Time Magazine asks, "Is Glenn Beck bad for America?"

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348,00.html

Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009
Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?
By David Von Drehle

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly — the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism." If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic. Either way, you may not be inclined to believe what we say about numbers, according to a recent poll that found record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media. (See pictures from the protest.)

At any rate, what we can say with confidence is that Deanna Frankowski was there. A cheery woman of 49 from Leeds, Ala., Frankowski said she had come to Washington as part of a group of 100 or more protesters. They filled two buses. And they were motivated by a concern about runaway government spending — that, plus an outraged feeling that their views as citizens are not being heard. "We are sick and tired of being ignored," she said. "There is too much money being spent."

Frankowski has been hit hard by the economic turmoil of the past year. Short of funds to make the trip, she painted an American flag on a pane of glass and asked people at her church to chip in toward her expenses, with one of them taking home the flag. She would like to share a house with her soon-to-be husband, but first she must figure out how to get free of the house she has — the one with the underwater mortgage. Some left-leaning writers argue that people in her boat must be deluded to oppose Barack Obama, but Frankowski is skeptical that her interests are being served by trillions in new government interventions. So she said, "I've paid my mortgage every month. And I'm getting no help. I'm just saying, Let capitalism work." Then she added, "We just want people to listen to us and care." (See pictures from a day in the life of Glenn Beck.)

One person listens, Frankowski believes, and that's why back home in Alabama she arranged to have 10 large signs made on white foam board, nine of them marked with a big letter and the tenth with we and a heart. Raised aloft, the signs spelled out "We ♥ G-l-e-n-n B-e-c-k."

Glenn Beck: the pudgy, buzz-cut, weeping phenomenon of radio, TV and books. Our hot summer of political combat is turning toward an autumn of showdowns over some of the biggest public-policy initiatives in decades. The creamy notions of postpartisan cooperation — poured abundantly over Obama's presidential campaign a year ago — have curdled into suspicion and feelings of helplessness. Trust is a toxic asset, sitting valueless on the national books. Good faith is trading at pennies on the dollar. The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called "the paranoid style" — the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country — is aflame again, fanned from both right and left. Between the liberal fantasies about Brownshirts at town halls and the conservative concoctions of brainwashed children goose-stepping to school, you'd think the Palm in Washington had been replaced with a Munich beer hall.
 
NO. He's GREAT at getting the racist radical right-wing-nuts exposed and out in the open so that they can further isolate themselves from the rest of us civilized society, while at the same time dragging the heart of the GOP down into the gutter with them further guaranteeing them more years of being out of power in Washington. Thanks FAUX NEWS for giving Beck a show, it's the best thing that could happen for the Dems.
:D
 
He's GREAT at getting the racist radical right-wing-nuts exposed and out in the open so that they can further isolate themselves from the rest of us civilized society, while at the same time dragging the heart of the GOP down into the gutter with them further guaranteeing them more years of being out of power in Washington. Thanks FAUX NEWS for giving Beck a show, it's the best thing that could happen for the Dems.
:D

So are you saying that HE is a racist, radical nut, or just the people who watch and listen to his radio show?
 
Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."
We adopted Socialism in the 1870's. If we were ever stupid enough to go back to the laissez faire capitalism we had in 1870, those right wing nut jobbers would be working twelve hours a day in one of my sweat shops, earning a dollar a week and living on bread and water.
 
We adopted Socialism in the 1870's. If we were ever stupid enough to go back to the laissez faire capitalism we had in 1870, those right wing nut jobbers would be working twelve hours a day in one of my sweat shops, earning a dollar a week and living on bread and water.

No, that's wrong.
But thanks for stopping by Jagger-bot.;)
 
Watching Glenn Beck makes one stupid.

Aye.........

Beck praises constitutional provision protecting slave trade

Beck praises "Migration or Importation" tax provision in taking cheap shot at "immigrants."

In the chapter, Beck reprints and then praises Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Beck specifically highlights in yellow the phrase "ten dollars for each person":

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Quote from Beck's Book: That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]

Provision Beck praised actually "barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808." As noted by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar: "To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. ... [T]he 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 91]

"$10 per person" provision Beck praised incentivized slave trade. According to Amar: "The big money would likely flow [to the federal government] -- and after 1789 did in fact flow -- from federal levies on imports, yet these levies fell outside the ambit of the three-fifths clause. Indeed, by capping pre-1808 federal taxes at ten dollars per imported slave, Article I gave slave importers a special twenty-year exemption from the plenary taxation power that Congress would enjoy over all other imports." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 94]

Calabrio said:
Will you be answering the question I asked?

The answer you seek is in the statement I made:

Cal said:
So are you saying that HE is a racist, radical nut

Did I call him a "racist" or "radical nut" in my statement? NO. However, after reading about his book that documents his support for slavery (above), one has to seriously wonder if he IS a racist and radical nut in his heart, or "just the best damn actor out there" to paraphrase his own words.

