Um ok. Man the Beck haters are really scraping the bottom fo the barrel for things to attack him on.

Why would this woman not want Glenn Beck or any other media personality help her out? This women is obviously selfish herself and doesn’t care about the people she helps. It’s a known fact that Glenn Beck’s listeners and tv viewers are very charitable, not only would they have help donate enough food for a week, I’m sure they could have raised enough money to last that food bank an entire year.

It’s unfortunate that it wasn’t in this woman’s soul to put aside differences to help others.

New York is full of libs that are just dying to help this lady. No need for Beck to help he out. New York is run by libs, why do they have any people that need help? We ALL know that the libs know how to help the needy and if they are in charge there will be no more needy.
I am still waiting for them to help anyone.

Don’t mind a crazed episcopalian.

I will book any of the Baboon followers through Orbitz for the drink-the-kool-aid-in-Israel trip.

All Beck has to do is accept her offer. If he’s really sincere in what he’s trying to do, that should prove it.

mtjade4 said:
All Beck has to do is accept her offer. If he’s really sincere in what he’s trying to do, that should prove it.

I’m assuming the whole point of video taping the perish, in and outside, is for television audiences to see the type of people they are helping. What is so wrong about transparency and charitable donations?

gordonbloyershow said:
New York is full of libs that are just dying to help this lady. No need for Beck to help he out. New York is run by libs, why do they have any people that need help? We ALL know that the libs know how to help the needy and if they are in charge there will be no more needy.I am still waiting for them to help anyone.

Wow. You don’t get around much do you? Open your eyes. There are plenty of “libs” who help the needy. You want a list?

How dare a lowly priest insinuate that the world does not revolve around Beck!
Maybe she could get her patrons to do some tribal dances to entertain His Monstrosity.
Ailes needs to straighten her out, fast.

mtjade4,
Conservatives consistently give more of their OWN money to charity than libs. I’d be willing to bet they contribute way more of their time also. Perhaps you could follow our lead and open that pocketbook!

Love how the half wit neocons that infest Mediate think it’s perfectly fine to use poor homeless people to boost their depraved egos- if it fits in with their time schedule. It’s”good for ratings” and everything.

Liberal Tormentor said:
mtjade4,
Conservatives consistently give more of their OWN money to charity than libs. I’d be willing to bet they contribute way more of their time also. Perhaps you could follow our lead and open that pocketbook!

Baloney. A made up fact by neocons debunked a thousand times.

Joe Brooks said:
I’m assuming the whole point of video taping the perish, in and outside, is for television audiences to see the type of people they are helping. What is so wrong about transparency and charitable donations?

Do you mean like those 3AM infomercials, where the girl in the dirty dress with the cleft palate is trotted out to make you feel guilty enough to send money?
Maybe the clients don’t want to be props for Beck’s next Crusade.

Good for the Rev. Ms. Linman. I have no patience for the likes of O’Beckerhead who is willing to use the poor to build his image. There are more than enough Pharisees in the world, and too few Rev. Linman’s.

Elrod said:
Liberal Tormentor said:
mtjade4,
Conservatives consistently give more of their OWN money to charity than libs. I’d be willing to bet they contribute way more of their time also. Perhaps you could follow our lead and open that pocketbook!

Baloney. A made up fact by neocons debunked a thousand times.

Thank you.

Educate yourself, Elrod:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Glenn Beck, I would like to thank you for letting me know about the economic debacle before many even admitted there was even a problem. I would also like to thank you for pointing my towards PMs and Oil stocks.

Some day, some of the leftist twits will actually listen to one of your shows and might just listen. If not, it is their fault for believing lies instead of going to the source.

I am sure being an entertainer and a news commentator does clash and gives multitudes of attack possibilities for your so foolish detractors. Oh well.

Keep up the great charities, news commentary, religious revival and entertainment. You are a renaissance individual!

DavidKramer said:
Glenn Beck, I would like to thank you for letting me know about the economic debacle before many even admitted there was even a problem. I would also like to thank you for pointing my towards PMs and Oil stocks.

Some day, some of the leftist twits will actually listen to one of your shows and might just listen. If not, it is their fault for believing lies instead of going to the source.

I am sure being an entertainer and a news commentator does clash and gives multitudes of attack possibilities for your so foolish detractors. Oh well.

Keep up the great charities, news commentary, religious revival and entertainment. You are a renaissance individual!

You forgot the recent EZ2LOOSE campaign.

Next you will have the Baboon Beck and his wife peddling boner pills.

Glad I am not in that assistant’s shoes. I don’t think that date, June 7, was made public previously. I am looking forward to see what Glenn Beck has up his sleeve, though :)

Elrod said:
Love how the half wit neocons that infest Mediate think it’s perfectly fine to use poor homeless people to boost their depraved egos- if it fits in with their time schedule. It’s”good for ratings” and everything.

If you even knew what neo-conservative meant, you would know that Glenn Beck and his fans were not neo-cons. George Bush was, not Glenn Beck. GB is a libertarian conservative and the difference is pretty darn big!

Beck is always thinking of ways to put himself in the spotlight. Unfortunately, this stunt won’t accomplish that.

Ted/SarahP/Girth/Garth/Moron,

Beck doesn’t need to put himself in the spotlight, you libs talk about him 24/7.

Joe Brooks said:
Why would this woman not want Glenn Beck or any other media personality help her out? This women is obviously selfish herself and doesn’t care about the people she helps. It’s a known fact that Glenn Beck’s listeners and tv viewers are very charitable, not only would they have help donate enough food for a week, I’m sure they could have raised enough money to last that food bank an entire year.

It’s unfortunate that it wasn’t in this woman’s soul to put aside differences to help others.

Sounds to me like Becky was trying to use her shelter as a prop.

Liberal Tormentor said:
Educate yourself, Elrod: Conservatives More Liberal Givers http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

You should research further. There have been some questions about Brooks’ methodology. Other questions include “excluding donations to religious organizations, which give more?” as well as what he based his analyses on.
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html
http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

Here’s an older blog post (pre-dating ACBrooks’ book) about how some indexes of Generosity may have problems: http://blueworksbetter.com/CharitableGiving

Volokh Conspiracy has occasionally discussed Brooks’ book as well as other aspects of the concept of giving (http://volokh.com/2008/05/30/does-religious-belief-increase-charitable-giving/)

What is clear, though, is that poorer people tend to donate a larger % of their income to charities.

I feel ya, Glenn…poor people are so inconvenient on such short notice.

You are a busy man and it’s not like they have anywhere else to be.

Don’t they know you have to save Israel in August?

Screw ‘em.

______________________________________________________________
CAUTION: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THESE EX-BIRTHERS, THEY ARE ARMED AND IGNORANT…

Dem4Ever, The Lantern of Truth, juan, Arkansas Steve, murf, Jaurez/WCinWI, Barack Must Go, NOBAMA, Colorado_Conservative, gordonbloyershow
TeaPartyPatriot, notsofast, Severian, Dronetek, TfT, mitchflorida, skoorbekim
mdanielson, Harry Flashman, OxyCon and NORBIT

“It’s the launch of Glenn’s new charitable and political initiative”

BS, Beck doesn’t do “political”. So how much of the rest of her story is embellished? Sounds like a typical Beck hater to me.

Liberal Tormentor said:
Ted/SarahP/Girth/Garth/Moron,

Beck doesn’t need to put himself in the spotlight, you libs talk about him 24/7.

He just wants to be loved by people like you who do what you are told. That’s not asking a lot, especially from someone as compliant as you are.

That woman might just be a wee bit sorry – sort of cut off her nose to spite her face. Oh well…..whatevah

Elrod said:
Love how the half wit neocons that infest Mediate think it’s perfectly fine to use poor homeless people to boost their depraved egos- if it fits in with their time schedule. It’s”good for ratings” and everything.

Oh STFU. Beck and his viewers and all the people that went to the 8/28 event raised over 5 MILLION dollars for the wounded warrior foundation. Find something else to whine and rant about re: Beck cause the charity thing…. yeah he’s definitely got that covered

Elrod – did your post make sense to you? Not so much to anyone else.

A “charity” turns down millions because, well just because and you think that’s fine. What the heck is the matter with you?

Sounds like this joint is a front for George Soros’ Media Matters to me.

What person running a soup kitchen for God sakes turns Glenn Beck away, simply because he may not mesh with her liberal volunteers ?

Doesn’t make any sense, common or otherwise.

Apparently though, the higher ups have some sense.

We’ll see what happens, as there are hundreds of places in the city that would welcome Glenn with open arms.

If you really want to ‘roll up your sleeves’ and make a difference, come on by, and you will be welcome. And over time, that might make you look good.”

I think Glenn Beck already rolls up his sleeves:

One particular diatribe that appeared to mock the concept of volunteerism was met with horrified reactions. But Beck stresses that he wasn’t dismissing volunteerism, but rather the notion that it should be forced upon citizens by government. Because if the government is making you do it, it’s not volunteering, is it?” says Beck, who volunteers by running New York regional addiction recovery programs for his church.

http://www.glennbeck.com/downloads/10/02/USAWBeck2010.pdf

I think that this is the main news of the day – exclusive information on the release date of Glenn Beck’s new project. But maybe I am just a bit Glennophile.

Thorkil Kowalski Værge said:
I think that this is the main news of the day – exclusive information on the release date of Glenn Beck’s new project. But maybe I am just a bit Glennophile.

Main Mediaite story, that is.

Liberal Tormentor said:
mtjade4,Conservatives consistently give more of their OWN money to charity than libs. I’d be willing to bet they contribute way more of their time also. Perhaps you could follow our lead and open that pocketbook!

