>Is it true some could misinterpret what Beck says as a call to violence?

Misinterpret? Beck loves to stroke revolutionary feelings. This is why he has to instruct his audience not to kill anyone.

By the way, I’m just waiting for the day Glenn Beck will have blood on his hands. It’s not a matter of it, it’s just a matter of when. He’s a dangerous threat to the social stability in this country. It really isn’t that much different from any form of radical imam preaching hate in a European mosque.

I love it when these people play stupid. “What does he mean?” They know exactly what he is talking about. That the knee jerk reaction is something violent. Glenn Beck, does not, or has ever advocated violence. he is telling people NOT to react this way. Don’t defend against this hostile take over of the Government with violence because that’s what they want! The want to paint the American people as terrorist. The Revolution is and was started by these people in the white house. The Progressives are the ones leading the Revolution! Not the American people. We are the ones who DON”T Want this revolution! We are the Defenders of the Constitution. Not the Destroyers. We are fighting against a revolution!

MSNBC launches a different character attack against Glenn Beck every day. I would be more impressed if they actually tried to rebut Beck’s positions on individual freedom, intrusive government and state’s rights. But MSNBC never addresses Beck on the issues. And for good reason: most people would side with Beck if the issues were actually explained to them clearly. So Beck’s critics are forced to obfuscate and smear and never actually explain the real issues at play here.

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill

M, just because you keep saying Glenn insites violence, doesn’t make it so. Do you really have to go over this AGAIN today?

In fact M, just yesterday, he was talking about how he never really thought about the term Revolution until this gang moved into the WH and brought it with them. They are the ones, that are trying to “fundementally change this country,”, via BO’s own words. And it was one of his thugs that said it comes from the barrell of a gun. I could give you several more quotes if you would like.

Try getting it right for once.

And how about this diddy from BO himself:

“If they bring a knife, you bring a gun”.

There is no reason to rebut Glenn Beck because the basis of all his conspiracy theories, i.e., Liberal Facism and the 500 Year Leap, have been thoroughly picked apart and found lacking by historians.

It’s amazing that people think that GB doesn’t advocate violence. Glenn “Shoot them in the head!” Beck absolutely implies violence often. He used to joke about hitting his “enemies” over the head with a shovel “for fun” on his “morning zoo” program, after all. The fact that he then tries to undo his shout outs to violent acts is nonsense – his overall message is one of violence.

Please don’t fall for the twisted view that Fox is simply “right wing” – They continually twist, distort and spread disinformation in the name of ratings and profits. Fox is to news what Jerry Springer is to talk shows.

The point is, Beck and his FNC colleagues are right-of-center politically and in the media, while MSNBC is left-of-center in both areas. So when O’Donnell charges “they’re not a news network, they’re a political operation” it ignores the messenger.

Krakauer — you are conflating two separate discussions surrounding FNC. First, what are its politics? Second, how much of its content can be called journalism?

O’Donnell’s soundbite, asserting that FNC is “not a news network,” is incorrect. Large portions of FNC’s content consist of journalism and count as news. FNC management claims that its programing is divided into two types of journalism — reporting and opinion. This claim is also incorrect. It ignores a third category, part entertainment, part activism, that is definitely not journalism. Glenn Beck, himself, proudly proclaims that he is not a journalist. If O’Donnell had narrowed his claim and said “Beck is not producing a news program,” no one would have argued with him.

As for FNC’s politics, “right-of-center” is not incorrect but it is hardly illuminating. I prefer “conservative populist” at the moment but there is a wide spectrum of political points of viw there from Beck’s Tea Party libertarianism to Hannity’s GOP talking points to O’Reilly’s blue collar nativism to Ailes’ national security statism to Cavuto’s laissez faire financial capitalism.

Let me assert that there is nothing that prevents proper journalism from being produced from a political point of view. On the other hand, FNC — or MSNBC for that matter — needs to pass a higher bar than merely slapping the label “news” on its content to qualify as engaging in legitimate journalism.

M

Either you don’t watch Beck or if you do you are not able to process simple and plain english. Beck has ALWAYS voiced his opposition to the use of violence from EITHER SIDE.

Frankly, the left is every bit as guilty of having some “kooks” on the fringe doing stupid and violent things as the right. Neither define, or at least shouldn’t define either side.

But, the dishonest side of this is that while there are as many examples of violence on the left as the right, the media and some on the left simply ignore it.

I don’t know if they ignore it because the are just obtuse or whether they actually agree with it when it is committed in the name of “progressive” causes.