Cal said:
or just the people who watch and listen to his radio show

Did I call everyone who listened to his radio show "racists" and/or "radical nuts"? NO. I'm sure there are a few of his listneners who are NOT racists and radical nuts. But of all the racists and radical nuts out there, I'm betting the large majority of them DO listen to his show(s).

You really should work harder on your comprehension and resist the temptation of inserting words/meanings into other's statements in a lame attempt to build a strawman argument.
 
Media Matters is not a reliable source. The actively work to distort and smear people like Beck. Unless you can provide a full transcript of what Beck was talking about and show that they are not taking him out of context and distorting him, you have no point.

And considering Media Matters past on issues like this, specifically the fact that almost every time Media Matters quotes a conservative, that conservative is being taking out of context, that is not an absurd standard. Media Matters has no credibility. You need to provide independent verification of the claim for it to be taken seriously.

Considering Beck's sense of humor it was very likely that he was being facetious. Media Matters constantly takes those type of comments out of context from conservatives.
 
I love Media Matters. They document every claim they make. I have never once found them misrepresenting the facts.
 
Media Matters is not a reliable source. The actively work to distort and smear people like Beck. Unless you can provide a full transcript of what Beck was talking about and show that they are not taking him out of context and distorting him, you have no point.

And considering Media Matters past on issues like this, specifically the fact that almost every time Media Matters quotes a conservative, that conservative is being taking out of context, that is not an absurd standard. Media Matters has no credibility. You need to provide independent verification of the claim for it to be taken seriously.

Considering Beck's sense of humor it was very likely that he was being facetious. Media Matters constantly takes those type of comments out of context from conservatives.

MM just happened to have the excerpt from BECK'S OWN BOOK, which includes a photo of the actual provision in the Constitution (emphasized in blue italics in my post above) and the text from Glenn Beck's own book (I've edited my post so it's clear, it's now emphasized in bold)

There's no "taking out of context" by MM, Beck's own idiocy is laid bare in print in his own work. He believes that provision in the constitution was a fee immigrants had to pay to get into this country:

Beck said:
...the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person

........when in actuality that provision prevented congress from ending SLAVERY before 1808. SO, he either praised slavery (which I doubt), or he's too much of an idiot to realize what the founding fathers meant. This would disqualify this fool from having ANY credibility whatsoever in "interpreting the constitution", which he does all the time.

But here again, instead of taking the time to dig into the facts, and look at MM's sources (Beck's own book) or find supporting facts for your side of the argument, your knee-jerk reaction is to "shoot the messenger", smear the sources and take cheap shots at the argument hoping something will stick. You are LAZY.
 
I wrote Glenn Beck off as a nut job years ago. If I'm going to listen to a nut jobber talk politics, I at least want him to do it from my general political perspective.
 
I didn't build a strawman, I asked you to clarify.
You're more than capable of building the strawmen yourself.

Did I call him a "racist" or "radical nut" in my statement? NO. However, after reading about his book that documents his support for slavery (above), one has to seriously wonder if he IS a racist and radical nut in his heart, or "just the best damn actor out there" to paraphrase his own words.

So you didn't say it in your first comment, but you do believe it.
That's not a strawman, that's clarification.

Do you honestly think that Glenn Beck supports slavery?
Media Matters is a political smear sight that routinely takes things out of context and misrepresents them in order to undermine the credibility of the political opposition.

Even Media Matters doesn't have the nerve to say that he actually supports slavery, merely that the argument was made by an "idiot" and not applied properly.

But not having read Beck's book, and because this is the sum total of the information posted on Media Matters:

In a chapter in his new book purporting to explain to "idiots" what "our Founding Fathers really intended," Glenn Beck praises an obsolete provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. In his explanation of the provision, Beck does not mention slavery, saying instead that the provision means that the Founders apparently "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamenting: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws."

I don't know CONTEXT in which the statement was made. Neither do you, but that's of little concern to you.

Did I call everyone who listened to his radio show "racists" and/or "radical nuts"? NO. I'm sure there are a few of his listneners who are NOT racists and radical nuts.
So only THE VAST MAJORITY of his listeners and viewers are "racists and radical nuts."

Glad you clarified.

But of all the racists and radical nuts out there, I'm betting the large majority of them DO listen to his show(s).
And you make that claim based on what?
Have you ever listened or watched his show? Other than the MM hit, what else is there?

You do realize that Media Matters is a political website? Do you realize that they target media voices with the sole purposed of advancing their agenda? They routinely line and misrepresent.

