Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Rich Lowry all have pretty solid conservative credentials, don’t they? Hardly a group of RINOs. What say you Beck defenders? Has Glenn gone a little off the deep end with this caliphate stuff?

Whats the point? he’s already done it in writing.

Only stupid people believe what Glenn Beck spews. Like Sarah Palin, he’s a great litmus test for intelligence.

Conservative Jennifer Rubin compares Beck and the right to Olbermann and the left:

As other conservatives and I have written, whether on the topic of his inappropriate use of Holocaust talk or with regard to the many other instances of inflammatory language, Glenn Beck has proved himself to be a poor representative of the conservative movement. He provides fodder for the left, eschews substance in favor of vitriol and is often simply wrong on the facts. Unfortunately, many conservatives have largely ignored his behavior, just as those on the left refused to recognize that Keith Olbermann was a menace to the image of liberals.

Beck once again has proven how uncivil and unreasoned he is, this time going after Bill Kristol, whom Beck has not the decency to refer to by his real name. Bill took Beck to task recently for his hysterical language and reaction to the Egyptian revolution. And Beck proved Bill’s criticism correct by unleashing a stream of insults. You don’t have to favor Bill’s approach to Egypt or anything else to realize an ad hominem attack without any intellectual argument is really not what conservatives should be all about. There has been plenty of spirited and collegial debate on the topic on the right, as I have explained. But Beck’s spasm of bile does his network no favors.

The problem with ranting extremists is they usually wind up impaling themselves and their employers. MSNBC figured out that it could field liberal hosts who were as popular with its audience as Olbermann, without having to put up with the hassles. You wonder how long Fox will take to reach the same conclusion about its own unhinged screamer.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/fox_like_msnbc_learns_the_hard.html?wprss=right-turn

Publius219 said:
Only stupid people believe what Glenn Beck spews. Like Sarah Palin, he’s a great litmus test for intelligence.

and you’re a double blind study in what’s wrong with our Country.

joe is sooo desperate it’s just sad to watch…

Cool. Now let’s see John Heilamann on Fox News Sunday. More inter-channel debates!

Paul says:

Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Rich Lowry all have pretty solid conservative credentials, don’t they?

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that but they do have a history of not liking those they consider outsiders (Beck, Tea Party, anyone who hasn’t spend their life in WA).

Those who can’t refute, disparage!

paulmdoro said:
Conservative Jennifer Rubin compares Beck and the right to Olbermann and the left:

As other conservatives and I have written, whether on the topic of his inappropriate use of Holocaust talk or with regard to the many other instances of inflammatory language, Glenn Beck has proved himself to be a poor representative of the conservative movement. He provides fodder for the left, eschews substance in favor of vitriol and is often simply wrong on the facts. Unfortunately, many conservatives have largely ignored his behavior, just as those on the left refused to recognize that Keith Olbermann was a menace to the image of liberals.

Beck once again has proven how uncivil and unreasoned he is, this time going after Bill Kristol, whom Beck has not the decency to refer to by his real name. Bill took Beck to task recently for his hysterical language and reaction to the Egyptian revolution. And Beck proved Bill’s criticism correct by unleashing a stream of insults. You don’t have to favor Bill’s approach to Egypt or anything else to realize an ad hominem attack without any intellectual argument is really not what conservatives should be all about. There has been plenty of spirited and collegial debate on the topic on the right, as I have explained. But Beck’s spasm of bile does his network no favors.

The problem with ranting extremists is they usually wind up impaling themselves and their employers. MSNBC figured out that it could field liberal hosts who were as popular with its audience as Olbermann, without having to put up with the hassles. You wonder how long Fox will take to reach the same conclusion about its own unhinged screamer.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/fox_like_msnbc_learns_the_hard.html?wprss=right-turn

Great piece. Dead on too.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Rich Lowry all have pretty solid conservative credentials, don’t they?

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that but they do have a history of not liking those they consider outsiders (Beck, Tea Party, anyone who hasn’t spend their life in WA).

All 3 dislike the tea party? And are they wrong about Beck on this particular issue?

paulmdoro said:
Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Rich Lowry all have pretty solid conservative credentials, don’t they? Hardly a group of RINOs. What say you Beck defenders? Has Glenn gone a little off the deep end with this caliphate stuff?

At what point did you decide that all “Conservatives” need to agree all the time with other Conservatives?

Also, at what point did you forget that Beck isn’t a “Conservative,” but a “Beck-ian Libertarian” (IOW, he’s a Libertarian of his own choosing, and does not respond to any established branch of Libertarianism)?

The left always talks about how they have such a “Big Tent,” and then proceed to kick out members who don’t tow the far-left line (*see, Joe Lieberman)… and expect the Right to do the same thing. Beck and Kristol are allowed to disagree… it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t mostly part of the same pie… just that they have different opinions on a particular issue. Again, what’s wrong with that?

Yes Paul, It’s my opinion that they are wrong about Beck. I think Beck’s bluntness makes people uncomfortable. I also don’t think they like that he chastizes Republican’s too.

INB says:

The left always talks about how they have such a “Big Tent,” and then proceed to kick out members who don’t tow the far-left line (*see, Joe Lieberman)… and expect the Right to do the same thing. Beck and Kristol are allowed to disagree… it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t mostly part of the same pie… just that they have different opinions on a particular issue. Again, what’s wrong with that?

Nothing, the liberal media is trying to start an internal war in an effort to shift the focus off of Obama and their party.

The sad thing is that I am sure Kristol has not watched Beck’s show. He is most likely shooting off his mouth from seeing clips.
There is NOTHING that Beck has said about Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood that is wrong. Just for the idiots here and the pundits that shoot off their mouth without EVER watching the show, Beck has said NOTHING that is wrong on this subject.
The Brotherhood supports a caliphate. Iran supports a caliphate. A poll of the population of Egypt say they support killing people that leave the religion. They support cutting off peoples hands for theft. The support stoning for adultry. Goodby Clinton, Edwards and Gore.

Let me give you a clue, when you see people riding camels and horses to run down people, you are in a backward crazy country.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Yes Paul, It’s my opinion that they are wrong about Beck. I think Beck’s bluntness makes people uncomfortable. I also don’t think they like that he chastizes Republican’s too.

So you agree with all Beck has said about Egypt and caliphates and alliances between communists and the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.?

ImNotBlue said:
At what point did you decide that all “Conservatives” need to agree all the time with other Conservatives?

Also, at what point did you forget that Beck isn’t a “Conservative,” but a “Beck-ian Libertarian” (IOW, he’s a Libertarian of his own choosing, and does not respond to any established branch of Libertarianism)?

The left always talks about how they have such a “Big Tent,” and then proceed to kick out members who don’t tow the far-left line (*see, Joe Lieberman)… and expect the Right to do the same thing. Beck and Kristol are allowed to disagree… it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t mostly part of the same pie… just that they have different opinions on a particular issue. Again, what’s wrong with that?