I’m sure Conservatives give. But so do Liberals. You can’t “assume” they don’t.
I would like to think that BOTH Conservatives and Liberals have good hearts when it comes to helping out charities. It doesn’t have to be a competition, does it?

mtjade4 said:
I’m sure Conservatives give. But so do Liberals. You can’t “assume” they don’t.I would like to think that BOTH Conservatives and Liberals have good hearts when it comes to helping out charities. It doesn’t have to be a competition, does it?

Try googling and see who gives more.

No, it isn’t a competition, but if it were, liberals would lose. The only reason I even bring it up is because we always hear about how it’s the libs who care about people and Conservatives don’t. Statistics prove otherwise.

Liberal Tormentor said:
No, it isn’t a competition, but if it were, liberals would lose. The only reason I even bring it up is because we always hear about how it’s the libs who care about people and Conservatives don’t. Statistics prove otherwise.

Well, if you accept liberal’s presumption that you can be generous with other people’s money, then liberals give more through their fight for a larger government. We conservatives of course believe that you can only be generous with your own money since generosity presupposes consent.

Exactly Thor.

Liberal Tormentor said:
No, it isn’t a competition, but if it were, liberals would lose. The only reason I even bring it up is because we always hear about how it’s the libs who care about people and Conservatives don’t. Statistics prove otherwise.

Let’s hear about your statistics and please site the source.

Already did moron.

Liberal Tormentor said:
No, it isn’t a competition, but if it were, liberals would lose. The only reason I even bring it up is because we always hear about how it’s the libs who care about people and Conservatives don’t. Statistics prove otherwise.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I think most Conservatives and Liberals have a good heart.

Liberal Tormentor said:
Already did moron.

You don’t understand what statistics are do you brain stem? Let’s here em or just shut the pie hole dip shit.

Sam M. said:
You don’t understand what statistics are do you brain stem? Let’s here em or just shut the pie hole dip shit.

Here you go stupid.

http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080331Comm002.asp

next time get off your fat ass and do your own work. Oh I forgot it’s the Goof!

Work is a four letter word and no doubt not part of his very limited vocabulary.

puck30 said:
Here you go stupid.

http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080331Comm002.asp

next time get off your fat ass and do your own work. Oh I forgot it’s the Goof!

Work is a four letter word and no doubt not part of his very limited vocabulary.

LMAO!! – Pathetic assholes like you consider this data? Little wonder most sane people consider people like you completely brain dead. Moron.

Joe Brooks said:
I’m assuming the whole point of video taping the perish, in and outside, is for television audiences to see the type of people they are helping. What is so wrong about transparency and charitable donations?

What perish? Who is dying? Wow!

Hey Mediaite, how come you have no post on the massive bitch-slap Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu gave Barry today on live TV??

Live, Ben said to the Barry’s face that Barry’s peace proposal was “not going to happen.”

He said it twice and Barry just said there like a bitch-slapped fool.

LMAO

Itelligent? The Goof? Is that an Oxymoron? Or in The Goofs case just a moron.

Sam M. said:
Sam M. says:
May 20, 2011 at 6:28 pm Sam M.(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

Hey, RRK, when are you going to use your real name and stop posting under your socks?

Sam M. said:
LMAO!! – Pathetic assholes like you consider this data? Little wonder most sane people consider people like you completely brain dead. Moron.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_republicans_or_democrates_give_more_to_charity

hmmmmm twice as much?????lol

“Besides, if he’s trying to start something big, there’s going to be a schedule and he has to find a place that can accomodate that.”

Thanks for that bit of fairness, Jon. Yes, most media personalities do have plans and projects. It’s not uncommon to not be able to meet someone else’s schedule on such short notice. Nice piece.

Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”

I have to apologize for the Goof here ladies and Gentlemen, while most of us can see it was written by a professor at a University the Goof probably didn’t read it cause he was afraid it might have big words and his head might hurt after reading them.

notsofast said:
Hey, RRK, when are you going to use your real name and stop posting under your socks?

About the time you stop humping your Glenn Beck (Multi-patched) blow up doll). STOP PASSING IT AROUND THE TRAILER PARK FOR $5.00 PER POP, so to speak.

Sam M. said:
Sam M. says:
May 20, 2011 at 7:26 pm Sam M.(Quote)

I struck a nerve!

LOL

It’s been my experience volunteering at the local Red Cross homeless shelter that almost all homeless people are more worried about their next meal then they are about politics. It’s too bad that some people who run soup kitchens are too concerned about politics.

notsofast said:
Hey, RRK, when are you going to use your real name and stop posting under your socks?

Said the pot….

Glackin said:
Said the pot….

LOL

Son, there is only one me. You can’t be me, son.

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”

Glackin said:
Said the pot….

Said the (-)

notsofast said:
Hey Mediaite, how come you have no post on the massive bitch-slap Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu gave Barry today on live TV??

Live, Ben said to the Barry’s face that Barry’s peace proposal was “not going to happen.”

He said it twice and Barry just said there like a bitch-slapped fool.

LMAO

And I bet you cheered, you unpatriotic smegma.
Go wipe the Santorum off your chin.

notsofast said:
LOL

Son, there is only one me. You can’t be me, son.

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”

Girlie, I wouldn’t have the operations needed to be you.
P.S. Do you always contradict yourself between line one and line two?
Or just post-coitus?

Glackin said:
And I bet you cheered, you unpatriotic smegma.Go wipe the Santorum off your chin.

no, not cheer, but the president should not dictate terms to a friendly country

Elrod said:
Love how the half wit neocons that infest Mediate think it’s perfectly fine to use poor homeless people to boost their depraved egos- if it fits in with their time schedule. It’s”good for ratings” and everything.

yea…how dare anyone use a soup kitchen/mission as an opportunity to promote charitable giving!

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/michelle_obamas_soupkitchen_du.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvXcVXcoAmI

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/holidays/

I guess Ms. Linman hasn’t heard about the money that can come in after a Beck request. Everything about her comments in her blog makes it quite obvious she had a chip to begin with, and some underpaid overworked assistant making cold calls was all she needed to jump on the bash Beck bandwagon.

Now the libs are attacking beck for organizing charity rallies? REALLY? You’ve all really lost your minds.

cjd ohio 1 said:
no, not cheer, but the president should not dictate terms to a friendly country

Take that up with W, who made the same statement in May, 2005.

notsofast said:
I struck a nerve!

LOL

You simply diddled yourself.

Glackin said:
Take that up with W, who made the same statement in May, 2005.

so 2 wrongs make it ok, thanks

Glackin said:
Take that up with W, who made the same statement in May, 2005.

maybe he should take it up with the PM of israel

I gather that Glackin and Sam are one and the same – obscene posters?

Yes, why would an obscure charity wish to accommodate a high profile personality, who in the very recent past lent his fame to raise millions for another obscure charity, when there’s the much more soul fulfilling option to feel self satisfied about yourself – writing snarky and sarcastic comments every other line over a persons powers of perception in regards to their ability to ferret out freeloaders to those Colbert Report episodes you enjoy that routinely mocks said person? How otherwise can you continue to reinforce progressive propaganda to your parishioners, your volunteers or your beneficiaries that ‘Republicans don’t care about the homeless’ or some such while you attempt to obtain a moral high ground and ungraciously intone after terms couldn’t be reached to the satisfaction of both parties that Beck’s interest was entirely self-serving anyway?

What a heel. No matter. I’m sure there’s another organization out there that’s bound to realize their charitable recipients are the actual priority and a more important consideration than their own delicate political sensibilities. I’m almost as certain that more than one will find terms unworkable for one reason or another, yet, even so, will have representatives of tact who won’t show such an infinitesimally smallness of character as to glory in smugness over their inability to be civil to even those “people with whom [they] disagree.”

Dronetek said:
Now the libs are attacking beck for organizing charity rallies? REALLY? You’ve all really lost your minds.

Catch up. They started doing that a year ago.

seek said:
I gather that Glackin and Sam are one and the same – obscene posters?

This time in English.

No.

You dipsht. They ain’t the same person.

Skippy said:
This time in English.

No.

You dipsht. They ain’t the same person.

Thanks,Skip. The sneek keeps telling me what I woulda/coulda/shoulda said, then refuting that.
I said tata to her last night. She’s easier to ignore than to reason with.

seek said:
I gather that Glackin and Sam are one and the same – obscene posters?

No, but they do share a brain with Royal Dimwit, BFD Box of Rox, and Color me Ignorant.

Elrod said:
Baloney. A made up fact by neocons debunked a thousand times.

Why don’t you show us a couple of them? Meanwhile, you can mull this over:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

http://cheap-nikeshoxsale.com

Of course you think she is being “a little unfair” to Beck, Jon. Your site shills for this waste of space constantly, I have noticed every since Glenn pimped your site on his show, the tone really started changing. Glenn got fired and in December will disappear from public view completely, aside from his People’s Temple followers who are probably waiting to find their own Jonestown or something.

Drink the Kool-aid people, please for the benefit of humanity.

Pablo said:
…you can mull this over:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Ahhh, a favorite of the Regressives…rather a shame that Brooks’ conclusions were based on self-reporting, though.

The book does NOT provide evidence that “conservatives” give more to charity…only that “conservatives” REPORT that they donate more.

Hugo Daun said:
Ahhh, a favorite of the Regressives…rather a shame that Brooks’ conclusions were based on self-reporting, though.

The book does NOT provide evidence that “conservatives” give more to charity…only that “conservatives” REPORT that they donate more.

Yes Hugo, you go with that. Whatever makes you happy. Lefties never seem to have trouble rewriting books the way they think it should have been, would have been, might have been, if only………

Way to see the big picture, Jennifer. Beck could give your place more publicity than it would ever receive otherwise, and could lead to more donations. But it’s more important to look at it ideologically.

Linman ix “a little unfair to Beck?”