You really should work harder on your comprehension and resist the temptation of inserting words/meanings into other's statements in a lame attempt to build a strawman argument.
I asked you if you thought he and ALL of his viewers/listenres were racists and radical nuts... you responded with he supports slavery and "All most of his viewers" are racist and radical nuts.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
I wrote Glenn Beck off as a nut job years ago. If I'm going to listen to a nut jobber talk politics, I at least want him to do it from my general political perspective.

Years ago?
Why?

What did he say years ago that was crazy?
Stuff like this:

Don't follow herd on the economy
By Glenn Beck
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
CNN

Editor's note: "Glenn Beck" is on Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET. (not anymore. Fox News, 5pm and 2am EST)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "The people who survived the Great Depression were the ones who had money to buy when everybody else was selling." -- My grandfather

I learned a lot from my grandfather, but that might have been the greatest lesson he ever taught me. He wasn't just talking about managing money, he was talking about managing life -- and his words have stuck with me since I was a child.

A few years back, I was taking a theology course and the professor recommended only the books whose authors he agreed with. I read those books, but I also asked that professor which books he thought had it completely wrong -- and I read those too. Then I made up my own mind. After all, following the herd is fine until they all run off the side of a cliff together.

Less than a year ago, a recession was the last thing on anyone's mind. In fact, over the summer, as I was questioning the conventional wisdom, I read an article on my television show that quoted a financial expert as saying, "It is the strongest global market that we've seen in the history of measuring these things."

That's when I realized how fast the herd was approaching the cliff.

But with predictions of a recession now more common than Fed rate cuts -- and that's saying something -- maybe now it's time to look at a worst-case scenario. After all, considering all sides of an issue, no matter how extreme they may be, doesn't make you a crazy person; it makes you an educated one.

So to understand what a real meltdown could look like, I turned to Nouriel Roubini, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business. He's also a former adviser to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Professor Roubini recently laid out what he called the "12 steps to financial disaster." Unfortunately, they were really complicated, and I have severe ADD, so I've boiled them down into five phases that even a rodeo clown like me can understand.

I think of these like our military's "DEFCON" -- or defense readiness condition -- scale, except that this countdown could end in the meltdown of your bank account:

• DEFCONOMY FIVE

How you'll know we're here: The housing downturn turns into a free fall, making it the worst collapse in our country's history. That not only triggers massive numbers of foreclosures and lost household wealth, but it also sets off another large wave of bank write-downs.

Odds we get here:Roubini told me that it's "extremely likely, even unavoidable" that we hit this stage because "the excess supply of new homes in the market is like we've never seen before." Prices, he believes, "need to fall another 10 to 20 percent before that clears."

• DEFCONOMY FOUR

How you'll know we're here:Americans upside-down on their mortgages and unable to pay their home equity loans begin defaulting on other debt, like credit cards, car loans and student loans. In addition, bond insurance companies lose their perfect credit ratings, forcing already troubled banks to write down another $150 billion.

Odds we get here: High. Roubini says that 8 million households are already upside-down on their mortgages and he thinks we could see that number go to between 16 million and 24 million by the end of 2009. A lot of those people, he believes, will simply walk away from their homes and send their keys back to the bank.

• DEFCONOMY THREE

How you'll know we're here:Some banks begin to crack under the pressure of continuing write-downs and mounting defaults by consumers. A national or large regional bank finally collapses, triggering hedge fund failures and general chaos on Wall Street, potentially leading to a 1987-style market crash.

Odds we get here: Very good. Roubini says that we'll likely socialize the losses, "effectively nationalizing the mortgages or the banks." It would be, he told me, "like Northern Rock (the large bank in England that was recently taken over by the British government) times three." He thinks the stock market will head south throughout the year as fears about a severe recession are confirmed.

• DEFCONOMY TWO

How you'll know we're here: Most forms of credit (both to consumers and businesses) become virtually nonexistent. That results in a "vicious circle" of additional write-downs, stock market losses, and bank collapses, which leads to even less credit being available.

Odds we get here:Good. Roubini says that credit conditions are becoming worse everyday across a variety of markets and won't be getting better anytime soon. Without extra credit available, people might have to actually (gasp!) live within their means.

• DEFCONOMY ONE

How you'll know we're here : Welcome back to 1929. A full economic meltdown results in a complete failure of the underlying financial system. What will be known to future generations as "The Greater Depression" has arrived.

Odds we get here : Not likely. Roubini believes that this will be a "very painful and severe recession" that could last for 18 months or more, but it will be more like 1981 than 1929. Families may be eating soup again, but at least it'll be in their own kitchens.

Now, do I think any of what you just read will happen?

I have no idea, and that's exactly the problem. I'm not an economist or a stockbroker; I'm just a guy trying to make the best decisions I can, and picking the brains of real experts helps me do that.

But I do know one thing for sure: Depressions aren't advertised in advance. Last time around we went from the Roaring '20s to bread lines in a matter of just a few years.

