was “the most exciting time of his life” and that he had “no regrets” (paraphrasing).
It was the creepiest thing I’ve seen, and I’ve seen some creepy stuff.
Soros is a sick, evil, bastard, and Beck was dead on with his comments.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Pretty much this.
Beck is telling it like it is and the “left wingers” can’t take it so they are making shit up to make him sound ignorant. This approach isn’t working though, if it wasn’t for the leftist bitching I, for one, would never pay attention to his show.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[/quote]
LOL
If Beck and that Cnn reporter where in jail, beck would be his bitch.
that makes me smile :)[/quote]
You’re right you know. I heard it was an Amish guy that just blew himself up in Sweden.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Even I’m tired of talking about beck. But dude, we all know what’s going here. Beck doesn’t convert people. He’s popular as shit with his audience because his show is one big confirmation of everything they already thought. We know that he brings up facts but we ALL (including his fans) know that he acts like a complete jackass lunatic.
I know that you can see that a lot of his chalkboard shenanigans are completely asinine, but I also get that his overarching message is something you were already on board with, so it gets overlooked. It is what it is. He’s not a threat, political zealots are a threat, and they just happen to be in his audience.
Also, in regards to the 10% thing, it’s obvious what he’s suggesting. Let’s not bullshit about it. It’s what he does. He makes suggestions, not hard claims, which is why they aren’t disproved. I never said he isn’t good at what he does.
[/quote]
And you are saying the above because you do not agree with his politics. You’re the perfect example of your own meandering.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Amen.
So to own Beck the reporter has to twist his words to say something he didn’t say.
I love how Zakaria is trying to suppress a grin the entire time.
Though honestly finding hilariously wrong shit Glen Beck does is not exactly a difficult past time.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Pretty much this.
Beck is telling it like it is and the “left wingers” can’t take it so they are making shit up to make him sound ignorant. This approach isn’t working though, if it wasn’t for the leftist bitching I, for one, would never pay attention to his show.
[/quote]
What exactly did Fareed Zakaria make up, again?
[quote]John S. wrote:
So to own Beck the reporter has to twist his words to say something he didn’t say. [/quote]
Oh come the fuck on. Beck said, “I think that it’s closer to 10%” or something like that - what the fuck do you really think he means, 6%, 7%? Even that number is still outrageously high.
And before you all spit back at me, I also think it was ridiculous that Fareed spent so much time on Beck in his show… his show is actually pretty good most times [edit: not Beck’s, Fareed’s.]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Even I’m tired of talking about beck. But dude, we all know what’s going here. Beck doesn’t convert people. He’s popular as shit with his audience because his show is one big confirmation of everything they already thought. We know that he brings up facts but we ALL (including his fans) know that he acts like a complete jackass lunatic.
I know that you can see that a lot of his chalkboard shenanigans are completely asinine, but I also get that his overarching message is something you were already on board with, so it gets overlooked. It is what it is. He’s not a threat, political zealots are a threat, and they just happen to be in his audience.
Also, in regards to the 10% thing, it’s obvious what he’s suggesting. Let’s not bullshit about it. It’s what he does. He makes suggestions, not hard claims, which is why they aren’t disproved. I never said he isn’t good at what he does.
[/quote]
And you are saying the above because you do not agree with his politics. You’re the perfect example of your own meandering.
[/quote]
That’s an easy cop-out. Sioux presented a pretty logical argument explaining Beck and didn’t even mention his belief or disbelief in Beck’s politics.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That reporter is wrong.
Beck never said 10% of all Muslims are terrorists. He first asked the question "“what is the number of Islamic terrorists?” Then asked, “one percent”? Then he said “I think it’s closer to ten percent.” Meaning closer to 10% than 1%. He never once said that 10% of Muslims are terrorists. Maybe that reporter should be castigated for his error?
It’s no wonder that there is a long line of douche bags on this site ready to slam Beck over this nonsense. But what I find interesting is that is all this clown of a reporter can say about Beck. What about all of the facts that Beck has brought up about Obama and company? No corrections there? No corrections about Rev. Wright? Van Jones, or Sal Olinski?
No corrections about Goerge Soros? No corrections on Reed or Pelosi? Hmm, how about that? I think we need to look at what he is not conjuring up to try to make Beck look bad, rather than what he did. In short, they can’t even take anything out of context to make Beck look bad regarding the important matters he’s spoken about.
While no one is perfect, if you look at the amount of information that Beck has delivered over the past two years he’s spot on with about 99% of it. [/quote]
Even I’m tired of talking about beck. But dude, we all know what’s going here. Beck doesn’t convert people. He’s popular as shit with his audience because his show is one big confirmation of everything they already thought. We know that he brings up facts but we ALL (including his fans) know that he acts like a complete jackass lunatic.
I know that you can see that a lot of his chalkboard shenanigans are completely asinine, but I also get that his overarching message is something you were already on board with, so it gets overlooked. It is what it is. He’s not a threat, political zealots are a threat, and they just happen to be in his audience.
Also, in regards to the 10% thing, it’s obvious what he’s suggesting. Let’s not bullshit about it. It’s what he does. He makes suggestions, not hard claims, which is why they aren’t disproved. I never said he isn’t good at what he does.
[/quote]
And you are saying the above because you do not agree with his politics. You’re the perfect example of your own meandering.
[/quote]
Obviously I don’t agree with his politics. I still think he’s just more of an actor than anything else. Not sure what you’re getting at.
edit: PB responded with pretty much my sentiments while I was posting. Industrious bastard