I don’t think so. It doesn’t matter if the only information she gets about Beck is from the Daily Show because Jon Stewart does not lie. Further, the things that Jon Stewart shows about Beck is but a very small sampling of this nutjob beck’s history.

Beck has mused about killing Michael Moore; he has talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; he has said he hated certain 9-11 victims’ families; he has said he hated some Katrina victims even more; he’s made hundreds of Nazi comparisons of Obama and his administration; he most recently made fun of the way Meghan McCain looks (notably her weight), feigning vomiting because Meghan was “naked” (above the breasts) in that public service announcement about skin cancer……note that a number of his staffers were not happy about this and warned him about doing the same thing about that house maid Arnold had a child with, but he did it anyway; I could go on and on and on.

Beck is an ugly and evil man.

There is no doubt Beck is doing this thing with the food shelter in order to make himself look good. He’s been dropped by Fox; his viewership has noticeably declined. Last year, at his rally, he invited Alveda King to speak. Ms. King is the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is about the only conservative in the family, and she is quite conservative. She has made statements likening gay marriage to genocide.

The reason beck invited her, I believe, is to use her and her good family name. She does not stand for what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood for. Just ask his son, MLK III. Beck wanted to say that a member of the King family spoke at my rally; ergo, I am good.

If Beck and his assistant are so “good,” wanting to help this homeless shelter, then they should come back at another time and not want to use this to promote their show. It doesn’t appear as if Beck’s assistant suggested doing this.

No, no, she’s got it right. Glenn is only out to promote one thing, himself. Charities and good deeds can only work, if they are done, on Beck’s schedule. I’m pretty sure the “Rapture” isn’t going to take place today, because God hasn’t cleared it with Beck. Besides Beck has booked the Haifa Hilton, for June.

Zermatt2 said:
Linman ix “a little unfair to Beck?”

I don’t think so. It doesn’t matter if the only information she gets about Beck is from the Daily Show because Jon Stewart does not lie. Further, the things that Jon Stewart shows about Beck is but a very small sampling of this nutjob beck’s history.

Beck has mused about killing Michael Moore; he has talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; he has said he hated certain 9-11 victims’ families; he has said he hated some Katrina victims even more; he’s made hundreds of Nazi comparisons of Obama and his administration; he most recently made fun of the way Meghan McCain looks (notably her weight), feigning vomiting because Meghan was “naked” (above the breasts) in that public service announcement about skin cancer……note that a number of his staffers were not happy about this and warned him about doing the same thing about that house maid Arnold had a child with, but he did it anyway; I could go on and on and on.

Beck is an ugly and evil man.

There is no doubt Beck is doing this thing with the food shelter in order to make himself look good. He’s been dropped by Fox; his viewership has noticeably declined. Last year, at his rally, he invited Alveda King to speak. Ms. King is the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is about the only conservative in the family, and she is quite conservative. She has made statements likening gay marriage to genocide.

The reason beck invited her, I believe, is to use her and her good family name. She does not stand for what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood for. Just ask his son, MLK III. Beck wanted to say that a member of the King family spoke at my rally; ergo, I am good.

If Beck and his assistant are so “good,” wanting to help this homeless shelter, then they should come back at another time and not want to use this to promote their show. It doesn’t appear as if Beck’s assistant suggested doing this.

now that you got all media matters talking points out of your system (I’d run a fact check on those btw) – how do you really feel about Beck?

seek said:
now that you got all media matters talking points out of your system (I’d run a fact check on those btw) – how do you really feel about Beck?

JonKyl (sneek) should fact check her 4:1 stats first. Glass outhouses, girlie.

I’m quite happy with my 4:1 stat. You don’t like it, that’s tough Glack. You can’t prove me wrong – you just add little insults – that will show me.

Left LOL…oh I just love to read your post….How do you n people ever rember to breath, so filled with hate and the way you think…..
God Bless all…..LOL…you guys

seek said:
I’m quite happy with my 4:1 stat. You don’t like it, that’s tough Glack. You can’t prove me wrong – you just add little insults – that will show me.

Of course you’re happy with it. W was happy to claim there were WMD’s in Iraq. McCarthy was happy to claim there were76 Communists in the State Dept. Columbus was happy to claim he found India.
They were all full of crap. Time will prove the same of you. I don’t have to.

Well guys we have to be honest. The tax code skews charitable giving. I would like to know what people would give if they did not have a tax deduction. Probably very little but I guess we’ll never know unless we go to a flat tax, with no deductions.

dougx said:
Well guys we have to be honest. The tax code skews charitable giving. I would like to know what people would give if they did not have a tax deduction. Probably very little but I guess we’ll never know unless we go to a flat tax, with no deductions.

Why do both have to happen?
NO deductions except primary residence.
Graduated rate.
Rates based on income needed.
NO tax credits.
A tax form on a 3 x 5 card.
“You earned?”
“Your mortgage interest was?”
“You owe_____________.”

Typical lack of gratitude coming from a lib. You try to do something nice for them and they act like you’re pissing in their oatmeal.

dougx said:
Well guys we have to be honest. The tax code skews charitable giving. I would like to know what people would give if they did not have a tax deduction. Probably very little but I guess we’ll never know unless we go to a flat tax, with no deductions.

I can’t speak for everyone, but my donations would be the same 10% of my income. I’d like to be able to afford to give more; I just can’t swing it right now.

Where’s BOMBSHELL? Why isn’t he on this story?

seek said:
now that you got all media matters talking points out of your system (I’d run a fact check on those btw) – how do you really feel about Beck?

You know what, Seek? I very, very rarely look at Mediamatters. About the only time I look at their web site is if I see a link to it on sites like Mediaite.

I have actually watched Beck’s program, especially when he first started his gig at Fox News over 2 years ago. I watched him steadily for a period of about 2 weeks, and in almost every program, he showed video of Nazis marching through the streets, all the while talking about Obama and his administration. Dana Millbank has documented that beck has used this Nazi reference hundreds of times.

Nazis killed 6 million people. They were responsible for the deaths of 50 to 70 million people in WWII. You do not compare someone to Nazis like beck has done. I’ve been to Auschwitz once; I’ve been to Dachau several times. These concentration/death camps are very sobering places. Beck diminishes what Nazis actually did by comparing Obama and his administration to them.

He calls people with whom he disagrees with “evil,” so I call him “evil” as well.

In answer to your question, I cannot stand the man.

Which of my “talking points” would you like for me to “fact check,” by the way?

most of your “talking points” zermatt. You’ve come to conclusions which are not factual based on the events.

You take events and happenings out of context and twist them to suit your notion that Beck is “evil”. Beck is not evil. You might not agree with him, but the motives you are attributing to Beck and why he does things are motives you’ve assigned to him. Not motives he assigned. He held that huge rally and it was peaceful and full of hope to a lot of people. They showed pictures of the aftermath and there was no damage – the place was pristine. What about the mess and damage from Stewart’s rally?

Beck loves his Country and he feels uneasy about the path the Country is veering to. He’s allowed to say what he wants. People who don’t agree are allowed to say what they want. George Soros doesn’t want Beck to have the freedom to say what he wants. George Soros is spending billions of $’s so you won’t hear any dissenting view. Do you feel o.k. with that?

You don’t like Beck’s message – you are perfectly free to change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to listen to him. Why is the left so adamant in trying to shut down this man? That I don’t understand.

Why aren’t you disgusted with Soros and his use and abuse of his power? Why do you not care?

I just watched a movie, by chance, that I couldn’t take my eyes off of….It was A face in the Crowd…it could be the biography of Glen Beck..He is Lonesome Rhodes—I was amazed…even some of the rhetoric of the movie was Becks & Palins & Limbaugh’s…They could have written their playbooks from the dialogue in the movie, I just hope their followers find out before it is too late!!!

Zermatt2 said:
He calls people with whom he disagrees with “evil,” so I call him “evil” as well. In answer to your question, I cannot stand the man. Which of my “talking points” would you like for me to “fact check,” by the way?

Yeah, you might want to fact check “calling people whom he disagrees with evil” for starters. Exactly who would that be? George Soros? I’d like to know who he has specifically called evil- or is that what you were told he said?

More importantly though: do you stand with Israel or not? I would think someone such as yourself, who clearly understands the ramifications of the holocaust, would be the first in line to defend them.

Maybe you should put your petty hatred of Beck aside and realize he is right to say that Israel is threatened by another holocaust by Islamo-facist regimes.

Iran, Hamas, Hezbullah all spout murderous anti-jew rhetoric that would make Hitler proud. Is that who you really want to align yourself with? If that’s the case, then maybe the supposed “evil” moniker you were given is appropriate.

seek said:
most of your “talking points” zermatt. You’ve come to conclusions which are not factual based on the events. You take events and happenings out of context and twist them to suit your notion that Beck is “evil”. Beck is not evil. You might not agree with him, but the motives you are attributing to Beck and why he does things are motives you’ve assigned to him. Not motives he assigned. He held that huge rally and it was peaceful and full of hope to a lot of people. They showed pictures of the aftermath and there was no damage – the place was pristine. What about the mess and damage from Stewart’s rally? Beck loves his Country and he feels uneasy about the path the Country is veering to. He’s allowed to say what he wants. People who don’t agree are allowed to say what they want. George Soros doesn’t want Beck to have the freedom to say what he wants. George Soros is spending billions of $’s so you won’t hear any dissenting view. Do you feel o.k. with that? You don’t like Beck’s message – you are perfectly free to change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to listen to him. Why is the left so adamant in trying to shut down this man? That I don’t understand. Why aren’t you disgusted with Soros and his use and abuse of his power? Why do you not care?

Seek,

I’ll turn the tables on you. Please disprove anything I said. I already proved my point on beck’s nazi comparisons. I have seen them for myself. Others have made comments about how many times he has made this nazi reference. Jewish groups have lambasted him for doing so.