Sigh. I never said all conservatives need to agree all the time. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s just that nearly every single time Beck is criticized by the right, the criticizer is labeled a RINO. I wondered what people felt in this instance. Make sense? I can slow it down.

Paul says:

So you agree with all Beck has said about Egypt and caliphates and alliances between communists and the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.?

I believe he mades some very good points that his detractors haven’t rebutted. They have mocked him, but have not really been able to prove where he’s wrong, as usual.

paulmdoro said:
Sigh. I never said all conservatives need to agree all the time. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s just that nearly every single time Beck is criticized by the right, the criticizer is labeled a RINO. I wondered what people felt in this instance. Make sense? I can slow it down.

Well… there are some folks who deserve the title of “RINO,” who have criticized Beck. I don’t think that really applies to Kristol… although, he could be more correctly considered an “establishment” Republican.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

So you agree with all Beck has said about Egypt and caliphates and alliances between communists and the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.?

I believe he mades some very good points that his detractors haven’t rebutted. They have mocked him, but have not really been able to prove where he’s wrong, as usual.

How could someone prove him wrong about a caliphate? What evidence would you need to see to believe that Beck is wrong here, or beyond the limits of reason?

ImNotBlue said:
Well… there are some folks who deserve the title of “RINO,” who have criticized Beck. I don’t think that really applies to Kristol… although, he could be more correctly considered an “establishment” Republican.

Which is why I said RINO doesn’t seem to apply to this particular trio.

paulmdoro said:
Which is why I said RINO doesn’t seem to apply to this particular trio.

Okay… so what’s your point?

In your first post you seem to say that since those three disagree with Beck, that Beck must be “off the deep end.” I don’t understand the “they must agree with Beck or it’s bad,” logic.

Paul, I”ll make you a deal, you watch Beck’s show for a week and tell me what if anything you think he gets wrong. I think most of the people that mock him, don’t even bother to watch his show or listen to what he says.

Matt Continetti is a David Cross character.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul, I”ll make you a deal, you watch Beck’s show for a week and tell me what if anything you think he gets wrong. I think most of the people that mock him, don’t even bother to watch his show or listen to what he says.

Can’t answer my questions, or just don’t want to? I would really like to know how someone could prove Beck is wrong about the caliphate. What would it take to convince you? You don’t think that’s a little over-the-top at all? Do you believe communists will align with the Muslim Brotherhood?

ImNotBlue said:
Okay… so what’s your point?

In your first post you seem to say that since those three disagree with Beck, that Beck must be “off the deep end.” I don’t understand the “they must agree with Beck or it’s bad,” logic.

That is not what I said. Please reread and try again.

Paul says:

Can’t answer my questions, or just don’t want to? I would really like to know how someone could prove Beck is wrong about the caliphate

Well you’re the one that says he’s wrong, so isn’t the burden of proof on you and not me? He’s giving an opinion, you don’t have to agree with him, but to just call him crazy, like many on the left do, doesn’t prove that what he’s saying is wrong.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

Can’t answer my questions, or just don’t want to? I would really like to know how someone could prove Beck is wrong about the caliphate

Well you’re the one that says he’s wrong, so isn’t the burden of proof on you and not me? He’s giving an opinion, you don’t have to agree with him, but to just call him crazy, like many on the left do, doesn’t prove that what he’s saying is wrong.

I didn’t say he is wrong. You said you agreed with his statements about Egypt and a caliphate. I asked what evidence you would need to see to convince you that he is wrong on this particular issue. You keep saying that no one can prove him wrong. Let’s try this. What makes you believe Beck is correct about a caliphate?

paulmdoro said:
That is not what I said. Please reread and try again.

So it wasn’t you who said this:

paulmdoro said:
Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Rich Lowry all have pretty solid conservative credentials, don’t they? Hardly a group of RINOs. What say you Beck defenders? Has Glenn gone a little off the deep end with this caliphate stuff?

Let me restate your thesis, and you tell me where I’m wrong: “Kristol, Fund, Lowry are solid conservatives. They disagree with Beck’s view on the Egyptian crisis. Therefore, either the trio must be called RINO’s by Beck supporters, or Beck must be ‘off the deep end.’” That’s how I see your thesis.

However, as I said, just because they disagree on this issue doesn’t mean anyone is “wrong,” or we must attack someone for disagreeing. Beck has his opinion… and Kristol (and the rest) have theirs. They don’t always have to agree… and not agreeing doesn’t necessarily hurt either groups “conservative credentials.”

Does this make sense now?

Paul says:

I didn’t say he is wrong. You said you agreed with his statements about Egypt and a caliphate

I said he made some good points, not that he’s necessarily right. I think he could be right, but I don’t know. The thing I like about Beck is he makes you think about things you wouldn’t have otherwise. Then he tells you do NOT take his word for it but to research for yourself. Isn’t that a good thing?

Wow I can’t believe I have to explain this. Notice all of the question marks there. Because Beck defenders very often accuse right-wing Beck critics of being RINOs, I sought confirmation that his trio has what I believe to be solid conservative credentials and then went on to ask if that gives their criticism more validation in the eyes of Beck defenders. You are reading into it what you want to, but my question marks and wording should make what I am saying perfectly clear.

Mostly, though, he seemed annoyed at the assertion that this was the first time a Conservative had said anything against Beck.

“That’s not fair at all. Matt Continetti had a long piece a year ago – partly on Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, what was healthy and not so admirable, certain strains of thoughts among people like Glenn Beck. So I don’t think it’s fair to say, ‘Oh, you guys should be calling him out and monitoring everyone on your side.’ We publish what we believe in The Weekly Standard and I’m happy to defend what I say.”,/blockquote>

And that peice was lacking, too.

Beck’s book Arguing with Idiots contains a list of the “Top Ten Bastards of All Time,” on which Pol Pot (No. 10), Adolf Hitler (No. 6), and Pontius Pilate (No. 4) all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1). In Glenn Beck’s Common Sense Beck writes, “With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood.”

This is nonsense. Whatever you think of Theodore Roosevelt, he was not Lenin. Woodrow Wilson was not Stalin.

err…Matt? That is nonsense. That list was a joke. I have a feeling you know that, because you left out that Tiger Woods was #2 on the list (that was even before the whole philandering thing came out.) Why was he #2? I’m paraphrasing here, but it was because he plays golf for a living (a very good living) and ’cause he has (had) a hot Swedish supermodel for a wife.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

I didn’t say he is wrong. You said you agreed with his statements about Egypt and a caliphate

I said he made some good points, not that he’s necessarily right. I think he could be right, but I don’t know. The thing I like about Beck is he makes you think about things you wouldn’t have otherwise. Then he tells you do NOT take his word for it but to research for yourself. Isn’t that a good thing?

So what exactly are his good points on Egypt and the caliphate? What kind of research have you done for yourself because of his comments?

HAHA!

