Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Yeah, it's like that
Joined
·
2,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Skip the first 5 minutes or watch it if you want to see blah, blah, blah before Beck comes on. Since everyone always hashes out how Beck is a right wing nut job/compulsive liar, please do watch and point out where? Point out how he always bashes Democrats and puts Republicans on a pedestal, because I didn't notice it, but I did just finish a big glass of kool-aid. Enjoy


http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4881432
 

·
Yeah, it's like that
Joined
·
2,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
As soon as Beck came on, he said Rush Limbaugh was his hero. That pretty much killed it for me.
Yeah, Rush as a hero is way worse than Mao or Che. I bet you didn't even make it far enough to watch him pound the Republicans which was a minute or two past the Rush comment. You have your mind made up about Beck and you won't even watch something that proves your ideology on something to be wrong. I will help you out, Beck at one point in his speech flubs up and says sorry he doesn't have a teleprompter with him. Which was a poke at Obama, also probably a valid one. Also if you would have watched the video you would of seen his say we can't blame where we are today because of Obama, where we are started long before Obama.

Yeah, it was an hour of bashing the Republican party and being the far right winger you are, I'm sure you didn't want to watch it LOL
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Yeah, Rush as a hero is way worse than Mao or Che. I bet you didn't even make it far enough to watch him pound the Republicans which was a minute or two past the Rush comment. You have your mind made up about Beck and you won't even watch something that proves your ideology on something to be wrong. I will help you out, Beck at one point in his speech flubs up and says sorry he doesn't have a teleprompter with him. Which was a poke at Obama, also probably a valid one. Also if you would have watched the video you would of seen his say we can't blame where we are today because of Obama, where we are started long before Obama.

Yeah, it was an hour of bashing the Republican party and being the far right winger you are, I'm sure you didn't want to watch it LOL
I did watch it. And it wasn't a republican bash fest, it was a communist and progressive and democrat bash fest, with warnings to republican's not to fall into the liberal traps. Sure he took jabs at republicans, good for him. But much of the time was spent on retelling a revisionist version of history, way too many references to alcoholism and 12-step programs, throwing up, his own personal childhood (even though he said no one is interested in hearing liberals tell of their childhood), and the statue of liberty.

Did he have some points, sure.

However, I've long ago lost every bit of respect I ever had for Glenn Beck when he started get caught lying on TV over and over again. There's nothing he can say now that will earn any respect from me. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Beck says that the republican party has failed him.... well, Beck and Limbaugh have failed me long ago.

So that windbag can say what he wants. I don't care, it's a free country. Just don't expect me to follow every word of his blindly.
 

·
RightWingNut
Joined
·
392 Posts
Skip the first 5 minutes or watch it if you want to see blah, blah, blah before Beck comes on. Since everyone always hashes out how Beck is a right wing nut job/compulsive liar, please do watch and point out where? Point out how he always bashes Democrats and puts Republicans on a pedestal, because I didn't notice it, but I did just finish a big glass of kool-aid. Enjoy


http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4881432
For those that dislike his style......Rush, Hannity, Levin, etal have a style that cater to a target audience. True conservatives will concentrate on the message they bring.....detractors of the cause will try and muddy the waters by bashing the individual. Conservatives(notice I didn't say Republicans) need to come together to stop this country's slide into the marxist/socialist abyss.


Tbar
 

·
--------
Joined
·
551 Posts
Tbar...don't let Pocket bother you. I thank my lucky stars that someday I can tell my grandchildren that I knew someone who has never lied, stretched the truth, misstated or misquoted in his life. It's an honor to have met the world's most perfect, honest, and omnipotent person the world has ever seen. Although, the last I heard, his arm was sore from patting himself on the back. No matter, he's so awesome it'll heal in no time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Pocket........do you have any examples of these lies that Glenn has been caught in over and over and over.....?
 