I repeat: you do not compare someone to Nazis, especially not as many times as beck has done. Most normal, decent people, when they think of Nazis, think of the mass murders that took place back in the 1930s and 1940s. beck is not a decent man when he makes these comparisons. As mentioned, I’ve been to see some concentration camps, and they give you the chills when you see them.

I’ll give you another example. I personally saw beck talk about poisoning Nancy Pelosi by putting that poison in her wine. I saw it, “live.” I didn’t see this on any web site, including Media Matters.

I am not taking things “out of context.” Beck called Obama a racist with a “deep seated hatred of white people.” That was not taken “out of context.” I not only saw it for myself, “live,” but beck also later apologized for the statement. Why would he apologize if he didn’t say it in the first place?

And let me share something you may find surprising, Seek. I actually do agree with a few things beck has said. I have long been concerned about the federal deficit. But I also will say that I agree with what Obama did with the stimulus; sometimes you’ve got to do drastic things in order to fix problems, and sometimes those drastic things can only be done by the federal government. I’ll also say that there are a lot of smart people on Obama’s team, and they’ve got to know something, or at least have a different point of view and can back that point of view up with facts.

Having said that, beck’s tactics are full of hate. Yes, he has the right to say what he wants to say, but that does not make it right. You do not, I repeat, “not” use Nazi comparisons in order to prove your point.

The problem with changing the channel is that you hear people like you use beck’s language. Don’t you remember all of the Nazi and Hitler signs at teaparty rallies? Those came directly as a result of Glenn Beck’s many, many comparisons. Yes, I don’t think there were such signs at his August rally last year, but, then, again, beck also asked his fans not to bring signs.

The other problem with turning the channel is that if you have an argument against beck, his supporters will say that my argument is wrong because I don’t watch beck. But I can support my argument because I have watched him (although I will admit I rarely do so nowadays).

As far as Soros spending billions on trying to silence beck, prove it, without using what beck says. George Soros has done many good, philanthropic things in his life. I’m not saying he’s perfect and totally good. But he did donate a lot of his personal wealth in order to help former Communist countries move towards Democracies, notably his native Hungary. I’m sure you will never hear beck say this…..especially since Soros spent this money to help defeat beck’s mortal enemy, the communists. George Soros spent a lot of his money on helping black kids go to school in Apartheid South Africa. Again, I’m sure you will never hear beck talk about this.

Please fact check George Soros’ “use and abuse of his power” and tell me what he’s done…..and, again, do so without using Glenn Beck “talking points.”

Is Glenn Beck “evil?” Probably not, but is George Soros “evil?” Are socialists “evil?” Socialists in and of themselves are not inherently evil. Tell that to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

But if Beck is going to call his enemies “evil,” I will do the same to him.

BarneyFranken said:
Yeah, you might want to fact check “calling people whom he disagrees with evil” for starters. Exactly who would that be? George Soros? I’d like to know who he has specifically called evil- or is that what you were told he said? More importantly though: do you stand with Israel or not? I would think someone such as yourself, who clearly understands the ramifications of the holocaust, would be the first in line to defend them. Maybe you should put your petty hatred of Beck aside and realize he is right to say that Israel is threatened by another holocaust by Islamo-facist regimes. Iran, Hamas, Hezbullah all spout murderous anti-jew rhetoric that would make Hitler proud. Is that who you really want to align yourself with? If that’s the case, then maybe the supposed “evil” moniker you were given is appropriate.

I stand with Israel, but I also know that it has been the long standing policy of the U.S. government, including Republican administrations, that it should go back to the pre-1967 borders. I also know that beck has made his nazi comparisons for well over 2 years, and those comparisons don’t have anything to do with the current discussion about Israel. Yes, Israel faces extreme dangers from Hamas and Hezbollah….but, again, this has nothing to do with beck’s long history of Nazi comparisons. His Nazi comparisons have been an effort to make people think Obama is like a Nazi……Nazis were evil, therefore, Obama and his administration are evil.

You’re also playing with words and syntax, BarneyFranken. If beck has not “directly” called someone “evil,” he has implied as much. He does use that term “evil” a lot. It’s the same thing with the Nazi comparisons. When I saw beck play those videos of Nazis marching through the streets, all the while talking about Obama and his administration, no, I do not think I heard beck call Obama and his administrations “Nazis,” at least not directly. But, when he pulls stunts like this, he is implying that they are Nazis.

There is a story that early in his radio shock jock career, beck had a rival at another radio station. He called that rival’s wife up and put her on the air. She had just had a miscarriage 3 days earlier. He asked her about it and then said that her husband (his radio rival) couldn’t do anything right…..why, he couldn’t even have a baby.
Beck apparently later apologized, saying it was due to the usual “youthful indescritions.”

Someone who would do something like this has something fundamentally wrong with them. He has a very long history of making incendiary comments. As mentioned, he’s mused about killing Michael Moore and poisoning Nancy Pelosi. When has it become acceptable in this country to talk about killing someone like this? I don’t care what he is trying to prove. I personally think it is very wrong.

DonnaK said:
I just watched a movie, by chance, that I couldn’t take my eyes off of….It was A face in the Crowd…it could be the biography of Glen Beck..He is Lonesome Rhodes—I was amazed…even some of the rhetoric of the movie was Becks & Palins & Limbaugh’s…They could have written their playbooks from the dialogue in the movie, I just hope their followers find out before it is too late!!!

Donna- you “by chance” watched a 50 year old movie? What channel was it on? Your story doesn’t pass the smell test.

You didnt know that Olbermann used to say “Lonesome Rhodes” Beck all the time?

or this? http://www.mediamattersinstitute.org/blog/200911240004

Can we put the pettiness aside for once?

Do you stand with Beck to defend Israel’s right to exist or not?

We all have to look into our hearts, call evil by its name and reject it.

BarneyFranken said:
Donna- you “by chance” watched a 50 year old movie? What channel was it on? Your story doesn’t pass the smell test. You didnt know that Olbermann used to say “Lonesome Rhodes” Beck all the time? or this? http://www.mediamattersinstitute.org/blog/200911240004 Can we put the pettiness aside for once? Do you stand with Beck to defend Israel’s right to exist or not? We all have to look into our hearts, call evil by its name and reject it.

Barney,

I just want to make a comment here about Israel. I seriously doubt if anyone on this blog is against defending Israel’s right to exist. I seriously doubt if anyone in this country doesn’t want Israel to exist, except perhaps a very, very small percentage of radicals.

What people disagree with is how Israel should exist.

This is a problem with your defense of Glenn Beck. As mentioned above, I actually agree with him about the budget deficit. But I strongly disagree with his tactics. Like Beck, I also strongly agree that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. However, this does not change the fact that Beck has used what I would call “obscene” tactics over the years in order to get his point across. These tactics are simply uncalled for.

And, again, I call beck “evil” because he bandies about this term so much. If he does not directly call someone “evil,” he implies they are. I have already explained above how he implies people like Obama and his administration are evil….he does so by comparing them to Nazis. This is wrong.

Zermatt2 said:
I stand with Israel, but I also know that it has been the long standing policy of the U.S. government, including Republican administrations, that it should go back to the pre-1967 borders.

Let me stop you right there. You don’t stand with Israel at all here- Israel is saying that the pre-67 border is unacceptable. You actually stand in direct opposition to them by wanting that, and I really don’t care which politicans supposedly agree with you- Its what Israel wants that matters.

Zermatt2 said:
As mentioned, he’s mused about killing Michael Moore and poisoning Nancy Pelosi. When has it become acceptable in this country to talk about killing someone like this? I don’t care what he is trying to prove. I personally think it is very wrong.

oh please, spare me your crocodile tears.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-jokes-about-putting-poiso

I blew the dust off your Pelosi example from 2009 and watched the video. If you think he was serious then you are a ridiculous person who is severely unqualified to judge anyone’s comments.

Even the left leaning “crooks and liars” titled it “Beck jokes”, not the sober “musing” you described it to be.

I had to do a carbon 14 test on your other example: the Beck killing Michael Moore quote from…May 17, 2005.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg&feature=related

Likewise, if you think he’s serious then you are clearly not a good arbiter of someone’s thoughts. I’m not saying I think its particularly funny, but its definitely not serious.

Media Matters agreed with you though. No surprise, since its where you got your information.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

Was this written by you? I could swear its like you share the same mind here, lol.

So are you done playing your sanctimonious “stop the rhetoric!” game here? Its amazingly hollow and transparent. If I wanted I to play your game I can give you just as many brownshirt Nazi references by the left- yet its Beck you are upset about?

Beck is doing more to bring the plight of the Israelis to the forefront than anyone in the media- there isnt even a close second. You would think that would count much more than some moldy comments he made years ago that you then skewered to make them sound serious to discredit him.

It definitely makes me wonder what side you are on. Again I ask you to cast aside your hatred of Beck and stand with Israel and against what radical Islam wants to accomplish. Beck is 100% right about this.

I was about respond to some of your long winded arguements, but went back to view your initial contribution. That’s when I realized that for all your verboseness, you’re not a serious critic. You’re a partisan hater, eager to take every possible wrong headed view of what Beck’s statements mean or actions represent.

The key to this understanding was your proffering that Jon Stewart, whether as a critic of Beck or in his representations on much of anything, doesn’t lie. That’s just plain silly. Aside from Stewart’s progressive political leanings as a prism through which he views the world, Stewart is a comedian, bound not to truth but to laughs and in the pursuit of the latter routinely ignores the former. How anyone can take your inputs seriously after understanding that you see Stewart’s sarcasm, parody and hyperbole as a pearls of wisdom is beyond me.

The above is directed at Zermatt2, obviously.