The Clowns are starting to attack each other now!

All you Chicken Little Beck follower’s heads are spinning.

Usually all of you just use the same blather: Liberal this; MSNBC that; FOX ratings are better. Always the same.

Now you have Billy Boy Kristol basically laughing at Glenn Beck and you guys don’t know how to respond so you attack each other.

It’s a Clown fight at it’s hilarious!!!

paulmdoro said:
So what exactly are his good points on Egypt and the caliphate? What kind of research have you done for yourself because of his comments?

O’Beckerhead told her he is right. Nothing more is required.

err…Matt? That is nonsense. That list was a joke. I have a feeling you know that, because you left out that Tiger Woods was #2 on the list (that was even before the whole philandering thing came out.) Why was he #2? I’m paraphrasing here, but it was because he plays golf for a living (a very good living) and ’cause he has (had) a hot Swedish supermodel for a wife.

From the book:

“He’s got a Swedish-supermodel wife, a gazillion dollars, and he plays golf for a living… bastard!”

I have to say that I agree…even without Swedish-supermodel wife, he still gets plenty of money while playing golf for a living…bastard!

paulmdoro said:
Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

I didn’t say he is wrong. You said you agreed with his statements about Egypt and a caliphate

I said he made some good points, not that he’s necessarily right. I think he could be right, but I don’t know. The thing I like about Beck is he makes you think about things you wouldn’t have otherwise. Then he tells you do NOT take his word for it but to research for yourself. Isn’t that a good thing?

So what exactly are his good points on Egypt and the caliphate? What kind of research have you done for yourself because of his comments?

Here’s what’s going to happen:

The situation in Egypt will resolve itself reasonably well.

O’Beckerhead and Tormented Michelle will be greatly disappointed that we didn’t end up in a war in which 5,000 Americans are killed, 200,000 Egyptian men, women and children are killed, and US $50 Trillion is added to the deficit.

O’Beckerhead will say he never talked about the Caliphate.

Tormented Michelle will say O’Beckerhead never talked about the Caliphate, and you have to prove he did.

You’ll supply a link. Tormented Michelle was say, “What. A six (6) month old link is the best you can do. You got nothing.”

paulmdoro said:
Wow I can’t believe I have to explain this. Notice all of the question marks there. Because Beck defenders very often accuse right-wing Beck critics of being RINOs, I sought confirmation that his trio has what I believe to be solid conservative credentials and then went on to ask if that gives their criticism more validation in the eyes of Beck defenders. You are reading into it what you want to, but my question marks and wording should make what I am saying perfectly clear.

“More validation?” Are you suggesting that Kristol’s credentials are so strong, that his criticism of Beck should doom Beck forever?

I don’t think you’re getting it. Kristol criticizes Beck… terrific. Does that mean people have to chose one or the other from now on? No… it just means that on ever single issue, Kristol doesn’t agree with Beck, and that’s okay. Besides, even “Beck fans,” can disagree with Beck once in a while. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

grafxmail7 said:
HAHA! The Clowns are starting to attack each other now! All you Chicken Little Beck follower’s heads are spinning. Usually all of you just use the same blather: Liberal this; MSNBC that; FOX ratings are better. Always the same. Now you have Billy Boy Kristol basically laughing at Glenn Beck and you guys don’t know how to respond so you attack each other. It’s a Clown fight at it’s hilarious!!!

Really, grafx? Are you in any position to be pointing out anything that is “always the same?”

Hey look, you wrote “Chicken Little Beck,” in your post! Everybody take a drink of water! (We thought about using liquor, but realized since you say the same thing in EVERY POST, we’d all be dead relatively quickly.)

The Real Royal King said:
Tormented Michelle will say O’Beckerhead never talked about the Caliphate, and you have to prove he did. You’ll supply a link. Tormented Michelle was say, “What. A six (6) month old link is the best you can do. You got nothing.”

Kinda like how you do when presented with evidence and proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Still smarting from being so undeniably wrong yesterday, huh? Poor fella.

Anyway, I’m still waiting for that apology.

Does anybody else see “Bill Kritol Glenn Beck/Bill Kristol Morning Joe/Caliphate” at the top of the screen? Because that’s kind of funny if they mispelled “Kristol” before spelling it correctly. Not being a grammar nazi here, just pointing it out.

ImNotBlue said:
“More validation?” Are you suggesting that Kristol’s credentials are so strong, that his criticism of Beck should doom Beck forever?

I don’t think you’re getting it. Kristol criticizes Beck… terrific. Does that mean people have to chose one or the other from now on? No… it just means that on ever single issue, Kristol doesn’t agree with Beck, and that’s okay. Besides, even “Beck fans,” can disagree with Beck once in a while. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

Again, that’s not what I said. I’m not sure why you feel the need to put words in my mouth. I get it just fine, but thanks for the condescension. It’s far from just Kristol criticizing Beck on this issue. Once again, I asked if the fact that non-RINOs were criticizing Beck on this gave the criticism more weight. I think that’s a valid question. Has a Beck fan here stated that they disagree with him about Egypt and the caliphate?

Calvin said:
I have to say that I agree…even without Swedish-supermodel wife

“the Swedish-supermodel wife”

ImNotBlue said:
Kinda like how you do when presented with evidence and proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Still smarting from being so undeniably wrong yesterday, huh? Poor fella.

Anyway, I’m still waiting for that apology.

Philistine.

I’m terribly, terribly, tragically sorry for:

(a) Saying what I said.
or
(b) Not saying what I should have said.
or
(c) Implying what I implied.
or
(d) Not implying what I should have supplied.

Take your pick. It doesn’t matter to me.

King, we know you’re very sorry. Now apologize.

I wonder if this will end with Kristol going on Beck’s show? Beck doesn’t seem like the type that would step into Kristol’s arena on a Sunday morning show.

I finally got around to watching “A Single Man” and this scene where the main character talks to his class about fear during the Cuban missile crisis seemed somewhat timely, what with the Mediterranean on fire and all. Sorry in advance about the use of the n-word and the tl;dr length of this thing.

MYRON; Sir, on page 79, Mr. Propter says that the stupidest text in the Bible is: “they hated me without a cause.” Does he mean the Nazis were right to hate the Jews? Is Huxley an anti-Semite?

GEORGE : No, Mr. Huxley is not an anti-Semite. The Nazis were obviously wrong to hate the Jews. But their hating the Jews was not without a cause… But the cause wasnʼt real. The cause was imagined. The cause was FEAR.

Letʼs leave the Jews out of this for a moment and think of another minority. One that can go unnoticed if it needs to.

[George looks directly at WALTER, a slightly effeminate young man, who turns away embarrassed.]

There are all sorts of minorities, blondes for example, but a minority is only thought of as one when it constitutes some kind of threat to the majority. A real threat or an imagined one. And therein lies the FEAR. And, if the minority is somehow invisible……the fear is even greater. And this FEAR is the reason the minority is persecuted. So, there always is a cause. And the cause is FEAR. Minorities are just people. People……like us.