·
Yeah, it's like that
Joined
·
2,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Pocket........do you have any examples of these lies that Glenn has been caught on in this speech.....?
Fixed it for you, don't let him take this thread and get it off subject. We have an hour long speech, Glenn Beck is a huge liar, where is it?
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Pocket........do you have any examples of these lies that Glenn has been caught in over and over and over.....?
I've posted stuff over and over again about Beck. Here, I copied and pasted a post from a while back:

Here, Glenn Beck caught in a lie. Pretty interesting the stuff he says later on in the video too about himself not being an investigative reporter, but simply a commentator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2FK2vchoEo



Here is another Glenn Beck lie. He says: "I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.” Well, if Glenn Beck DID actually check his facts, he would have found out this:
- John Quincy Adams did not use a Bible, instead he used a law book.
- Teddy Roosevelt did not use a Bible.
- Franklin Pierce used a law book, not the Bible.
- Lyndon B. Johnson used a Catholic missal.
- Calvin Coolidge and John F. Kennedy both had Bibles nearby, but did not officially swear on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_jqQiXuVU




Another Glenn Beck lie:
PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population




Another Glenn Beck lie. In this story, he "reports" of a bombing incident just north of Seattle that knocked down a radio tower. He says he knows the bombing happened because "he was there". Well, the truth is there was no bombing, no explosives involved. It was a radical left-wing group that used an excavator to topple the tower.
The video (his lie is about halfway through)
http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MTAxMTUtMzE2NjI?color=C93033
The real story:
ktvb Linktown Skyscraper
And a quote from that article: "What they used was a machine called an excavator, it has a front arm off the front end of the machine. They stole it out of the yard," Andy Skotdal, president and general manager of KRKO. "They went and attached it to the tower and pushed one of them over and pulled the other one down."




And for fun, one more. This I guess could be a mistake, or not. Maybe it just shows how Beck and his staff do not research facts before airing stories:
PolitiFact | Glenn Beck, on anchor babies, claims U.S. is only country with automatic citizenship upon birth



So there you have it. 5 different lies by Glenn Beck. There are plenty more out there too.
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Fixed it for you, don't let him take this thread and get it off subject. We have an hour long speech, Glenn Beck is a huge liar, where is it?
First, Beck is rewriting history.

Roosevelt started the "Bull Moose Party", or the first Progressive Party. It was an offshoot of Republicans, not Democrats. The first Progressive Party was not communist.... not even close. What they did stand for was the same as the republican party, but with changes involving cleaning up government waste, eliminating special interest groups, etc, which closely resembles many of the "conservative ideals" of today. On the other hand, the progressive party also supported a stronger federal government, social programs, industry regulation, universal healthcare, etc. So they incorporated a combination of fiscal conservatism with social liberalism.

The Progressive Party was NOT communism and was never founded as such, regardless of what Glenn Beck tries to tell you. Beck is putting a spin on history. The first Progressive Party failed after the election of 1916 when Roosevelt lost. It was resurrected 8 years later by the La Follettes. However, this second Progressive party was much weaker on the national level, and only had significant influence in a few states. In this version of the Progressive Party, they pushed for more social programs, including public ownership of major industries and infrastructure. In 1924, the Socialist Party of America did indeed endorse candidates from the Progressive Party, but the Socialist Party and the Progressives remained separate.

Let's take an example of recent history. The Tea Party rallies saw support from groups such as the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, and other radical groups. Does that automatically mean that the Republican party is a Nazi party? No, it doesn't. These radical groups endorsed with Republican Tea Party members for the wrong reasons, and different reasons. In similar fashion, the Socialist Party endorsed the Progressives, but both parties had different agendas. Glenn Beck calling the Progressive Party "Communists" is exactly like calling Republican's "Neo-Nazi's", and for the exact same reasons. Can you see how Beck is blowing things out of proportion?

In 1948, the Progressive Party was again re-formed, but had almost zero ties with the first two Progressive Parties. Henry Wallace this time was the head of the third Progressive Party. Wallace himself was not communist, but his failure was that he did not publicly denounce the communist supporters that infiltrated his party. He later wrote a book called "Why I Was Wrong", outlining some of the mistakes he made during his campaigning, and showing that he was not a communist. Also, the communists had to pick a party to endorse, as they were receiving almost no support due to the start of the "Red Scare". Just like Neo-Nazi's can't find support, so they have to endorse other candidates from other parties. By the way, did you know that the Neo-Nazi's endorsed John McCain for president? Does that automatically make McCain a Nazi?