Zermatt2 said:
Barney, I just want to make a comment here about Israel. I seriously doubt if anyone on this blog is against defending Israel’s right to exist. I seriously doubt if anyone in this country doesn’t want Israel to exist, except perhaps a very, very small percentage of radicals. What people disagree with is how Israel should exist. This is a problem with your defense of Glenn Beck. As mentioned above, I actually agree with him about the budget deficit. But I strongly disagree with his tactics. Like Beck, I also strongly agree that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. However, this does not change the fact that Beck has used what I would call “obscene” tactics over the years in order to get his point across. These tactics are simply uncalled for. And, again, I call beck “evil” because he bandies about this term so much. If he does not directly call someone “evil,” he implies they are. I have already explained above how he implies people like Obama and his administration are evil….he does so by comparing them to Nazis. This is wrong.

I dont agree with you here- I don’t see how calling evil by its name is itself evil, as you put it.

In fact, I would submit to you that moral ambiguity is an insidious form of evil in its own right- by shading everything to grey is to camouflage right and wrong.

When it comes to Israel, there is a crystal clear right side and wrong side, or “evil” side.

I do agree that Nazi references are over the top unless there is a direct connection to the holocaust- and in this case I believe that there is a direct connection to what radical Islam wants to accomplish in the destruction of the Jews and to what the Nazis did accomplish- I hope I dont need to cite examples for you- this should be very evident.

I also hope you realize that Israel will never accept pre-67 borders precisely because they will be vulnerable to attack- to them they are “indefensible” borders. To support those borders is to support a weaker Israel, and with the threats of Jewish annihilation becoming more and more apparent, to weaken Israel would be tantamount to its death sentence.

BarneyFranken,

First, let me stop you right there. I did not say I agreed with the pre-1967 borders. I said it has been the position of the U.S. government for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

I honestly do not know how I feel about the 1967 borders. It is a very complex situation.

As far as “Israel” being against the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says this is a non-negotiable thing. I don’t know if the majority of Israelis feel this way. Maybe they do, but I don’t know, and, again, I did not say I support the pre-1967 borders.

As far as Beck’s joking about killing people, I usually use the word “joke” when describing Beck’s antics. The problem with Beck is his long history of such antics. If “joking” about killing Michael Moore was the only thing he said, who cares? It’s his history. Further, while it may be a “joke,” there are some beck fans who are so incredibly zealous about him, that they take this hate and spread it around.

Again, no, I do not think beck was serious about poisoning Pelosi….but he pulls this crap all of the time. And if you think I’m serious about calling Beck “evil,” then you are a ridiculous person yourself. He talks about “evil” often, and he implies that his enemies are as such. So how is it any different if I jokingly call him “evil?” Ridiculous.

As I said, it is extremely rare that I ever look at Media Matters. I cannot tell you the last time I actually looked at their site or one of their videos….it was a long time ago. How do you know where I get my information from?

No, you cannot give me just as many brownshirt Nazi references by the left. Yes, some on the left called Bush and others “Nazis,” but A)it was primarily by the every day, common “Joe,” not someone with a loud megaphone with 2 to 3 million viewers a day like beck; and B)it was not done repeatedly, over and over, hundreds of times, like beck has done.

Beck is a well known talking head with many followers. When a “leader” such as this makes such Nazi comparisons over and over and over again, it is a far cry from some protester on the Mall carrying around a sign calling Bush a nazi or a fascist. Give me one example of someone on the left who repeatedly…..repeatedly, I say, used these Nazi comparisons, especially someone who had the audience Beck did.

And, lastly, I do not believe I have said anything here which was bashing Beck for standing up for Israel. Personally, I do question his motives and think it is just as much about him trying to show that he is a “decent” person as it is about Israel.

The “moldy comments” he made were not just “years ago.” His “moldy comments” have been made throughout his career, including up until the very recent past.

In spite of what you may believe, I am not standing against Israel, and I am very much against what radical Islam wants to accomplish. Beck may be right, but I don’t need him to tell me this.

BarneyFranken said:
I dont agree with you here- I don’t see how calling evil by its name is itself evil, as you put it. In fact, I would submit to you that moral ambiguity is an insidious form of evil in its own right- by shading everything to grey is to camouflage right and wrong. When it comes to Israel, there is a crystal clear right side and wrong side, or “evil” side. I do agree that Nazi references are over the top unless there is a direct connection to the holocaust- and in this case I believe that there is a direct connection to what radical Islam wants to accomplish in the destruction of the Jews and to what the Nazis did accomplish-sentence.

Barney,

Let me try to make this more clear. I am not saying beck is wrong in calling the Nazis “evil” or in calling Hamas or Hezebellah “evil.” They all are/were. What I am saying is that Beck has a history of inferring that Obama and his administration are “evil.” He has a history of implying that George Soros and others like him are “evil,” even if he has not directly called them “evil.”

I just take great exception to this. His rabid fans share his views. Last week, I happened to flip beck’s program on, a rarity nowadays. What I saw was beck talking to one of his audience members, a woman from I believe Taiwan. She said that she really appreciated the fact that glenn beck had pointed out the evil that is George Soros. She said that she translated much of what beck said and sent it back to media in her native country.

George Soros is not “Evil.” But beck has his rabid fans believing he is. As you or someone else said to me, you may not agree with George Soros’ views, but he is not “evil.” And, as pointed out, he has done some very good philanthropic deeds.

Zermatt, I appreciate the civil debate but I think we are spinning our wheels here.

I believe you in your defense of Israel’s right to exist. I just want to point out two things:

A) Don’t let your dislike (I’ll put it mildly) of Beck jerk you to the other side of this issue. I realize your default reaction is to be against whatever Beck is for, but in this case lets put the past aside and as a defender of Israel first and Beck second I invite you to stand with us on this issue.

B) You seem to have strong opinions on everything Beck but are ambiguous on how you feel about Israel. I am asking that in the least, if you dont know how you feel about the pre-67 borders, then search yourself and find out. Don’t sit on the fence on this one, because a non-reaction to redrawing the borders is nowhere near the same as supporting Israel.

Barney,

Again, I want to point out the extreme complexity of the border situation in Israel. I do not know enough about it to make a judgement, and, because of this discussion, I will look more into it to try to learn more.

But I just did a quick Google search and found this link:

http://972mag.com/what-do-israelis-think-of-1967-borders-with-swaps/

I know nothing about this web site; I have never heard of it before, and it was the very first link I have looked at. And, I have not read the article in depth…..just skimmed it.

It seems to suggest that Israelis themselves are divided over whether or not to go back to pre-1967 borders. As I mentioned, Netanyahu has said this is unacceptable, but Netanyahu represents the far right in that country.

This article does seem to say that within the last few years, more Israelis do not favor the pre-1967 borders, if that’s all they look at. But, if they look at a “comprehensive” package, more Israelis do favor the pre-1967 borders. If you just want to skim the article, read the summation in the last two paragraphs.

As I said, this is a very complex issue, and one that I personally do not have a strong opinion on either way. I find it very hard to make a judgement.

BarneyFranken said:
Zermatt, I appreciate the civil debate but I think we are spinning our wheels here. I believe you in your defense of Israel’s right to exist. I just want to point out two things: ne, because a non-reaction to redrawing the borders is nowhere near the same as supporting Israel.

Barney,

I am glad you noticed that I am trying to be civil, and I want to say a couple of things.

1. I have pointed out that I do not disagree with everything Beck says or believes. I send beck an email every now and then, mostly criticizing him, but on a few occasions, I send him an email applauding him. I saw him once say that he is not opposed to gay marriage, and I sent him an email applauding him for saying so. I saw him applaud Obama for getting bin Laden (at least for one day), and I sent him an email telling him I was glad he did so. I saw him on O’Reilly’s show 2 or 3 weeks ago talking about the bin Laden kill and the celebrations happening in the streets. Beck said he did not like the “culture of death,” and I agree with him. I am glad bin Laden is gone, but I would not have gone out hooping and hollering in the streets…..I sent beck an email telling him I agreed with him on this matter.

I agree something needs to be done with the budget deficit, but I don’t like the fact that Beck has used the Nazi comparisons so many times to try to prove his point. And, on this issue, I don’t need someone like Glenn Beck to tell me how to think.

So, I do agree with a few things beck believes, but I think his tactics are oh so wrong.

2. As far as me wanting to be civil in this debate, yes, I try to be. But I will say that I have said some things on blogs in the past 2 years I would not have said before beck became such a national figure. It’s not that I have become angry because beck’s political beliefs in and of themselves; it’s that I have become angry some times when I see how he attempts to get his point across.

I am a liberal Democrat, but I do respect some conservatives, even though I disagree with much of what they say. These past 10 years, I have watched Bill O’Reilly very often, even though I strongly disagree with much of what he says. I highly respect David Frum, even though he was a speech writer for George Bush, and even though I disagree with much of what he believes in. Like David Frum, I believe that people who use the type of rhetoric and tactics Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin use are bad for the discourse in this country.

Zermatt2 said:
I agree something needs to be done with the budget deficit, but I don’t like the fact that Beck has used the Nazi comparisons so many times to try to prove his point. And, on this issue, I don’t need someone like Glenn Beck to tell me how to think.

It’s all well and good that you support a person’s freedom of speech when they agree with you. It’s where you begin to disagree with Beck’s positions when they break from your own that you quickly go off the rails. Beck doesn’t use Nazi comparisons (or allusions to communism, which for some reason has escaped criticism in your case, as if doctrinal communism were not in practice equal to or worse than the world’s experimentation with national socialism) to allege that budget deficits are wrong. That’s your characterization, and it’s a false one.