I can see that Iʼve lost you a bit. You know what? Letʼs forget about Huxley today. Letʼs just talk about fear. Fear, after all, is our real enemy. Fear is taking over our world. Fear is being used as a tool of manipulation in our society. Itʼs how politicians peddle policy and how Madison Avenue sells us things that we donʼt need. Think about it. Fear that weʼre going to be attacked, fear that there are communists lurking around every corner, fear that some little Caribbean country that doesnʼt believe in our way of life poses a threat to us. Fear that black culture may take over the world. Fear of Elvis Presleyʼs hips.(beat) Well, maybe that one is a real fear. Fear that our bad breath might ruin our friendships… Fear of growing old and being alone.

Paul, do I think that it’s conceivable that those in the muslim world would like to see a caliphate? Yes. Do I think Glenn has provided alot of proof of the left in this country working with those who might share similar views in other parts of the world? Absolutely. Code Pink stood with the Muslim Brotherhood over there just a couple years ago. A frequest visitor to the Whitehouse, Trumpka thinks we need a new world order. Liberals can continue to call Beck crazy, I really don’t care. I just think it’s odd to totally dismiss the info he brings to the table. The liberal media brings nothing of their own, just mocks him. To me, that is what is weird.

It is hard to disparage Glenn Beck when he uses Progressives own words to uncover their true agenda.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul, do I think that it’s conceivable that those in the muslim world would like to see a caliphate? Yes. Do I think Glenn has provided alot of proof of the left in this country working with those who might share similar views in other parts of the world? Absolutely. Code Pink stood with the Muslim Brotherhood over there just a couple years ago. A frequest visitor to the Whitehouse, Trumpka thinks we need a new world order. Liberals can continue to call Beck crazy, I really don’t care. I just think it’s odd to totally dismiss the info he brings to the table. The liberal media brings nothing of their own, just mocks him. To me, that is what is weird.

It’s hardly just liberals mocking Beck about this. Code Pink and one White House visitor is far from definitive, conclusive proof of what Beck is talking about. What other proof has he provided that convinces you he is right about Egypt and a caliphate? Please go beyond a single White House visitor and a fringe group like Code Pink.

paulmdoro said:
Again, that’s not what I said. I’m not sure why you feel the need to put words in my mouth. I get it just fine, but thanks for the condescension. It’s far from just Kristol criticizing Beck on this issue. Once again, I asked if the fact that non-RINOs were criticizing Beck on this gave the criticism more weight. I think that’s a valid question. Has a Beck fan here stated that they disagree with him about Egypt and the caliphate?

I am trying to understand what you are asking. You are being exceptionally unclear and convoluted. That is not my problem… it’s yours.

No, the fact that some Republicans are criticizing Beck gives no more weight to the “Beck is off the deep end” theory. It just means that not all Republicans agree with Beck all the time. I don’t know what you’re not understanding yet, or what response you’re looking for.

The Real Royal King said:
Philistine. I’m terribly, terribly, tragically sorry for: (a) Saying what I said.or(b) Not saying what I should have said.or(c) Implying what I implied.or(d) Not implying what I should have supplied. Take your pick. It doesn’t matter to me.

I’ll fill in the blanks for you:

(a) Saying what I said.
That the left never attacked the “Alexa Charity” because of O’Reilly.

(b) Not saying what I should have said.
That when proven, you were wrong and apologize for being so insulting and belligerent.

(c) Implying what I implied.
That you never actually said what you had said just a post or two previous.

(d) Not implying what I should have supplied.
Any kind of evidence to prove your argument.

Well… it’s not a great apology, but it’s a start. At least you now recognize that you were wrong. It’s a start.

paulmdoro said:
It’s hardly just liberals mocking Beck about this. Code Pink and one White House visitor is far from definitive, conclusive proof of what Beck is talking about. What other proof has he provided that convinces you he is right about Egypt and a caliphate? Please go beyond a single White House visitor and a fringe group like Code Pink.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/becks-matthews-mocked-conspiracy-confirmed-video-of-us-communists-socialists-unions-working-with-muslim-brotherhood-assoc-groups/

Bot said:
It is hard to disparage Glenn Beck when he uses Progressives own words to uncover their true agenda.

I disagree. It’s not hard for them because personal attacks is all they have.

Greg Gutfeld called them Patriotic Terrorists for a reason. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/new-trend-on-the-rise-the_b_39594.html

Kristol is wisely biting his tongue now because he knows he is wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__KhQThX-G0&feature=player_embedded Jump to 9:30 to focus on the words of the Muslim Brotherhood rep and the significance.

ImNotBlue said:
I am trying to understand what you are asking. You are being exceptionally unclear and convoluted. That is not my problem… it’s yours.

No, the fact that some Republicans are criticizing Beck gives no more weight to the “Beck is off the deep end” theory. It just means that not all Republicans agree with Beck all the time. I don’t know what you’re not understanding yet, or what response you’re looking for.

I could hardly be clearer about this, and you prove that by answering my query. Your condescension is very unfortunate and unnecessary.

Once more for the bleacher seats. When Beck receives criticism from the right, a common refrain is, “so and so is a RINO or establishment Republican.” Apparently that invalidates the criticism immediately. See David Frum or David Brooks, etc. However, in this instance Egypt and the caliphate), there is significant criticism from people who are not RINOs and possess solid conservative credentials. Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, John Fund, Jennifer Rubin, former John Boehner staff member Scott Garupo. Therefore, I asked if this gives the criticism any more weight with Beck fans. You expressed your opinion. I can’t imagine how this is in any way unclear.

To add to that, very often it seems that Beck criticism is immediately discarded if the criticism comes from someone deemed a RINO. What they say and any substance it might have is discarded because of who it comes from. No consideration is given to the criticism. Therefore I wondered if non-RINO criticism would be treated in exactly the same way.

ImNotBlue said:

Really, grafx? Are you in any position to be pointing out anything that is “always the same?”

Hey look, you wrote “Chicken Little Beck,” in your post! Everybody take a drink of water! (We thought about using liquor, but realized since you say the same thing in EVERY POST, we’d all be dead relatively quickly.)

Hey! Look here! It’s one of Chicken Little Beck’s organ grinder accompaniment Monkeys!!

Billy Kristol laughs at his Dear Leader and what does he have to say? [sound of a monkey]

Why don’t you just explain your Dear Leader’s take on the Caliphate? I want to know why Russia is going to get the Netherlands? (I wonder if Chicken Little Beck knows where Holland is?) Do you think they want the recipe for the hash cakes?

Now! More of the monkeys screeching and clowns running around blowing your horns defending your Organ Grinder in Chief! HAHAH!

Paul says:

What other proof has he provided that convinces you he is right about Egypt and a caliphate?

You keep saying this, but I didn’t say that.

ImNotBlue….just wanted to say that I understand you.

