Glenn Beck

[Bak]

Does anyone take this guy seriously?

 

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/09/glenn-beck-refuses-to-define-white-culture-video.html

 

There's a funny website that turns his own style of arguments against him which I enjoyed, watch the 2 minute video above then go to the site: http://gb1990.com/

[Dr Brain]

Can you blame the guy? He's been taken out of context so many times it's ridiculous.

[»Lynx]

That was a very funny interview, though. I still would question how, or even if it is at all racist he was being.

 

-L

[Bak]

The interview is less important than what he's saying like, "I'm just asking questions" as if that's always an innocent activity. Asking questions without any reason to can sway people's opinions, hence, the second website

 

We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 - in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

[Bak]

Atheists cause all of America's problems -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEuAVgmWt0U

 

(no more youtube tags?)

[Dr Brain]

If you think he's blaming atheists, then you've completely missed his point.

[CRe]

Atheists cause all of America's problems -> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zEuAVgmWt0U

 

(no more youtube tags?)

 

Use the [ media ] tag without the spaces.

[Samapico]

Or just click the 'media' button , and paste the link (the entire link, not just the video ID)

[SeVeR]

Dr Brain seems to be defending Mr. Beck quite a bit... what is your opinion of him Brain?

[LiDDiS]

Did Glen Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

[Dr Brain]

No.

[L.C.]

This is stupid and immature on the part of the Internet, by the way. But I'm sure most of you know that.

[LiDDiS]

Well several girls were raped and murdered in 1990 and Glenn Beck was alive in 1990. Coincidence? Or something more? I'm just saying it's kind of funny, but you decide for yourself.

[L.C.]

The reason I say it is stupid and all is because it is a question with a built-in assumption. For example:

 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[AstroProdigy]

Glenn Beck is a giant hypocrite and that's to be expected.

 

"Beck has often railed against International law, as somehow endangering our constitution. So, it’s ironic that he seeks relief from an international Internet governing body. And the reason he is doing so, is that he is unlikely to win a civil lawsuit for libel in the U.S. As a public figure, parody and satire are clearly protected forms of speech under the First Amendment."

 

For anyone who reads this and still takes Glenn Beck seriously as a political commentator and not the "performer" that these guys admit they are you really should just remove yourself from politics altogether. Never participate in protests or even discuss politics or even vote. Until you can understand basic logic your participation in the political system automatically harms the country and everyone in it.

[Dr Brain]

I love how everyone on the left can't contradict our ideas, so the have to resort to trying to destroying the person conveying those ideas.

 

To reply to your quote: he rails against international bodies, yes, but that quote fails to mention that he also rails against the failing US court systems.

 

Further digging reveals that the domain doesn't have any direct contact information associated with it. That could be the reason it was submitted to the WIPO instead. It's hard to sue an anonymous person in a civil court (though not impossible, of course).

 

Finally, reading through what they submitted to the WIPO, it seems like it's mostly about protecting their trademark, rather than objecting to the content of the site. There's some complaining about the lack of a clearly defined parody notification, but it seems tacked on.

[SeVeR]

Wait, so Dr. Brain, you listen to this guy and don't think he's a nutter?

[Dr Brain]

Again, you attack the person?

[Bak]

This thread is about the person (look at the title). Other threads may be about views or options he supports. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Anyways I was eating thanksgiving with my cousins who are somewhat conservative and they were complaining about how the people at Guantanamo are going to be tried in a US court. One thing they brought up was that because the captives weren't read their Miranda rights when they were captured, or that because they were apprehended in their home in Afganistan without a search warrant, they'll undoubtedly be set free on a technicality. I said that was BS and offered to bet $100 that they're not going to be set free on a technicality like that. They refused.

[Dr Brain]

I listen to him because I agree with his principles, and I like to hear his opinions on the news of the day. I don't listen to him because of who he is as a person, so attacking that has no meaning to me, and I will not waste my effort to defend it. Since apparently this thread is about who he is as a person, I will no longer be contributing.

[LiDDiS]

I listen to him because I agree with his principles, and I like to hear his opinions on the news of the day. I don't listen to him because of who he is as a person, so attacking that has no meaning to me, and I will not waste my effort to defend it. Since apparently this thread is about who he is as a person, I will no longer be contributing.

 

Yeah I agree man. There's this homeless guy who yells random shit, who's ramblings I enjoy listening to. It doesn't matter to me that he is a meth-addled syphilitic, his viewpoints on when jesus will smite us all is EXTREMELY relevent to my interests!

[Samapico]

I thought this was kind of related.

And funny

[»Blocks]

Saw this on Digg the other day. The bit at the end is quite enjoyable.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-10-2009/beck---not-so-mellow-gold

[»D1st0rt]

All news is bullshit, at least Beck is entertaining. I like it when he draws on chalkboards He does flirt with the Crowley threshhold sometimes so you have to watch out. (Named after Monica Crowley, the point in a statement when the person goes from making sense, making sense, making sense, WHOA INSANE to the point of undermining all of the valid things that they had established. Basically they should just leave out the last sentence or two and it would be a rationally presented opinion. Interestingly enough its those sentences that seem to get quoted most frequently.)

 

Holder IS a moron for wanting to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court because the evidence they have is either inadmissible due to rights violations or classified and potentially harmful to national security if they have to testify to it in open proceedings. He also said that if the jury finds him not guilty they still aren't going to let him walk so what's even the point aside from wasting a ridiculous amount of taxpayer dollars.

 

The Newshour is actually pretty good now that I think of it.

[Simulacrum]

He also said that if the jury finds him not guilty they still aren't going to let him walk so what's even the point aside from wasting a ridiculous amount of taxpayer dollars.

Presumably, to uphold our reputation for rule of law. Think about all the bad press we get (especially internationally, with allies) over things like Guantánamo. I wouldn't assume that the Attorney General is flagrantly wrong in being confident in a conviction, so, worthwhile or not, I think that's what we're spending the money on.

 

Personally, I think it's worthwhile, both for our image and for the human rights principle at stake.