Mostly, he uses Nazi comparisons in reference to historical events in relation to man’s relationship with power. He sometimes uses them when detailing modern statements or positions of extreme statism. To be sure, some of those same statist people would and do line up against anyone interested in reigning in out of control budget deficits, but it’s not to the subject of deficits themselves to which he so often speaks when he broaches such allusions – it’s the philosophy of statism itself.

It’s your partisan allegiance which colors how you view that imagery, and when you mistakenly(?) allege it’s meant to be conscientiously associated with the Obama administration specifically if they take a similar position in the case of budget deficits, you conveniently ignore that the same imagery associations, if they were in fact meant to be taken that way, would be attributable to any Keynesian. But you don’t go so far – thus the partisan nature of your defense is exposed. Your only interest is in how the administration is perceived and it benefits you in the perception that they come under – as defined by you – unfair attack.

That statism as an governing philosophy has become a topic of debate at all ought to concern Americans far more than the supposed tactics involved in the debate over that statism.

Paleo,

You may be right that Glenn Beck is not using Nazi comparisons to allege that the budget deficits are wrong. But that does not excuse his use of Nazi comparisons. It does not diminish my arguments. I guess you and I think differently. (I also want to point out that I used the budget deficit example because I have been accused of disagreeing with everything Beck has to say…..and that simply is not true).

Most people I know, when they hear the word “Nazi,” think of the heinous atrocities they committed. They don’t first think of the “abuse of power,” but even if they did, Beck is using this analogy to associate Obama with Nazis, who were evil because they murdered people. Beck’s history is that of a shock jock; he says outrageous things in order to get attention; in order to get a larger audience; in order to make more money. I do not approve, especially when it comes to these Nazi references.

Even if Beck and his followers believe Obama is abusing his power, he is not doing so anywhere close to the extent that Nazis did. But, again, Nazis murdered millions. It doesn’t matter Beck’s intent….no one, absolutely no one, should use the Nazi comparisons unless they are actually talking about someone like Pol Pot who also murdered millions.

No, I have not criticized Beck’s communist and socialist comparisons. I do not like these, either, but I am most upset with his Nazi comparisons. If I were to go into the commie and socialist and other things Beck likes to compare Obama to, my responses would be even longer, and you would criticize me even more for my response for being too long.

Beck has used this Nazi reference so many times, it’s ridiculous. Further, he conflates socialism with naziism when in fact nazis were socialists in name only. They were more fascists than socialists. He also has conflated communism with naziism…..the nazis and communists during WWII hated each other. Didn’t those evil commies fight on our side during that war?

Beck has done so many things I disagree with. He is a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. He tries to “connect the dots” on many strange things. I saw his program once where he was talking about all of the commie (and progressive) symbols on the Rockefeller building and somehow trying to tie that into NBC, whose headquarters are there. What’s he trying to say? I just don’t get it. I guess he was trying to say that because of these “progressive” symbols on that building, current NBC is also progressive and evil. I have heard beck call progressives “evil.”

When he shows Nazis marching; when he talks about the Obama administration while showing the Nazis marching; when he often talks about “evil”; when he often expresses his extreme disgust at socialism; there is no doubt in my mind that he is trying to tie all of these things together. Obama = socialist = Nazi = evil.

I saw Beck a couple of years ago try to start some conspiracy theory about the “camps” the government (Obama) was building. He didn’t know if they existed, but since no one could prove to him that they did not exist, then he proclaimed that they might exist. He spread this stuff around for about 2 weeks or more before finally admitting they don’t exist. But how many people now still believe in such camps and spread rumors about them?

Soon after bin Laden was killed, and a number of people were calling for the release of the pictures, I saw Beck say that Obama should release these pictures to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. On that Friday’s O’Reilly program, O’Reilly said to Beck that he thought Beck wanted the pictures released; Beck said that, no, he did not. Why did he change his mind so quickly? Was he lying the first time when he said he wanted them released? Beck seems to have quite a different personality when he’s on O’Reilly’s show. At the very least, there is something very odd about the man, and I would have to say he is dishonest in some cases.

As far as “freedom of speech” is concerned, I support most “freedom of speech.” I’m not saying Beck cannot or should not say the hateful things he says, such as when he uses Nazi comparisons; but I am saying it is very wrong. Further, “freedom of speech” refers to the government not being able to restrict your free speech. It does not refer to my strongly disagreeing with what people have to say and the manner in which they say it.

I just have to ask why Fox is dropping Beck. HIs audience apparently has been steadily and greatly diminishing. After his last week’s bashing of Meghan McCain and her appearance, notably her weight, I have seen a few people write on blogs that they used to like Beck, but now they finally have seen what a hate monger and joker he really is. When O’Reilly had Beck on his program a week ago Friday, he chastised Beck for making fun of Meghan McCain in that public service announcement for skin cancer (note that both of her parents had the disease). Beck did not apologize and, in fact, disparaged her again.

There’s been a huge outcry against Beck, including from some Jewish groups. Some conservatives like David Frum have been outspoken against Glenn Beck. George Will has spoken out against Glenn Beck and has referred to his “drift into more bizarre and more extreme positions.” George Will said it is a good thing for Fox that Glenn Beck is leaving.

My belief is that Fox is dropping Beck because they, too, now realize what a joker he is. They’ve had enough, so Beck must go.

Zermatt2 said:
Paleo,

You may be right that Glenn Beck is not using Nazi comparisons to allege that the budget deficits are wrong. But that does not excuse his use of Nazi comparisons. It does not diminish my arguments. I guess you and I think differently. (I also want to point out that I used the budget deficit example because I have been accused of disagreeing with everything Beck has to say…..and that simply is not true).

Wow. I wasn’t going to get back into this, but there’s some troubling ideas in your post, carried over from other posts of yours, aside from your points of agreement or disagreement with the one television personality that is Glenn Beck. We do indeed think differently.

Most people I know, when they hear the word “Nazi,” think of the heinous atrocities they committed. They don’t first think of the “abuse of power,” but even if they did, Beck is using this analogy to associate Obama with Nazis, who were evil because they murdered people. Beck’s history is that of a shock jock; he says outrageous things in order to get attention; in order to get a larger audience; in order to make more money. I do not approve, especially when it comes to these Nazi references.

Even if Beck and his followers believe Obama is abusing his power, he is not doing so anywhere close to the extent that Nazis did. But, again, Nazis murdered millions.

I’ve separated these paragraphs dedicated to ‘references’ to attack from several different angles here, but the points you raise are definitely intertwined.

The more statist governing philosophy appeals to Americans, and the more it’s adherents are allowed to flourish without reproach, the more the allusions will be accurate and necessary; for statist thought is a pernicious threat to man’s freedom, an ever precarious concept. If this were a different time, those allusions would be to the British crown or European absolutism, but such were superseded by the last major threat to freedom embodied by the authoritarian dictatorships under discussion. A generation or two from now, the next allusion might very well be to the modern day theocratic proponents of the Islamic Caliphate. These external analogous examples all share a common underlying concept – the subjection of man’s free will to the whims of an unrepresentative government. These aren’t flashy, attention seeking talking points; these are fundamental beliefs held by many, even many Americans, and represent important differences of opinion.

Even so, as stated in my last post, there’s been no direct association between Obama and (N)azism – or Obama and (C)ommunism – though you may wish to see it. There’s corollaries to similar concepts derived from common philosophic ground. A distinctly collectivist policy cannot be divorced from the collectivist arguments of Marxism. There’s certainly been direct allegations where doctrinal Communists have been discovered to be in known association with the president. These may not trouble you, but they trouble others, for the core principles of such people, their opinions, how they see the world and what they propose to do to act on their beliefs are wildly incongruous with the vast majority of Americans. Whether you like it or not, to discuss the participation of such people and the impact of their ideas in policy advances political discourse. Conservatives will not be enjoined from participating in the battlefield of ideas because some find competing views distasteful.

There may even come a point where ‘most people’ will see that, from the perspective of a free individual, National Socialists were morally wrong for more than the one act of killing Jews.

It doesn’t matter Beck’s intent….no one, absolutely no one, should use the Nazi comparisons unless they are actually talking about someone like Pol Pot who also murdered millions.

You couldn’t be more wrong that criticisms of creeping statist thought cannot and shouldn’t be made or that criticism be reserved for when dead bodies start piling up in the streets – for by then, it’s far too late to influence events and prevent evil deeds. To retroactively lable a thing evil merely by it’s results if it is already evil in it’s intent is to support an abominaable lack of moral certitude. I’m no great moralist, but advocacy for the position you hold, if the notion is rooted in anything more than meaningless, transitory rhetoric, is frankly disgusting and you should seriously reconsider it.

No, I have not criticized Beck’s communist and socialist comparisons. I do not like these, either, but I am most upset with his Nazi comparisons. If I were to go into the commie and socialist and other things Beck likes to compare Obama to, my responses would be even longer, and you would criticize me even more for my response for being too long.

It always amazes me that people cannot see or articulate the evil that was and is communism, as if the segmentation of their atrocities, the outright murders, deaths at forced labor and reeducation camps, purposeful starvation, the more casual, man-made famines as the result of collectivist policies and the calculated elimination of whole peoples by forced relocation weren’t capable of easily being recombined by the detective work of simple math. That Nazi’s come in for more criticism (or depth of feeling) in that their crimes are given in aggregate numbers astounds – and gives ominous warning that that pernicious ideology which survived the era of the fascistic countries still has life in it with parties interested in fostering a favorable comparison.

Beck has used this Nazi reference so many times, it’s ridiculous. Further, he conflates socialism with naziism when in fact nazis were socialists in name only. They were more fascists than socialists. He also has conflated communism with naziism…..the nazis and communists during WWII hated each other. Didn’t those evil commies fight on our side during that war?