You can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t make him think.

WCinWI said:
ImNotBlue….just wanted to say that I understand you.

You can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t make him think.

So rather than make a contribution to the discussion, you insult me instead? Says a lot more about you than it does me.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul says:

What other proof has he provided that convinces you he is right about Egypt and a caliphate?

You keep saying this, but I didn’t say that.

I must have misunderstood you. What did you say then?

paulmdoro said:
So rather than make a contribution to the discussion, you insult me instead? Says a lot more about you than it does me.

Other commenters have said numerous times their main point. If you can’t understand what they’re saying, that’s not my fault. I get what they mean. :)

Paul reminds me of that Jason with the D logo. Anyone else?

WCinWI said:
Other commenters have said numerous times their main point. If you can’t understand what they’re saying, that’s not my fault. I get what they mean. :)

Have you actually read the comments here, or did you just feel like taking a puerile cheap shot? It is me they apparently couldn’t understand, not the other way around. I was asked to clarify my comments. Maybe you have something to contribute to the discussion?

WCinWI said:
Paul reminds me of that Jason with the D logo. Anyone else?

You remind me of the plethora of commentators here who are great with a quick insult and little else.

paulmdoro said:
Have you actually read the comments here, or did you just feel like taking a puerile cheap shot? It is me they apparently couldn’t understand, not the other way around. I was asked to clarify my comments. Maybe you have something to contribute to the discussion?

I did read their statements and I understood their points far more than I understood your attempt at trying to make a point. I’m sorry if you feel that that is me attacking you. It’s not – I just understand those that I understand.

And you reminded me of Jason because two-three days ago, he was not making any sense too. Not my problem if you take that personal.

WCinWI said:
I did read their statements and I understood their points far more than I understood your attempt at trying to make a point. I’m sorry if you feel that that is me attacking you. It’s not – I just understand those that I understand.

And you reminded me of Jason because two-three days ago, he was not making any sense too. Not my problem if you take that personal.

I clearly explained myself numerous times. If you didn’t understand something, why not ask, rather than resort to insults? Why not participate in the discussion? Do you prefer simple name-calling?

Kristol is a fairly smart man but he is so typical of the northeastern Republican elitists. He needs to get over that!

I did my own research over 10 years ago on this group…..wrote about them in 2007. Before Beck!! If you guys will pay attention to what the imams are actually saying in their language instead of the pap they feed us in ours, you would understand that Beck is right…it is scary, spooky and true. Do I care whether you guys believe it or not? No. When they come for you it won’t make a hill of beans what you want or don’t want. They only play one way: their way. Don’t listen or believe Beck…but if you guys truly care, you might look into that group of folks founded in the 20′s by a sexual-sadist psychopath that hated women and came to hate America and it’s people with virulence that would be disturbing to any decent, just and right thinking person. Read the 26 page essay by Martin Amis of September, 2007 in The Observer called “Horrorism”. Then make up your own mind!

Well he had no problems expressing his displeasure with the Wasilla Hillbilly though. I’m guessing Mediaite just forgot to post that clip. Here it is. By the way, before you start trashing Bill, remember that he’s the one who dug up this political harpy.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/08/kristol_disappointed_palin

paulmdoro said:
When Beck receives criticism from the right, a common refrain is, “so and so is a RINO or establishment Republican.” Apparently that invalidates the criticism immediately. See David Frum or David Brooks, etc

That’s the standard refrain whenever Frum or Brooks opens their mouth. It is most certainly not Beck-centric, which would be funny anyway, given that Beck isn’t a Republican.

Pablo said:
That’s the standard refrain whenever Frum or Brooks opens their mouth. It is most certainly not Beck-centric, which would be funny anyway, given that Beck isn’t a Republican.

Oh right he’s a Beckertarian.

Good post Sue, but you’re wasting your breath. Some people have no desire to be educated. They’d rather wallow in their ignorance and pretend it’s not happending.

Sue said:
I did my own research over 10 years ago on this group…..wrote about them in 2007. Before Beck!! If you guys will pay attention to what the imams are actually saying in their language instead of the pap they feed us in ours, you would understand that Beck is right…it is scary, spooky and true. Do I care whether you guys believe it or not? No. When they come for you it won’t make a hill of beans what you want or don’t want. They only play one way: their way. Don’t listen or believe Beck…but if you guys truly care, you might look into that group of folks founded in the 20’s by a sexual-sadist psychopath that hated women and came to hate America and it’s people with virulence that would be disturbing to any decent, just and right thinking person. Read the 26 page essay by Martin Amis of September, 2007 in The Observer called “Horrorism”. Then make up your own mind!

Yep. When splodeydopes were going off in Israel like so much popcorn over a decade ago, anyone who was paying attention learned a few Muslim Brotherhood lessons. They’re Hamas, with a couple of feints toward responsibility and respectability.

For the record, I think Beck’s concerns as to what will happen are overblown. That said, he’s got the players right, he’s got their intentions right, and his scenario is certainly plausible. Not probable, in my mind, but plausible. If anyone can point to anything he’s stated as fact to support his case that’s not fact, please dish.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Good post Sue, but you’re wasting your breath. Some people have no desire to be educated. They’d rather wallow in their ignorance and pretend it’s not happending.

Hey where’s my clarification? Still waiting.

Pablo said:
For the record, I think Beck’s concerns as to what will happen are overblown. That said, he’s got the players right, he’s got their intentions right, and his scenario is certainly plausible. Not probable, in my mind, but plausible. If anyone can point to anything he’s stated as fact to support his case that’s not fact, please dish.

So why is he drawing more ire in this particular instance?

Paul, I think if you go back through my comments, you can clear up your confusion.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul, I think if you go back through my comments, you can clear up your confusion.

It seemed to me that you asserted agreement with Beck’s conclusions about Egypt and the caliphate. I asked you to provide me with specifics concerning your areas of agreement. Can you?

paulmdoro said:
So why is he drawing more ire in this particular instance?

Because he’s being unhelpful with all his stupid facts. We can’t have people getting their ideas from unapproved sources.

You’ll notice that Kristol has never refuted Beck, but only criticized him.

Pablo said:
Because he’s being unhelpful with all his stupid facts. We can’t have people getting their ideas from unapproved sources.

You’ll notice that Kristol has never refuted Beck, but only criticized him.

It’s hardly just Kristol though. If he’s right, why all the aversion?

Pablo this comes from Commentary writer Alana Goodman. She asserts that there is some truth to what Beck is saying, but that he is taking it too far.

“Glenn Beck, instead of taking a hard, sober look at a situation that will have major ramifications for the U.S., has been using his high-profile FOX and radio shows to, in fact, misinform. The new theory Beck appears to be pushing is that the Egyptian revolt is being controlled by an alliance between leftist American organizations and Islamists.