By the way, the Progressive Party was again disbanded in the mid 50's.

So Glenn Beck went through this entire game of revisionist history in order to try and align Progressivism with Communism, even though history shows that the two had different ideals. Sure they crossed paths from time to time (just like Neo-Nazi's and Republicans have crossed paths), but they were two different parties with two completely different ideals.

That's my first example of why Glenn Beck was wrong in his speech.
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Next part, Glenn Beck says 40% of Americans are conservative, 36% are moderates, and 20% are liberals. Well, he's basing that on the latest Gallup poll that came out recently. Problem is, he is only referring to the very first part of that poll. There's more to it. Here is the poll:
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group


Beck is trying to show that a majority of Americans lean to the right. Problem is, that's not entirely true. A majority of Americans lean to the center, and sway slightly left or right. Think of a bell-curve in statistics, with the highest probability representing the top of the bell curve, and the lowest probabilities on the outer fringes (left or right).



Now, check out the Gallup Poll, and look at the second graph they posted, entitled "2009 Detailed Political Ideology". Remove the "No Opinion" part, and what do you have? A bell-curve!

Furthermore, the poll goes to break down the statistics according to party affiliation, age, gender, etc. Then at the bottom, they give their conclusions:

While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly -- from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.
So what does this mean? Beck misused the poll. Americans still lean center, but as the survey points out, our country has become slightly more polarized in both directions. It's not that conservatives are the majority and being ruled by the minority, not at all. Glenn Beck is just misusing data to try and stir up fear mongering.

"Oh no, the majority of Americans are die-hard conservatives, and we are being trampled on by the minority liberals! What shall we do!?!?!?!? We are so weak and pathetic!!!!!"
 

·
got fuel?
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
Tbar...don't let Pocket bother you. I thank my lucky stars that someday I can tell my grandchildren that I knew someone who has never lied, stretched the truth, misstated or misquoted in his life. .
Jesus
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Ok, for much of Beck's speech, he just rambles on. Then he gets to the recession of 1920, and tries to use that as an example of what happens when you adopt "Progressive ideals".

Problems with that. First, the recession of 1920 was nowhere close to the Great Depression that began in 1929. Second, it was a post-war recession, caused by a sharp drop in military production (many industries crashed, such as steel and others). Beck is also ignoring other previous short recessions, one from 1910-1912, and another from 1913-1914.

The Fed was established in 1913, and was not the cause of the recession. However, the Fed did temporarily make it worse as they made the wrong decision to sharply increase interest rates, rather than lower them. At the same time, the government was downsizing due to the end of the war effort. However, as Beck incorrectly claims, the government (with Coolidge) reduced government spending by 50%. No, you dumbass Beck, that's including military spending. Government itself (not including military), actually grew during much of the 20's, and remained even under Coolidge (meaning Coolidge did NOT reduce spending, he kept it the same). Besides, the recession was over under Harding, not Coolidge. In fact, policies under Coolidge are often blamed for events leading up to the Great Depression.

Coolidge was a mix. On one hand, he supported a reduction of government when it came to industry. This he did during his presidency as he pulled government oversight almost completely away. This is why he is often blamed for helping to jump start the Great Depression. Businesses ran away unchecked, and eventually bubbled and crashed.

On the other hand, Coolidge reduced income taxes, but increased other taxes and even created new ones. He also eliminated income taxes for most people except for the extremely wealthy, the complete opposite of Reagan, who sought to level out taxes a bit more and severely reduced them for the very wealthy. Coolidge was quite the opposite of "trickle-down" economics. In fact, he would be a good Democrat candidate today.... tax the rich, and eliminate all taxes for the middle class and the poor. Redistribution of wealth is what it comes out to be. Hmmmmmmm. This is also another theory that helped lead to the Great Depression. The rich were overburdened with taxes, and businesses shriveled up.

In addition, he provided many government subsidies to farmers, increased government influence and control with international trade, etc. With the booming economy of the mid 20's, the extra revenue helped to pay of the war debts. But once again, Coolidge did not reduce government spending.

So again, Beck was trying to rewrite history.
 