For the purposes of our discussion, it’s enough to label them statists, and not enter a convoluted debate to what extent those two pervasive, dictatorial groups shared beliefs, outlook, policies, tactics and results or to what side of the pinhead they may have been drawn. I know leftists relish the debate and see it as somehow laudable – as if their castigation of one great evil in contrast is not a dubious defense of another. I’ll spare you the embarrassment.

Beck has done so many things I disagree with. He is a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. He tries to “connect the dots” on many strange things. I saw his program once where he was talking about all of the commie (and progressive) symbols on the Rockefeller building and somehow trying to tie that into NBC, whose headquarters are there. What’s he trying to say? I just don’t get it. I guess he was trying to say that because of these “progressive” symbols on that building, current NBC is also progressive and evil.

Beck’s show is an exercise in critical thought, and his audience is entreated to rigorously question that which is presented to them – there and elsewhere in their lives. It’s not William F. Buckley, but it’s heads and shoulders better than what passes for a substantive show nowadays. Critical thinkers examine and evaluate information and attempt to honestly asses their value. This is beyond some people, especially those that are dulled by an educational system that trains by rote, conditioned by a mass media culture to be passive consumers of information or habituated by a political culture to impugn motivations and view intent according to ideological associations. Just as strenuous physical exercise builds muscle, critical thinking is demanding and requires conscientious and continual effort but results in the ability to follow conceptual threads (that may only seem convoluted to the uninitiated) and find a proper, perhaps multiple layered, context by which information can be assessed.

What was to be learned from the Rockefeller ‘expose’? No big thing – no direct corollary. Buildings don’t make people evil. It was just a lesson in the importance of symbology and paying attention to the information such conveys; a reinforcement of the good advice to listen to that which is said – that often things are revealed to he who listens. And also that that era’s progressives, having certain similarities in outlook to the governing philosophies of that which they lauded, couldn’t see the dangers inherent when countries went down the fascistic road.

I have heard beck call progressives “evil.”

A simplification, I’m sure, but I know what you’re getting at. You’re defending Soros, perhaps out of some understandable appeal to plant your flag on a moral high-ground (which would seem to be incompatible with your earlier pronouncements of extreme moral relevancy), perhaps (in consideration of the incompatible moral pronouncements, far more likely) because he’s a source of financing for the progressive movement.

To a person who believes the representative, republican form of government we enjoy, backed by a capitalistic system, to be the most favorable social organization a free society has to express it’s political will, any corrupting influence desirous to change those fundamental institutions which sustains that society can indeed be seen as an ‘evil’ force. George Soros, if he’s anything, is a person in position to effect massive change upon such institutions and has stated his desire to do so. It’s common knowledge he has direct access to many avenues of legislative and executive power. His political project to support the election of friendly Secretaries of State in all 50 states is a naked ploy to gain control over vote counting and the credentialing process of future elections. His involvement in media causes is a blatant attempt to warp information dissemination and purchase opinion. His call to permanently weaken the dollar would permanently weaken the economic positions of the entire middle and lower classes. His open borders initiative and support of increasing reliance on world organizations would ultimately eradicate the representative power of the lower classes. To any informed observer, especially of conservative outlook, it’s fairly clear that among Soros’ ‘philanthropic’ and political efforts is his pursuit of his own interests to grossly affect and limit social mobility on a grand scale so to institutionalize his family’s (and other class based allies) position as power elites. If a free person interested in maintaining social fluidity cannot call that an evil, he can call nothing evil.

That would run counter to your inclination, but I’ve already seen you have a funny definition of evil. As befitting your social programming, If there are not millions dead, millions of the ‘wrong’ dead, even, you may reserve judgement. Others are not so inclined.

Zermatt2 said:
Beck is an ugly and evil man.

Even you, it appears, when it suits you. How facetious of you.

When he shows Nazis marching; when he talks about the Obama administration while showing the Nazis marching; when he often talks about “evil”; when he often expresses his extreme disgust at socialism; there is no doubt in my mind that he is trying to tie all of these things together. Obama = socialist = Nazi = evil.

Such was the point of my last posting. If you can’t get passed the B-roll video of marching soldiers and conceptualize the greater topics under discussion that those soldiers represent about man’s relationship with power, there’s no helping you and you won’t get this. Beck is attacking the concepts of progressivism, moral relativism, Keynesian economics, collectivization, and, yes, even socialism, among other things. The imagery association, if meant in the fashion you describe, would be fair against any advocate of the above. However, your stated interest, again, ignores these implications. Your only concern, oft repeated in your posts, is to the perception of the Obama administration and to the perceived decorum of the criticism they receive. Asides from what this says about the willingness of the leftist individual to gravitate towards the leadership principle, a significant point of it’s own in light of the current discussion thread, it illustrates the utter vacuousness of your complaint. You’re ultimately concerned not with the underlying political question represented by national socialism nor even the moral definition of evil but simply *at whom* Nazi comparison are used. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if during the Bush administration you weren’t frequently dropping Nazi bombs in every venue you frequented. Was your entire thread of ‘Nazi comparisons’ facetious as well?

Once more, to Beck, that there may be no doubt in your mind that he paints willy-nilly with a Nazi brush without consideration of what he means when he wields it, regardless that so often he does so to impart historical lessons of the era, I see as evidence of you being wedded to your perceptions in extant and there being little one can do to dissuade you from them.

I saw Beck a couple of years ago try to start some conspiracy theory about the “camps” the government (Obama) was building. He didn’t know if they existed, but since no one could prove to him that they did not exist, then he proclaimed that they might exist. He spread this stuff around for about 2 weeks or more before finally admitting they don’t exist. But how many people now still believe in such camps and spread rumors about them?

Take this, for example. Beck investigates and authoritatively debunks FEMA camps as a service to rationality in political discourse, and you criticize him for it. The only word that woud seem to apply in such situations is ‘bigot.’ For al the extensive rationalities, you’re simply an anti-Beck bigot. For the most part, I’m done with this conversation. But for some of the other concepts you raised, I couldn’t give a fig what you think of Beck the man. Haters are gonna hate and it’s clear your opinion is rooted in your politics.

Soon after bin Laden was killed, and a number of people were calling for the release of the pictures, I saw Beck say that Obama should release these pictures to prevent conspiracy theories from developing. On that Friday’s O’Reilly program, O’Reilly said to Beck that he thought Beck wanted the pictures released; Beck said that, no, he did not. Why did he change his mind so quickly? Was he lying the first time when he said he wanted them released? Beck seems to have quite a different personality when he’s on O’Reilly’s show. At the very least, there is something very odd about the man, and I would have to say he is dishonest in some cases.

Even if it happened as you described, which I cannot verify as I didn’t see the show, if a person changes their mind or opinion based on new data or beliefs, they’re lying? You could have saved the time typing, if that’s the level of thought you’re putting into your missives.

As far as “freedom of speech” is concerned, I support most “freedom of speech.” I’m not saying Beck cannot or should not say the hateful things he says, such as when he uses Nazi comparisons; but I am saying it is very wrong. Further, “freedom of speech” refers to the government not being able to restrict your free speech. It does not refer to my strongly disagreeing with what people have to say and the manner in which they say it.

‘Most’ freedom of speech, in quotes, no less. How edifying. However, your point about the subject being related to government action is taken.

I just have to ask why Fox is dropping Beck. HIs audience apparently has been steadily and greatly diminishing. After his last week’s bashing of Meghan McCain and her appearance, notably her weight, I have seen a few people write on blogs that they used to like Beck, but now they finally have seen what a hate monger and joker he really is. When O’Reilly had Beck on his program a week ago Friday, he chastised Beck for making fun of Meghan McCain in that public service announcement for skin cancer (note that both of her parents had the disease). Beck did not apologize and, in fact, disparaged her again.

Appeals to popularity (in which you’re wrong – his audience has not appreciably diminished from it’s average), to biased sample, to ridicule, ad hominems and a pissy pseudo-defense of Meghan McCain. Who sees such nefarious flaws of character from a joke made in keeping with his role as host of a morning radio infotainment show as some grandiose revelation to continually refer to it in ominous, window into a man’s soul, terms? Partisan hacks. Moving on…

There’s been a huge outcry against Beck, including from some Jewish groups. Some conservatives like David Frum have been outspoken against Glenn Beck. George Will has spoken out against Glenn Beck and has referred to his “drift into more bizarre and more extreme positions.” George Will said it is a good thing for Fox that Glenn Beck is leaving.

This entire paragraph is appeal to authority. Speak to your own arguments, or don’t bother.

My belief is that Fox is dropping Beck because they, too, now realize what a joker he is. They’ve had enough, so Beck must go.

To the point of Beck, again, for all the verboseness, there’s little legitimate argumentation here but many constructed logical fallacies seemingly driven by partisan sympathies. You don’t like him, so there you are. You’re not providing evidence to anything but your feelings. For all the work put into it, a poster such as Garth accomplishes the same basic thought in a grammatically incorrect one sentence character disparagement with much less time and effort.

Your thoughts on other matters are hardly more supportable, but far more troubling.

Paleo,

Wow. As mentioned, you and I most definitely think differently.

One thing I find amazing is that rabid supporters of beck, bachmann, teapartiers, republicans, conservatives (and, I repeat, rabid, extremely partisan people) can find absolutely no wrong with them. Absolutely no wrong. They can’t even admit that the tactics they use are beyond the pale; they are so blinded by their ideology that they don’t care if someone “jokes” about killing people or “jokes” about using the nazi comparisons. People like beck and their supporters never apologize. They think they are always 100% right in everything they say and do.

At least I have admitted that I agree with a few things beck has said. I have admitted in other posts that I was wrong on occasion. And, to do so, my friend, is not the sign of an extreme partisan.

All I can say is, I am chuckling to myself right now because for one who complains about how “verbose” my comments are, you sure beat me on that account!

Paleo,

Just on one serious note here, I have never, ever posted that George Bush was a Nazi. Never.