Like most misguided ideas, this theory is based in some truth. Leftist groups like ANSWER and Code Pink have inserted themselves into the Egyptian uprising, and there are indications that they’ve been reaching out to Islamist organizations. But so what? Many leftist groups are anti-American. Islamist groups are anti-American. That they’ve reached out to each other is not a particularly surprising, or significant, development.

The danger of Beck’s theorizing is that he’s spreading the misconception that the uprising in Egypt was initiated by anti-democratic groups, and that it’s Islamist at its core. While there’s no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood and socialist organizations have become involved in the protests, they didn’t start the uprising, and that’s not what the protests are about.

Yes, there are many reasons to be concerned about Islamist groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, gaining control in Egypt. But there are also many reasons to be hopeful for democracy. It’s difficult enough to calculate the best course for Egypt based on the known facts. Throwing unknown, or inaccurate, “facts” into the mix doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.”

Paul, again he laid out some things I hadn’t thought of before. That’s what I said. I guess I’m not sure what you want from me. I never said I believe everything Beck says, I merely said he brings things to the spotlight that other people don’t. I do think it’s interesting that his detractors do nothing but mock him without providing evidence of where he’s going wrong.

Pablo said:

You’ll notice that Kristol has never refuted Beck, but only criticized him.

Maybe Kristol realizes by actually debating Beck’s sophistry, he would be legitimizing it. When someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you engage him in a serious discussion of what kind of cheese?

Beck’s CORRECT!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
I do think it’s interesting that his detractors do nothing but mock him without providing evidence of where he’s going wrong.

See the post from Commentary above.

paulmdoro said:
See the post from Commentary above.

So then Commentary agrees with Pablo on Beck’s assessment. Gosh, you’re not making yourself look too good. Granted, against Pablo, that’s not saying much because he’s smarter than a lot of us on the Right. :)

Gordon Bloyershow said
….
Let me give you a clue, when you see people riding camels and horses to run down people, you are in a backward crazy country.

Again, those people were pro-Mubarak, you know the ones Beck seems intent on keeping in power at the expense of democracy.
Maybe you should get a chalkboard at home to keep the fighting parties separated? Put Liberal loving Muslim brotherhood supporters on one side, Mubarak loving US supported anti-democracy thugs on the other.
Then take a step back and see if that makes any sense.

WCinWI said:
So then Commentary agrees with Pablo on Beck’s assessment. Gosh, you’re not making yourself look too good. Granted, against Pablo, that’s not saying much because he’s smarter than a lot of us on the Right. :)

Not exactly. Are you sure you read it? “Like most misguided ideas, this theory is based in some truth.” Those are the author’s words.

You sure do like the insults though. Always nice to be good at something. So much easier than trying to contribute to a discussion. Maybe it’s just over your head?

paulmdoro said:
Can’t answer my questions, or just don’t want to? I would really like to know how someone could prove Beck is wrong about the caliphate. What would it take to convince you? You don’t think that’s a little over-the-top at all? Do you believe communists will align with the Muslim Brotherhood?

.
Perhaps the problem you have with “caliphate” is partly semantics.

I think of “New Caliphate” as a form of shorthand for a broad united political, social and economic resurgence of the glory days of Islamic political ( remember Islam IS both a political and religious philosophy) of the Caliphate. We might in the future be talking about a New Soviet Bloc or a New Western (American) Bloc.

Do you deny that there is an Islamic movement that cuts across polical and economic boundaries whose sole goal is to institute Islam world wide. We know Marxists/Stalinists; and Nazis?Fascists; and Alexander/Greeks; and Roman Empire; and the Ottoman Empire all had the ultimate goal of controlling the world.

With that in mind why should the thought of such an Islamic goal today be laughable?

As for all the disbelieving horror at the absurd idea of the political Left allying themselves with Islamic Fundamentalists we need look no further back then the Left allying themselves with the anti-Shah Iranian movement and by withdrawing support from the Shah Carter paved the way for the mad Iranian regime we have today.

History seems to be a three act play repeating itself over and over with just the actors, the set and the dialogue switching around from time to time.

juan said:
Beck’s CORRECT!

Yes! He is! He is a self proclaimed clown!

What does that make a his disciples? HAHA!

Grammie I do not deny that there is an Islamic movement whose goal is implementing Islam globally.

paulmdoro said:
Not exactly. Are you sure you read it? “Like most misguided ideas, this theory is based in some truth.” Those are the author’s words.

You sure do like the insults though. Always nice to be good at something. So much easier than trying to contribute to a discussion. Maybe it’s just over your head?

That is what Pablo said. Read his comments. Stop attacking me but instead read what Pablo said. Pablo pretty much said that same thing a page over or so.

paulmdoro said:
Grammie I do not deny that there is an Islamic movement whose goal is implementing Islam globally.

Then why are you posting here. Both Grammie and Pablo have posted excellent commentaries explaining the Beck-Caliphate semantics.

grafxmail7 said:

Yawn.

The Tea Weasel® said:
Maybe Kristol realizes by actually debating Beck’s sophistry, he would be legitimizing it. When someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you engage him in a serious discussion of what kind of cheese?

No, you insult the way they look, how they act, and anyone who has ever been around him. You shout names, attack their religion, and implicate them in events beyond their control.

That’s what good folks do, right?

grafxmail7 said:
Yes! He is! He is a self proclaimed clown! What does that make a his disciples? HAHA!

What does that say about the people who continually write the same thing about him over and over again?

WCinWI said:
Then why are you posting here. Both Grammie and Pablo have posted excellent commentaries explaining the Beck-Caliphate semantics.

Not denying that means I can’t post here? It means Beck is totally and completely correct, end of discussion? Huh? Are you posting here just to hurl petty insults? That is all you have done.

The Tea Weasel® said:
Maybe Kristol realizes by actually debating Beck’s sophistry, he would be legitimizing it. When someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you engage him in a serious discussion of what kind of cheese?

This is a perfect point as to what’s going on.

But look! This simple and concise point flies well above their heads.

The Organ Grinder in Chief’s monkeys run around debating what kind of cheese the moon is made of. Oblivious to the fact that they defend a snake oil salesman.

Pure comedy!

paulmdoro said:
Not denying that means I can’t post here? It means Beck is totally and completely correct, end of discussion? Huh? Are you posting here just to hurl petty insults? That is all you have done.

You rarely make sense and you repeat the same talking points over and over and then over again. If you wish to make more sense, then perhaps a convo could happen. If not, why talk with a broken record?

The danger of Beck’s theorizing is that he’s spreading the misconception that the uprising in Egypt was initiated by anti-democratic groups, and that it’s Islamist at its core.

This is where I break with Beck, as I have a bit more faith in the Egyptian people than he does. But he’s got a reason for his pessimism and it’s things like this. I don’t recall him saying that the MB started this, which they didn’t, but they’re most certainly in the game now and there are large swaths of Egyptian public attitudes that are a bit frightening. Somebody is going to fill the power vacuum, and it isn’t going to be the kids in the streets.