Felix, you make such a good point, He is NEVER challenged on what he says. Now you would think if the things he said weren’t true, someone would say so, but they never do. Everytime I ask a lib for an example of their accusations, I get nothing but dead air. That speaks volumes.

Ah the old, we aren’t going to give any examples because everyone knows he lies and Fox lies. And it’s called the 5000 year leap. You should read it, you might actually learn something,

Hey “Sword”

Nice name BTW.

I have been told that progressives have no sense of humor. Reading your post, you bring the point vividly home. You can’t tell humor and sarcasm from serious comments.

And so, you attempt (incompetently) to fit your “story line” into reality by twisting reality to fit the story line.

That is rather obvious and pathetic.

MSNBC calling someone biased is beyond laughable. They continue to say that Beck ‘rants’ while ignoring the rantings of Keith Olbermann, who often more resembles a foaming at the mouth rabid dog than a sane person. And no matter how often Beck says protests should be non-violent, the left keeps saying he’s inciting violence. Beck’s ratings and his success keep eating the left alive.

NewsBusters: The Media’s Myth of Right Wing Violence
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2010/03/24/medias-myth-right-wing-violence

HanzoSword:

Liberal Fascism and the 5,000 Year Leap are “conspiracy theories”?? You’ve obviously never read either one.

For the record, I’m not much of fan of the 5,000 Year Leap because it is a very elementary guide to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. As someone who has spent years and years of my life reading The Federalist Papers and other primary source documents, I don’t find it very enlightening. That said, I don’t think there’s anything in there could be construed as particularly controversial or wrong. If you feel otherwise, please identify what you disagree with.

As for Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, it is an utterly brilliant work. There are some criticisms of it from the Left, but that’s not surprising. I think Goldberg’s incredibly exhaustive research has stood up extremely well against his critics. And, again, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”; it’s historical thesis that liberals like to flirt with happy-faced fascism. You still see that today. That’s why the CBC goes to CUBA and praises Castro, and why Sean Penn praises Hugo Chavez.

Again, I doubt you ever read either work. My guess is you’re just parroting talking points you heard on AirAmerica or something.

MichelleF: I’m not going to spend all day going back and forth. I feel it devalues the site, isn’t proper etiquette and this isn’t an AOL chatroom, but on behalf of myself and others — what is it that you’d like somebody to refute?

From what I’ve seen. Beck often gives a history lesson from his own perspective and he tries to tie it to subjects from the day. These lessons often revolve around his own definitions or characterizations… I don’t know how many times I’ve seen him throw the Federal Reserve into the mix as an aside and I can only guess why he thinks Prohibition was a progressive thing, despite the fact that it was pushed by bible thumpers, Beck is a reformed alcoholic and if I’m not mistaken, his religion forbids the consumption of alcohol.

Progressives believe in incremental societal change. There’s no disputing that fact because it’s right there in the movement’s title. I’m a Progressive. I would like society to reflect my values and to adopt my positions. I don’t deny it, nor would any other Progressive. I’m sure Beck feels the same way, so what is there to dispute?

Ah Finch, Air America went baknkrupt because NO ONE listened, I think you meant media matters or daily kos.

>Everytime I ask a lib for an example of their accusations, I get nothing but dead air.

It’s because everything Beck says is batshit insane….”MSNBC is fascist because Rockefeller was a socialist multimillionare hippy aristocrat who ordered ingraining of secret socialist messages in wall art!” It’s like he lives in the god damn world of Dan Brown.

Goldberg’s book is utterly brilliant if you like fiction (yes I’ve read it…and I’ll never get that hour back). Liberal Fascism has been totally debunked by more than a few scholars; it’s nonsense.

>Beck has ALWAYS voiced his opposition to the use of violence from EITHER SIDE.

Of course. Serves as a great defense once someone actually starts murdering people in Beck’s name. It happened to Bernard Goldberg.

Magister:

If you think that prohibition was NOT one of the major goals of the progressive movement, forget about Glenn Beck. You need to complain to Wikipedia, because they disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

But then again, we all know how Wikipedia is nothing more than an arm of the Evil-Bush-Fox-Beck cabal.

One thing the left keeps mistaking when criticizing Beck. His show is his opinions, not a news broadcast. Whether right or wrong, it’s his opinion on how he views things. If you disagree, fine. I happen to disagree with Olbermann, but I don’t delude myself that he’s doing an unbiased news broadcast.

>Liberal Fascism has been totally debunked by more than a few scholars; it’s nonsense.

The book basically discards everything in the field of political science. Quite remarkable. It’s like someone writing about geology ignoring everything in geological sciences.