·
Yeah, it's like that
Joined
·
2,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
First, Beck is rewriting history.

Roosevelt started the "Bull Moose Party", or the first Progressive Party. It was an offshoot of Republicans, not Democrats.Which he did say 14:20 in the video, Rosevelt was the first Progressive President and was a Republican, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era Also you can pick up a copy of "American Progressivism" by Pestritto and Atto which I happen to have write beside me as I type this, interesting read, if you want to bash your head into a wall thinking WTF are these people thinking. The first Progressive Party was not communist.... not even close. What they did stand for was the same as the republican party, but with changes involving cleaning up government waste, eliminating special interest groups, etc, which closely resembles many of the "conservative ideals" of today. On the other hand, the progressive party also supported a stronger federal government, social programs, industry regulation, universal healthcare, etc. So they incorporated a combination of fiscal conservatism with social liberalism.

The Progressive Party was NOT communism and was never founded as such, regardless of what Glenn Beck tries to tell you. Beck is putting a spin on history. The first Progressive Party failed after the election of 1916 when Roosevelt lost. It was resurrected 8 years later by the La Follettes. However, this second Progressive party was much weaker on the national level, and only had significant influence in a few states. In this version of the Progressive Party, they pushed for more social programs, including public ownership of major industries and infrastructure. In 1924, the Socialist Party of America did indeed endorse candidates from the Progressive Party, but the Socialist Party and the Progressives remained separate.

Let's take an example of recent history. The Tea Party rallies saw support from groups such as the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, and other radical groups. Maybe in your little liberal world, I didn't see any "I support the kkk" or "I support the Nazi's" signs. They would have been without a doubt been shown on MSNBC and CNN 24/7 Does that automatically mean that the Republican party is a Nazi party? No, it doesn't. These radical groups endorsed with Republican Tea Party members for the wrong reasons, and different reasons. In similar fashion, the Socialist Party endorsed the Progressives, but both parties had different agendas. Glenn Beck calling the Progressive Party "Communists" is exactly like calling Republican's "Neo-Nazi's", and for the exact same reasons. Can you see how Beck is blowing things out of proportion?

In 1948, the Progressive Party was again re-formed, but had almost zero ties with the first two Progressive Parties. Henry Wallace this time was the head of the third Progressive Party. Wallace himself was not communist, but his failure was that he did not publicly denounce the communist supporters that infiltrated his party. He later wrote a book called "Why I Was Wrong", outlining some of the mistakes he made during his campaigning, and showing that he was not a communist. Also, the communists had to pick a party to endorse, as they were receiving almost no support due to the start of the "Red Scare". Just like Neo-Nazi's can't find support, so they have to endorse other candidates from other parties. By the way, did you know that the Neo-Nazi's endorsed John McCain for president? Does that automatically make McCain a Nazi?

By the way, the Progressive Party was again disbanded in the mid 50's.

So Glenn Beck went through this entire game of revisionist history in order to try and align Progressivism with Communism, even though history shows that the two had different ideals. Sure they crossed paths from time to time (just like Neo-Nazi's and Republicans have crossed paths), but they were two different parties with two completely different ideals. Your opinion, He has his, how does that make him a liar? So I don't agree with you, that means your a liar? How about in the Sara Palin thread, where you keep pounding the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that she flip flopped on it, Does that make you a liar? Nope, it's a fact that she did. Does that prove she is stupid? In your eyes yes, in mine no. Like I said show me any Politician hasn't flip flopped on something once. Hell, look at your own life, haven't ever flip flopped on anything?

That's my first example of why Glenn Beck was wrong in his speech.
Don't forget tha Woodrow Wilson followed Rosevelt and was a Progressive Democrat. The Progressive idea was actually started back in the late 1800's it was just Rosevelt was the first Pressident to really push it. As far as the Communist ties, Beck even gives you the source "Progress and Democracy" from Rhode Island 1938. How is he a liar when he uses facts that back up what he is saying? It all boils down to ones opinion and you are going to use facts that support your opinion. So again, what fact did he make up without a source?
 