While there’s no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood and socialist organizations have become involved in the protests, they didn’t start the uprising, and that’s not what the protests are about.

At this point, the protests seem to mainly be about getting rid of Mubarak. The question is, what then? There are some very unpleasant possibilities, and ensuring that people know and understand them seems somewhat less than crazy to me.

The Tea Weasel® said:
When someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you engage him in a serious discussion of what kind of cheese?

No!

You do your own research…and when you find that there is no proof that the moon is NOT made of cheese, you accept that the moon is indeed made of cheese.

It doesn’t matter what type of cheese…that’s just silly!

WCinWI said:
You rarely make sense and you repeat the same talking points over and over and then over again. If you wish to make more sense, then perhaps a convo could happen. If not, why talk with a broken record?

You never attempted to have a conversation. That would have been nice. You entered this discussion with an insult. That’s unfortunate. I wish you had attempted to engage rather than insult.

Pablo said:

At this point, the protests seem to mainly be about getting rid of Mubarak. The question is, what then? There are some very unpleasant possibilities, and ensuring that people know and understand them seems somewhat less than crazy to me.

That’s a valid question Pablo, and I don’t pretend to think that it’s not a complicated issue.

paulmdoro said:
You never attempted to have a conversation. That would have been nice. You entered this discussion with an insult. That’s unfortunate. I wish you had attempted to engage rather than insult.

I didn’t insult anyone. You have spent this whole thread being confusing and arguing semantics. I don’t find a convo over semantics fun.

If people can’t accept Beck for the libertarian, funny dude that he is, then turn the channel. Simple as that. I don’t religiously watch the guy, but I do enjoy him enough to understand his schtick. Even Beck would tell everyone to not be blind and to do their own research.

If someone on the liberal side would actually have intelligent convos, instead of calling conservative women stupid, pretty but dumb or other non-essential terms, and would instead attack their point made, then I would see that as valid.

WCinWI said:
I didn’t insult anyone. You have spent this whole thread being confusing and arguing semantics. I don’t find a convo over semantics fun.

If people can’t accept Beck for the libertarian, funny dude that he is, then turn the channel. Simple as that. I don’t religiously watch the guy, but I do enjoy him enough to understand his schtick. Even Beck would tell everyone to not be blind and to do their own research.

If someone on the liberal side would actually have intelligent convos, instead of calling conservative women stupid, pretty but dumb or other non-essential terms, and would instead attack their point made, then I would see that as valid.

You most certainly did use insults. If you found something confusing, you should have asked. I like having heated discussions with people here, and can do so without resorting to name-calling. You didn’t even try.

And I have not called anyone stupid.

The Tea Weasel® said:
Maybe Kristol realizes by actually debating Beck’s sophistry, he would be legitimizing it. When someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you engage him in a serious discussion of what kind of cheese?

No, you point him to the Apollo landings and note the materials brought back from the moon are not dairy based. That’s called rebuttal.

paulmdoro said:
Not exactly. Are you sure you read it? “Like most misguided ideas, this theory is based in some truth.” Those are the author’s words.

We are both saying that Beck’s fears may be overblown. Thing is, nobody knows what’s going to happen and his guess, being educated and fact based, is as good as any. I fail to see the harm in making it. Further, the guy’s got 4 hours a day of airtime to fill, and this is the biggest story going. What would you expect him to talk about?

Pablo said:
We are both saying that Beck’s fears may be overblown. Thing is, nobody knows what’s going to happen and his guess, being educated and fact based, is as good as any. I fail to see the harm in making it. Further, the guy’s got 4 hours a day of airtime to fill, and this is the biggest story going. What would you expect him to talk about?

Oh I understand. It’s a big story and 4 hours is a lot of airtime.

paulmdoro said:
You most certainly did use insults. If you found something confusing, you should have asked. I like having heated discussions with people here, and can do so without resorting to name-calling. You didn’t even try.

And I have not called anyone stupid.

I didn’t find anything confusing. I found your “points” convoluted. There’s a difference.

paulmdoro said:
Grammie I do not deny that there is an Islamic movement whose goal is implementing Islam globally.

.
Bingo! Now all you have to do is to realize that restoring the Caliphate is a way that the folks in the movement think about it and you are at the point I am in this debate.

You made no comment re the Left agitating for and succeeding in getting support withdrawn from the Shah and its inevitable resulting Islamic Theocracy in Iran.

If you add the historical record of the left allying themselves with Islamic Fundamentalists and this of current association from Calvin:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/becks-matthews-mocked-conspiracy-confirmed-video-of-us-communists-socialists-unions-working-with-muslim-brotherhood-assoc-groups/

then you are in a position from which you might concede that Beck perhaps has a point worthy of thought and debate.

WCinWI said:
I didn’t find anything confusing. I found your “points” convoluted. There’s a difference.

Either way, it would have been nice if you had attempted to seek clarification or participate in the discussion, rather than simply say “ImNotBlue….just wanted to say that I understand you. You can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t make him think.”

ImNotBlue said:

What does that say about the people who continually write the same thing about him over and over again?

Your love for your Dear Leader is too strong. It makes your mind weak in your reasoning. You see only what helps you believe more in your Dear Leader.

To even argue on the side of Chicken Little Beck disqualifies you from intelligent thought! Yet you do it over and over and over!

HAHA! Resistance is futile! The laughing is in your head!

grafxmail7 said:
Your love for your Dear Leader is too strong. It makes your mind weak in your reasoning. You see only what helps you believe more in your Dear Leader. To even argue on the side of Chicken Little Beck disqualifies you from intelligent thought! Yet you do it over and over and over! HAHA! Resistance is futile! The laughing is in your head!

Yawn. Seen it before.

grafxmail7 said:
Your love for your Dear Leader is too strong. It makes your mind weak in your reasoning. You see only what helps you believe more in your Dear Leader.

To even argue on the side of Chicken Little Beck disqualifies you from intelligent thought! Yet you do it over and over and over!

HAHA! Resistance is futile! The laughing is in your head!

Can’t speak for ImNotBlue, I think we’ve had a pretty intelligent and reasonable discussion. It’s possible for heated discussions to take place here without it resorting to back and forth shouting.

If this were meatspace, this grafx clown would be the guy who moons you and then tells himself “I totally owned them!”

Yawn, indeed.

Pablo said:
If this were meatspace, this grafx clown would be the guy who moons you and then tells himself “I totally owned them!”
.

Yet this is essentially what you do in your ‘intellectual’ defense of Chicken Little Beck!

Monkeys and Clowns! HAHA!

Pablo said:
This is where I break with Beck, as I have a bit more faith in the Egyptian people than he does. But he’s got a reason for his pessimism and it’s things like this. I don’t recall him saying that the MB started this, which they didn’t, but they’re most certainly in the game now and there are large swaths of Egyptian public attitudes that are a bit frightening. Somebody is going to fill the power vacuum, and it isn’t going to be the kids in the streets.