I’m traveling abroad on business, some I am less up-to-date than I would normally be. I have watched the BBC and CNN International this afternoon, and both are talking about the threats of death and violence being made against Democrats in Congress. I’m sure no one is too surprised by this. I’m still concerned that we may be on the verge of a period of political assasinations. There is so much hatred being stirred up by the (White) Tea Partiers. And, while I see no direct tie between Beck and the threats, or between Palin and the threats. However, both embrace and nurture an intolerance that is disconcerting. Both are also emotionally unstable, and therefore, an anathema to reasonable political discourse and the stability of our Republic. At one point, does FOX have to reign Beck in? Soon, I hope. As to Palin, she is a free agent and will be allowed to continue her dangerous babbling. What is the media’s obligation to vigorously collect and present those facts which will futher delegitimize and marginalize Palin. I think we have some media accountability here.

Writer:

I agree with you, but the problem is that Olbermann has deluded himself (and many of his viewers (if you can use the word “many” when referring to such a small group)) into thinking he’s doing an unbiased news broadcast. That’s why he signs off with Edward R. Murrow’s line “good night and good luck.”

Righter, let’s not continue to press the bogus news v. commentary distinction when it comes to Beck. He presents everything he says as if it were fact, and in the minds of the peabrains who go prostrate before him, there is no such distinction either. Let’s deal with the reality and then weight the merit or lack thereof of Beck.

m says:
March 25, 2010 at 11:41 am
>Liberal Fascism has been totally debunked by more than a few scholars; it’s nonsense.

The book basically discards everything in the field of political science. Quite remarkable. It’s like someone writing about geology ignoring everything in geological sciences.

And who do you think is in charge of teaching political science, um LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES!!

>His show is his opinions, not a news broadcast. Whether right or wrong, it’s his opinion on how he views things.

Absolutely. I completely agree. He has the full right to say anything he wants. But words matter. As the saying goes “the pen is mightier than the sword”. He’s a public figure and he’s on TV. There will always be people who watch Glenn Beck’s show like the Riddler’s device from Batman Forever.

>And who do you think is in charge of teaching political science, um LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES!!

That’s the most absolutely hilarious thing I’ve read all day. Thanks for cracking me up! HAHA! *sniff* Aw man, comments on these forums sometimes surprise me.

@AnonymousFinch: So, Susan B. Anthony and other women’s advocates signed onto the idea of prohibition because they felt it would cut down on violence against women. Are we to extrapolate from that, since Anthony has been claimed by the right-to-life movement, an anti-abortion stance is also “Progressive” and something to which Beck would be opposed?

Quite a few progressives also favor legalization, as do libertarians… does that make a Libertarian a Progressive?

Again, I could guess why he can see the connection between prohibition and progressivism, primarily because the two groups overlapped to some degree, but they weren’t exclusively intertwined.

It’s odd that the left never calls for accountability when Olbermann is doing one of his hate filled, name calling diatribes. As for political assassinations, was Lee Oswald a right winger? How about Sirhan Sirhan? Or how about the attempted assassinations? The attempt on Reagan? Arthur Bremmer? Squeaky Fromme ? The right would have a long way to go to catch up with the left.

The Real Royal King says:
March 25, 2010 at 11:42 am
I’m traveling abroad on business, some I am less up-to-date than I would normally be. I have watched the BBC and CNN International this afternoon, and both are talking about the threats of death and violence being made against Democrats in Congress.

Still waiting for confirmation these instances were from conservatives. And you do remember the threats the stupak got from the left, right? There wasn’t alot of coverage on them, so you may not have heard about them, so here you go:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the legislator who has led a group of House Democrats who oppose the Senate health care bill because of its abortion language, says his life has become a “living hell” because of the debate.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats,” Stupak said in an interview with the Hill. His wife no longer watches television, he said, because of “people saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

….”My staff is overwhelmed and we’re accosted basically wherever we go by people who disagree,” Stupak said in an interview on MSNBC. “We should have disagreements in this country. I for one am standing on a principle most Americans agree with.”

I spent most of the day yesterday posting more instances from the left, but I’d be willing to do it again at your request.

Magister:

No two groups are ever “exclusively intertwined.” Prohibition was a major goal of progressive movement, not just Susan B. Anthony. That’s not a controversial claim (as is evidenced by the fact that even Wikipedia agrees with it). You are: (a) trying to revise history; and (b) claiming that Beck is stupid/uniformed/evil because he doesn’t agree with your revision.

It’s interesting to see the Beck defenders here want to discuss issues. The attackers only want to deal in insults. In this way, our little interaction here imitates the larger political “dialogue” going on in the country. Of course, the word “dialogue” is an exaggeration when only one side follows the rules of rational discourse.