·
Yeah, it's like that
Joined
·
2,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Next part, Glenn Beck says 40% of Americans are conservative, 36% are moderates, and 20% are liberals. Well, he's basing that on the latest Gallup poll that came out recently. Problem is, he is only referring to the very first part of that poll. There's more to it. Here is the poll:
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group


Beck is trying to show that a majority of Americans lean to the right. Problem is, that's not entirely true. A majority of Americans lean to the center, and sway slightly left or right. Think of a bell-curve in statistics, with the highest probability representing the top of the bell curve, and the lowest probabilities on the outer fringes (left or right).



Now, check out the Gallup Poll, and look at the second graph they posted, entitled "2009 Detailed Political Ideology". Remove the "No Opinion" part, and what do you have? A bell-curve!

Furthermore, the poll goes to break down the statistics according to party affiliation, age, gender, etc. Then at the bottom, they give their conclusions:


So what does this mean? Beck misused the poll. Americans still lean center, but as the survey points out, our country has become slightly more polarized in both directions. It's not that conservatives are the majority and being ruled by the minority, not at all. Glenn Beck is just misusing data to try and stir up fear mongering.

"Oh no, the majority of Americans are die-hard conservatives, and we are being trampled on by the minority liberals! What shall we do!?!?!?!? We are so weak and pathetic!!!!!"
Two graphs from your own link:

So we will say the Moderates will be split 50/50 16% for a Republican candidate and 16% for a Democratic Candidate with 3% voting for Minnie Mouse. So 9% Very Conservative, 31% Conservative and 16% Moderate= 56%. Now we have Very Liberal 5%, Liberal (ie:pocket) 16% and 16% Moderate=37%. Which number is bigger 56% or 37%? Or you could look at it as Conservative as 40% and Liberals as 21% with the moderates as center and up for grabs, still center right either way.

I personally like the first graph kinda looks like our economy. Moderates is our GDP, Liberals is the People actually employed, and Conservatives is our Gov't spending.

Again, how are these not Facts? The way you, I or Glenn Beck interprets them is our opinions. How does this make him a liar?
 

Attachments

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Your opinion, He has his, how does that make him a liar?
He's calling progressives communists. They aren't. My point is that's like calling republicans nazis. I'd much rather him speak plainly rather than trying to bestow false hype and scare tactics.

How about in the Sara Palin thread, where you keep pounding the "Bridge to Nowhere" and that she flip flopped on it, Does that make you a liar? Nope, it's a fact that she did. Does that prove she is stupid? In your eyes yes, in mine no. Like I said show me any Politician hasn't flip flopped on something once. Hell, look at your own life, haven't ever flip flopped on anything?
I was trying to make a point about it. Yes people flip flop on things. It's expected. However, Palin didn't just flip flop, she lied about her flip flop.

At least admit that you had a change of heart, and state the reasons why, rather than lie to the nation that you never supported it in the first place. So yes, in my eyes, she lied. If you can't see that, well fine.

Don't forget tha Woodrow Wilson followed Rosevelt and was a Progressive Democrat. The Progressive idea was actually started back in the late 1800's it was just Rosevelt was the first Pressident to really push it. As far as the Communist ties, Beck even gives you the source "Progress and Democracy" from Rhode Island 1938. How is he a liar when he uses facts that back up what he is saying? It all boils down to ones opinion and you are going to use facts that support your opinion. So again, what fact did he make up without a source?
Consider that it was a communist pamphlet, and not really endorsed by the Progressive party.
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Two graphs from your own link:

So we will say the Moderates will be split 50/50 16% for a Republican candidate and 16% for a Democratic Candidate with 3% voting for Minnie Mouse. So 9% Very Conservative, 31% Conservative and 16% Moderate= 56%. Now we have Very Liberal 5%, Liberal (ie:pocket) 16% and 16% Moderate=37%. Which number is bigger 56% or 37%? Or you could look at it as Conservative as 40% and Liberals as 21% with the moderates as center and up for grabs, still center right either way.

I personally like the first graph kinda looks like our economy. Moderates is our GDP, Liberals is the People actually employed, and Conservatives is our Gov't spending.

Again, how are these not Facts? The way you, I or Glenn Beck interprets them is our opinions. How does this make him a liar?
He's using partial statistics to create a skewed perspective.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top