At this point, the protests seem to mainly be about getting rid of Mubarak. The question is, what then? There are some very unpleasant possibilities, and ensuring that people know and understand them seems somewhat less than crazy to me.

Beck did NOT say that the Muslim Brotherhood had STARTED the protests. He, and anyone with a brain and a pair of ears knows that it was after Friday prayers the first week that the imams of the Muslim Brotherhood encouraged their supporters to go out into the streets with the protesters.

The primary difference between Kristol/Lowry and Beck is that Kristol/Lowry view the protests as limited in scope and simply an expression of the Egyptian citizenry’s desire for democracy. To me, that is a very immature point of view- similar to George Bush’s expressions of the desire for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would suggest to you and to Kristol that the protesters in Egypt were originally interested in improving their ECONOMIC conditions, not protesting for democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood certainly doesn’t want “democracy” as it is anathema to Sharia Law. I understand Kristol’s principles that the United States must support democratic movements wherever they occur, but he’s not thinking clearly or in the long term when he suggests that the U.S. foreign policy blindly support the protesters and remove Mubarack immediately.

Beck’s right. Kristol is wrong.

Beck DOES support protests for democracy. He does not believe in being fooled into believing the Muslim Brotherhood wants anything but a theocracy and the destruction of Israel.

Perhaps, all of you on the Left should read the fable of the Fox and the Scorpion. “Because it is my nature!”

Annie Oakley said:

Beck’s right. Kristol is wrong.

If Chicken Little Beck is right why won’t he debate anyone?

Why is it only his Monkeys and Clowns out here doing it for him?

As long as he has his cult believing him he’s making money. He won’t jeopardize that.

Annie Oakley said:
Beck did NOT say that the Muslim Brotherhood had STARTED the protests. He, and anyone with a brain and a pair of ears knows that it was after Friday prayers the first week that the imams of the Muslim Brotherhood encouraged their supporters to go out into the streets with the protesters.

The primary difference between Kristol/Lowry and Beck is that Kristol/Lowry view the protests as limited in scope and simply an expression of the Egyptian citizenry’s desire for democracy. To me, that is a very immature point of view- similar to George Bush’s expressions of the desire for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would suggest to you and to Kristol that the protesters in Egypt were originally interested in improving their ECONOMIC conditions, not protesting for democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood certainly doesn’t want “democracy” as it is anathema to Sharia Law. I understand Kristol’s principles that the United States must support democratic movements wherever they occur, but he’s not thinking clearly or in the long term when he suggests that the U.S. foreign policy blindly support the protesters and remove Mubarack immediately.

Beck’s right. Kristol is wrong.

This is disingenuous. The people were protesting the autocracy and undemocratic government. The current economic condition (+ the Tunisian upheaval) WAS the catalyst or the spark that lit the flame. To infer that Egyptians didn’t care about “democracy” until the MB rushed in is sophistry. Beck is wrong, Lowry/Kristol are right.

Annie Oakley said:
The primary difference between Kristol/Lowry and Beck is that Kristol/Lowry view the protests as limited in scope and simply an expression of the Egyptian citizenry’s desire for democracy.

That IS how they started. But the idea that that’s the whole story is moronic. Beck is doing the research. Kristol is just reading the papers.

I was just watching a young “leader” of the protests, and he said that the movement won’t end until the regime is gone. Well, that’s a really bad place to end a movement. That’s where the heavy lifting starts, and if you’re not ready to do it, someone else will. Good comments, Annie.

grafxmail7 said:
Yet this is essentially what you do in your ‘intellectual’ defense of Chicken Little Beck!

Yawn. Pull your pants up, child.

Gasket said:
To infer that Egyptians didn’t care about “democracy” until the MB rushed in is sophistry.

Beck hasn’t said that, so it would be pretty tough for him to be wrong about something he hasn’t said. What he has said is that there are very significant portions of the Egyptian people that are more interested in Sharia than anything we’d consider democracy, and the polls support that notion. My concern is that the pro-democratic movement lacks leadership, structure and a plan. That’s a recipe for a vacuum that could quite possibly get filled with Beck’s worst fears. If that happens, lots and lots of people are going to die.

Pablo said:
That IS how they started. But the idea that that’s the whole story is moronic. Beck is doing the research. Kristol is just reading the papers.

I was just watching a young “leader” of the protests, and he said that the movement won’t end until the regime is gone. Well, that’s a really bad place to end a movement. That’s where the heavy lifting starts, and if you’re not ready to do it, someone else will. Good comments, Annie.

Yawn. Pull your pants up, child.

My next thought has nothing to do with Beck. I am VERY suspicious of the role that Google’s employee has played in initially mobilizing the demonstrations. For a company that is so in Obama’s pocket (or Obama in Google’s) to have been a prime instigator of the protests, is quite disturbing on several levels. I hope that subsequent administrations will hold some hearings on Google’s activities and the potential for governmental/election corruption over the past three years. Something isn’t kosher.

It’s so weird: when my wife listens to Beck, she gets “an overwhelming feeling of evil” too. I asked her why, and she said that she could tell that he is a liar by HOW he speaks.

I’m more empirical and philosophically trained. Beck lies and we prove this day after day. I have a long list of posts detailing Beck’s false claims, and I don’t post nearly all the ones I know about. I have a large unused file detailing many of Beck’s lies.

Beck is on the wrong side of history again, but — not surprising — he was on the side of democracy in the Middle East in support of Bush’s war of choice against Iraq. He hasn’t changed his mind: Glenn Beck is a hypocrite through and through. I prove this with facts and logic over and over again. And this begs the question: why does Beck has such a large following?

Yes, he’s persuasive and cunning and gifted. He’s also highly skilled at manipulating his viewers; Beck is a master manipulator. Why else would more of his followers not hear the lies I could detect before starting The Glenn Beck Review. He programs his viewers to dismiss any and all criticism of him, no matter how factual and unbiased, no matter how honest. This has led me to a recent re-evaluation of his intellect as of late. He’s still ignorant about the world, but he’s very bright, clever, gifted, persuasive and intelligent. It’s taken a while to see that, but the link about his manipulation skills forced me into rethinking just how smart he is.

It’s still all about Glenn Beck. His motivations, according to Beck’s biographer, Alex Zaitchik, “are, and have always been, money and fame. If Beck has a true religion, it’s not Patriotism. It’s not Mormonism. It’s cross-platform self-marketing.” Those who do not grasp this about him, can not hear his lies or hypocrisies, do not recognize that this uneducated, ignorant man is a charlatan and yellow propagandist, are victims more than they are supporters. They are to be pitied, not respected.

one year update

 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/31/10959476-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-will-run-candidate-for-president-in-egypt-election

 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/31/10959476-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-will-run-candidate-for-president-in-egypt-election

 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/31/10959476-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-will-run-candidate-for-president-in-egypt-election