This is but one example of how I could disprove most of your suppositions about me. But, seeing as you don’t like my “verboseness,” I won’t go any further.

Have a nice day!

Zermatt2 said:
Paleo,

Wow. As mentioned, you and I most definitely think differently.

One thing I find amazing is that rabid supporters of beck, bachmann, teapartiers, republicans, conservatives (and, I repeat, rabid, extremely partisan people) can find absolutely no wrong with them. Absolutely no wrong. They can’t even admit that the tactics they use are beyond the pale; they are so blinded by their ideology that they don’t care if someone “jokes” about killing people or “jokes” about using the nazi comparisons. People like beck and their supporters never apologize. They think they are always 100% right in everything they say and do.

At least I have admitted that I agree with a few things beck has said. I have admitted in other posts that I was wrong on occasion. And, to do so, my friend, is not the sign of an extreme partisan.

All I can say is, I am chuckling to myself right now because for one who complains about how “verbose” my comments are, you sure beat me on that account!

To be clear, I didn’t reenter this debate to argue Glenn Beck – and as you may note he wasn’t the focus of most of my arguements. I rejoined it to discuss the concepts of moral relativism that were evident in your postings and your seemingly shifting sense of what is or can be called evil. Beck is simply the venue for that discussion. I don’t claim him as any benighted person above reproach, nor do I argue every point you raise about him. That should be demonstrative.

Just as it shouldn’t be a rhetorical requirement to issue statements of agreement on subsidiary matters when criticizing a person with whom you disagree, it’s not a duty of a person engaging in argumentation to inform of every point where they may disagree with the object of their defense. Attempting to prove an objective nature in this manner is nothing but an exercise in mental masturbation. Inclusion of like qualifiers don’t add to the argument, and, as you’ve observed, are mostly omitted. People choose instead to engage on points which interest them. As wide is the spectrum of held opinion, any one point is liable to be defended by any random person. In consideration of this, it’s up to you whether to classify all dissenting opinion you receive in collective, general terms or on an individual, case by case basis as is in keeping with your nature. (As a shout out to self-gratification I’ll admit it’s common to generalize under the moniker ‘they’ and admit most people do it – myself included on occasion)

Verboseness. Well, you got me. That train of thought which got under my skin and prompted such a lengthy response wasn’t in the bulk of your utterances but to singular expressions that formed a common theme to several of your contributions. I like to think what I had to say was on point. Here’s what set me off

*Your moral relativism of refusing to label intent evil. The sum total of evil that was national socialism wasn’t a pile of dead bodies. It was the intent to create said pile, the intent to deprive people of their representation, the intent to disposes their own citizens and whole groups of foreign peoples of their property in pursuance of their own power and so on.
*Your questionable insight into what can be called an evil. On one hand, you go to lengths to express that you don’t believe *person X* is evil – yet in the next breath, you’re willing to go down that road and make such a value judgement if you perceive him as being in opposition or using questionable tactics. A person’s moral center ought be more soundly based.
*Your rejection of cautionary criticism. To listen to you, there can be no great lesson of history for you actively refuse to draw historical comparisons and speak against it’s use as a tool to draw conclusions. This is the height of moral relativism.
*Your propensity, as I see it, to the leadership principle, as represented by your singular focus on the decorum of criticism the Obama administration receives to the exclusion of the concepts under discussion that the administration supports which receives wide support by others.

Sentiments such as these makes dictatorships possible, and that upsets me far more than your feelings on Glenn Beck. To wrap up our discussion, putting a point on it that may illuminate stances Beck has taken in criticisms of others – I do not believe you are evil. I don’t know you nearly well enough to be able to make such a value judgement. Yet several things you’ve said, and the implications they hold, I believe, are.

Paleo, my friend….

I’ll try to wrap up our discussion as well with a few points.

I know you did not respond to all of my points, but it is very rare that I see any of Glenn Beck’s supporters admit that his tactics are wrong. I don’t think you admit this, but I truly believe his tactics are wrong. I don’t do this as often as I used to, but I used to get on to right wing blogs and ask Beck supporters if they would denounce his tactics. To date, no one, except one person, has responded and agreed with me. Usually, I don’t get any response. A few times, I will get a response defending Beck and a reply that, oh, Keith Olbermann does that. I have only had a single response from a Glenn Beck fan who did admit to me that he found Beck’s method reprehensible, but he liked what Beck has been trying to say. My response is that why do people have to use such methods?

To me, that seems like some of his fans think Beck is godlike and can do or say no wrong. I really take issue with this; I really take issue with people who think they can do no wrong, say no wrong, and are always right and never apologize. Sounds like you don’t think Beck is infallible, but I think many do.

I don’t think that I actually refused to acknowledge that intent can be evil…..maybe I didn’t understand what you were trying to say, but I totally agree that intent can be evil. But I also greatly fail to see how Obama’s intent is evil at all. His intent is to help people.

My definition of what evil is includes not only actions of killing people; it includes the intent to do so. My definition of what evil is includes what Hitler and the Nazis did; what Pol Pot did; what Stalin did; what Ahmadinajad has done; what Kim Jong-ll has done; what has happened in Somalia; etc., etc.

I just take great issue, and rightly so, with people saying that Obama is anything like these mass murderers. He has no intent on doing this. He has no intent of being a dictator. So I have a great deal of trouble with people who use examples of true evil to warn people of what they think the Obama administration wants to do.

I will also say that if people are talking about Obama being a socialist, socialists inherently are not evil in deed or in intent. A few of them probably are, but Canada and Europe are “Democratic Socialist” countries. I do not see evil taking place there. I lived and worked in Europe for 4 years, and I saw no more evil than what one might see here.

So what upsets me so much is sentiment that Beck espouses, and how he tries to prove his point. I disagree with his premise, and I still disagree with his tactics. I don’t think Beck is evil, although I really am taken aback by some of the things he has said and done over his long career. When I call Beck “evil,” I do so in jest.

But I am greatly troubled by his premise that he thinks Obama wants government to completely take over every aspect of our lives. As mentioned, I did live in Europe for 4 years, and I saw no evidence of the governments there controlling every aspect of one’s life.

And, as mentioned, I certainly disagree with the means with which he tries to prove his points. Yes, Nazis were evil not only in deed, but in intent; but Obama’s intent is nothing like the intent the Nazis had.

So, now MediaLite is down to “someone who ‘works’ for Glenn Beck (might have) made someone who was looking for a reason to be angry.” HA!

Well, I DO think Beck is evil. I also believe he is exploiting is phoney Christianity for some purpose. For some reason he is trying (and suceeding) in convincing many far right conservative Christians into believing he is “one of them”, even though he couldn’t be farther from one of them if he tried, being a Mormon (unless he became a Muslim or something). I don’t know what this latest apparent gambit it, being photographed feeding the poor, but whatever it is it is to Glenn Beck’s benefit with one of the goals being to pub more money in his pocket. He is just over the top in supporting the same things a real Christian would support, with his latest Israel grandstanding included.

Why is he doing this? #1, to put millions into his own pocket. He’s hit on a formula and gotten results, now he is milking it for all it’s worth. #2, not sure but I think he is trying to pave the way for his OWN Manchurian Candidate, who will be a Mormon, you can be sure of that. THat is why he wants the religious right to think he is “one of them”. Just a peek at his Facebook page comments will tell you that he has fooled what I believe is an incredible number of sheeple into drinking his kool aid.

Zermatt2 said:
No, you cannot give me just as many brownshirt Nazi references by the left. Yes, some on the left called Bush and others “Nazis,” but A)it was primarily by the every day, common “Joe,” not someone with a loud megaphone with 2 to 3 million viewers a day like beck; and B)it was not done repeatedly, over and over, hundreds of times, like beck has done. Beck is a well known talking head with many followers. When a “leader” such as this makes such Nazi comparisons over and over and over again, it is a far cry from some protester on the Mall carrying around a sign calling Bush a nazi or a fascist. Give me one example of someone on the left who repeatedly…..repeatedly, I say, used these Nazi comparisons, especially someone who had the audience Beck did.

This is so true. The right would have us believe that Bush received the same treatment that Obama is receiving. THat is a lie. Obama is ridiculed, slandered, and namecalled daily by many more than just Back. Listen to Monica Crowley on ABC in NY for a particularly juvenile namecalling session on each of her shows. Michael Savage on WOR. Mark Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, the aforementioned Crowley. . . the entire ABC lineup. . . ABC is one continuous Obama-bashing fest.

BarneyFranken said:
Zermatt, I appreciate the civil debate but I think we are spinning our wheels here. I believe you in your defense of Israel’s right to exist. I just want to point out two things: A) Don’t let your dislike (I’ll put it mildly) of Beck jerk you to the other side of this issue. I realize your default reaction is to be against whatever Beck is for, but in this case lets put the past aside and as a defender of Israel first and Beck second I invite you to stand with us on this issue. B) You seem to have strong opinions on everything Beck but are ambiguous on how you feel about Israel. I am asking that in the least, if you dont know how you feel about the pre-67 borders, then search yourself and find out. Don’t sit on the fence on this one, because a non-reaction to redrawing the borders is nowhere near the same as supporting Israel.

Obviously you were talking asking someone else, but I am going to give my opinion of Israel: If it did not exist we would have much more money to spend on ourselves, and the entire middle east situation would be different. Does that mean that I don’t think Israel has a right to exist? Not at all, of course it does, and I hope and pray there is peace in the ME some day. However, I also wish we were sending our money to the black hole that is the ME, and spending it here.

If Beck is using the term “Nazi” to be an analogy for “abusing his power”, I wonder if he would have called Bush a Nazi for abusing his power by manipulating the evidence to prove there were WMDs in Iraq and invade that country. Just sayin’.