Anyone who says that can't happen again either doesn't know history, doesn't understand how interconnected the world's economies have become, or is lying to you. While that doesn't mean you should panic, it does mean you should prepare -- something my grandfather would've done a long time ago.
 
I love Media Matters. They document every claim they make. I have never once found them misrepresenting the facts.


Not that you would have the intellectual integrity to admit if you saw them misrepresenting anything...
 
Dude, you're wasting you're time attempting to engage me in a serious discussion of Glenn Beck. He is worthy of nothing but ridicule. Save your energy for someone who gives a :q:q:q:q. I will do nothing but mock him and any one who defends him.
 
But here again, instead of taking the time to dig into the facts, and look at MM's sources (Beck's own book) or find supporting facts for your side of the argument, your knee-jerk reaction is to "shoot the messenger", smear the sources and take cheap shots at the argument hoping something will stick. You are LAZY.

Actually, I am simply pointing out that the messenger (in this case Media Matters) has no credibility due to their habitual distortion and misrepresentation (usually through taking things out of context) of, specifically, conservative pundits like Beck. Due to that lack of credibility, their claims should not be taken at face value but should be verified in the context of the book. Something that the link in question does not provide the means to do.

Instead of providing a way to verify those claims, you falsely accuse me of smearing Media Matters and being lazy. Basically, you are "shooting the messenger". Can you say "projecting"?

But that is your pattern. You cannot reasonably prove your point and when that happens you turn to bullying to achieve what you cannot achieve by reason. That is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
 
Here's an interesting piece from Media Matters. I don't see any distortions or misrepresentations.

Media Matters: Move over, Drudge, there's a new sheriff in town​

It used to be common knowledge that Matt Drudge ruled the media's world. These days, Drudge must be jealous. If the past few months have shown us anything, it's that Drudge's position as the media's assignment editor is now filled by Fox News' Glenn Beck.

Beck has made no bones about his desire to shape the media's agenda. He's Fox News' Czar War commander in chief, lead ACORN crusher, resident conspiracy theorist, and favored "rodeo clown," all wrapped into one.

One would think that the mainstream media would be wary of covering stories promoted by a man who, while role-playing as President Obama, pretended to pour gasoline on the "average American" and asked Obama, "[W]hy don't you just set us on fire?" But one would be wrong.

Beck brought to us the 9-12 Project, which served as the inspiration for the 9-12 "March on Washington," when Americans tearfully came together as we did "the day after 9-11" ... to protest taxes, health care reform, government spending, and an African-American who has taken over the White House. Did the media sit out the story of tens of thousands of Beck and Fox News fans invading D.C. to protest these things? Nope. While Fox News claimed that media outlets "missed" the story of the 9-12 protests, as TVNewser.com noted, "those other networks were there" at the 9-12 protests. As Howard Kurtz wrote in The Washington Post, "[T]he other networks indeed covered the protest, which -- like similar demonstrations across the country -- were heavily promoted by Fox, especially talk show host Glenn Beck."

The media have paid equal attention to Beck and Fox News' war on Obama's "czars." Beck led the charge in attacking White House green jobs adviser Van Jones, accusing him of all manner of sins. After ColorOfChange.org -- a group co-founded by Jones -- initiated a campaign against Beck for calling Obama a "racist," Beck amped up his attacks on Jones. But instead of pointing out the potential motive behind Beck's relentless assault, the media merely credited Beck for keeping the Jones story alive. Now that Beck has shifted his sights to other Obama "czars," the media have dutifully followed, increasing their coverage of FCC chief diversity officer Mark Lloyd and Cass Sunstein, who was confirmed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Beck has also repeatedly promoted allegations -- originally made on Beck favorite Andrew Breitbart's BigHollywood.com -- that the National Endowment for the Arts and its former spokesman Yosi Sergant were "creating a propaganda machine for the president of the United States." Once again, the media were right behind Beck. On the September 22 edition of his CNN program, Lou Dobbs advanced attacks on the White House, stating that there are "[n]ew concerns tonight that the Obama administration may be politicizing the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, encouraging groups to produce art work promoting the president's agenda." George Will wrote in his September 17 Washington Post column that the controversy shows "the Obama administration's incontinent lust to politicize everything." The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and ABC News? Each covered the White House's issuing of new guidelines that, as The New York Times wrote, "instructed government agencies to keep politics away from the awarding of federal grants."

Read the rest at http://mediamatters.org/columns/200909250041
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
Did I call him a "racist" or "radical nut" in my statement? NO. However, after reading about his book that documents his support for slavery (above), one has to seriously wonder if he IS a racist and radical nut in his heart, or "just the best damn actor out there" to paraphrase his own words.
Didn't actually read his book, just read a comment about it - and then you have the temerity to criticize Shag for 'not digging into the facts'?

Weak.
 
story.jpg
 

Members online

Back
Top