@AnonymousFinch: Again, I’ve just heard him throw it out there without a lot of explanation. But, all Progressives weren’t pro-prohibition. The fountain of knowledge that is Wikipedia seems to give a lot more credit to the bible-thumpers in their Prohibition entry, but I go back to my question about Miss Anthony: If she supported prohibition because she considered a drunk man to be a threat against women, and if she opposed chemical abortions because of the threat to the female body… wouldn’t it stand to reason that if one wanted, they could lump opposition to RU-486 into a Progressive thing.

And again, I’m not disputing that some Progressives supported prohibition, but so did other groups and I consider prohibition a failed policy, as I also do the drug war. Nobody’s really disputing all this, it is an interpretation of history that Beck is filtering through his lens, which brings me back to my original question… what is there to refute?

(Though for the record, as a modern Progressive, I hearby disavow all forms of prohibition)

Magister:

You most certainly were disputing that Progressives supported prohibition when you first brought up the subject. Your exact quote was: “I can only guess why he [Beck] thinks Prohibition was a progressive thing.” The implication was that he was wrong to think that. The truth is he was completely justified in thinking that because it’s true.

And I’m not saying, nor have I said, that progressives were the sole cause of Prohibition. My argument is that it was one of the goal of progressives generally (not necessarily every single one of them) and Beck was justified in what he has said about the matter.

You’re backpedaling and setting up a straw-man argument to deflect the fact that you arrogantly attacked Beck without justification.

And, Magister, I assume that as a modern progressive you also disavow eugenics?

@AnonymousFinch: I don’t consider it backpedaling because I “could guess” why he keeps throwing it out. There was some overlap between the Progressives of that era and the Prohibitionists, much as there’s currently a shared goal by Country Club Republicans and the Evangelicals, but the two groups aren’t mutually exclusive.

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, but I just find it odd that he gives all the credit for this failed policy to one group, which he implies has something to do with the modern adherents to the philosophy, all while publicly practicing a religion with the same tenets.

And again, he’s just teaching history… so what is there to refute?

Magister:

Here is the distinction that liberals seems to miss. There is a difference between a religion that preaches against alcohol and a political movement that believes the highest law of the land should enforce a ban against alcohol. Not everything that is good needs to be federalized. Not everything that is bad needs to be federally prohibited.

@AnonymousFinch: And again, nobody (with the possible exception of some Evangelicals) is advocating a return to prohibition and in fact, I have no statistics, but I believe that most Progressives (and a large number of Libertarians) favor medicinal marijuana, if not decriminalization and/or legalization.

IOW: In this instance, the federal prohibition has been largely maintained by the Conservatives or does this in fact, make them Progressives?

Burns is still resentful that Fox wanted him to leave. He will spend the rest of his sad life trying and failing to make Fox look irrelevant. To which, MM will be gone long before Fox.
O’Donnell is only a 1/2 step above the blovating Olbermann. He can hardly stand to have anyone disagree with him before he goes off on them. MSNBC, is the network for , as Mr. Cantor would say, “fanning the flames of violence”.

Quote: “Burns called it a “continuing part of Glenn Beck’s ongoing campaign to destroy the progressive movement…”

That is, indeed, Beck’s goal. So it is only natural that Burns, O’Donnell, the rest of the NBC/MSNBC gang, Media Matters, the Soros Matrix, OFA etal., all want to discredit Glenn Beck — he is far more dangerous to them than anyone else on the FNC, because he is identifying who the progressives are, where they came from, and what they really stand for. The truth about the progressive movement is something they cannot abide.

Thank goodness the Dems control the White House and Congress. Now the left can stop being so bitter and angry all the time.

“Liberal Fascism has been debunked”…

By the liberal fascists.

And all those leftwingers trying to silence their opponents — on college campuses, TV shows, etc. — are just an optical illusion.

What’s to understand? Glenn Beck is a passionate American and Constitutionalist; they have none such qualities.

By the way, I’m just waiting for the day Glenn Beck will have blood on his hands.

He and Falafel O’Reilly already do. Remember George Tiller?

Yes Beck preaches against violence. But if he really wanted to make sure it didn’t happen, he wouldn’t constantly inflame, stoke and and incite raw anger, fear and divisiveness – all of which he surely knows are precursors. Given his insistent use of hyperbole, invective and eliminationist rhetoric, it’s hard not to believe that his real goal in disavowing violence is to make sure nobody blames him if someone takes him too much to heart.

Oh, and by the way, silkworm, MMFA’s Eric Burns is not the Eric Burns who was formerly on Fox.

http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/staff_advisors