patrick.net

I am very glad that KurtS so eloquently proved my point. The Obama is evil crowd is in keeping with the Bush is evil crowd, the two go hand in hand. There was a Clinton is evil is crowd, a Bush the First is evil crowd, and a huge Reagan is evil crowd. And each side seems honestly unable to understand how the other side could possibly consider their guy evil. The Obama is evil crowd isn't racist, they are the same crowd that thought Clinton was evil, and that Carter was evil. Probably the foremost among the Obama is evil crowd is Thomas Sowell, himself an African-American. Different priorities and opinions yield different perceptions, and we all need to honestly attempt to see the other person's point-of-view or we will continue to be a polarized nation. Honestly evaluate this question, are the birthers any crazier than truthers? They aren't. Conspiracy theories are popular. There are those on the left who believe that Reagan's people arranged for the Iranian hostages to not be set free so that he could win the 1980 election. Are these people crazier than birthers? No, they are equally crazy. Next question, does a person holding a nutty belief such as birthers, truthers, or hostage agreement believers automatically invalidate all of that person's opinions? If so, the vast majority of people believe in some conspiracy theory or another (how about the Kennedy assassination), so if we eliminate all those people there aren't many left whose opinions we consider valid. Being dismissive of the other side never helps in the long run, because eventually the other side will be in power, and you'll be trapped in a see-saw of each side undoing the things the other side worked so hard to accomplish. That's a waste of a lot of time and energy. The key is building coalitions and finding common ground; those are the reforms that actually work. And no, I am not talking about bipartisanship, coalitions need not be bipartisan in the sense the word is usually used. A reasonable solution will attract all of one side and most independents, at which point the concerns of the other side are moot, but there will be limited danger of long-term change to the reform (provided it works). So far, healthcare reform has shown no signs of coalition building, with one side saying it will vote against anything without a public option and the other saying it will vote against anything with one. And the average person is so caught up in the screaming or the finger-pointing (examples of problems with the current system do nothing to prove the efficacy of the proposed changes, no one denies the current system is less than perfect) that they don't bother looking for a middle ground. I am not advocating what most might assume I am, that liberals should meet conservatives in the middle. I am thinking more, since the left is in power, that we can assume the most left wing of the party is at 100 percent reform, and that the middle left is at approximately 60 percent, the middle right is at 40, and the right is at 0. In this situation, a middle ground would probably be somewhere around 75 percent, a little closer to the middle left than the left because parts of the middle right can be pulled over as well. Would I support this plan? Probably not, but a large percentage of Americans would, and I would certainly accept it because the law of the land is the law of the land, and I find the threats of secession by right-wing states as silly as the threats from some liberals to leave the country if Bush was reelected.

Patrick, I love it...tooo funny! I found another- http://hasglennbeckstoppedbeatinghiswife.com/

Kudos to Erickk Hoogenbaum and reniam for great comments.

The anti-Glen Beck and anti-Fox hate is politically driven and doesn't pass the "if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander" test. The reason for Fox's popularity is that it reports a lot of stories that ALL the other outlets won't.

For example: the Van Jones story. He complains that he was a victim of a smear & lies campaign. In truth, what brought him down were videos of his own speeches. This is like the criminal who gets angry at the police when he gets caught. But where were CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc on this? Do these people & their organizations REALLY want a radical like this in that position of power? Is he good for anyone EXCEPT other militant/Communist/Marxist types, which most Americans - Democrat, Republican, and Independant - certainly are not. I love when truly corrupt people get their come-uppance, whatever their political affiliation. It seems that many here do not share this view, or there wouldn't be so many ideologue haters. C'mon, admit it. Glen Beck (along w/ others) getting Van Jones removed it a GOOD thing.

ahasuerus99 says

... Honestly evaluate this question, are the birthers any crazier than truthers? They aren’t. Conspiracy theories are popular..
... Are these people crazier than birthers? No, they are equally crazy. Next question, does a person holding a nutty belief such as birthers, truthers, or hostage agreement believers automatically invalidate all of that person’s opinions? ...

You dump "birthers, truthers, or hostage agreement believers " into the same category. I would like to debate you on "birthers" issue. We will see if you can provide logical arguments to support your claim of "birthers" being crazy and nutty.

What is your understanding of the term: "natural born citizen"?
How is it different from a citizen or a naturalized citizen?

I would like to know because we cannot debate the issue of "birthers" unless we have common understanding of what those terms mean.

In response to Patrick,

"Yes, that would do wonders to rehabilitate Beck if he showed he was not purely 100% corporate-owned.
When the government is acting badly (as in creating the Fed, or Fannie and Freddie) it’s doing it to benefit corporate interests, mostly banks it seems."

As a libertarian, I just wish that people would become a little bit more skeptical about the state. The American Academic System is set up to to promote the glory and value of the state. The state as an institution has committed many atrocities throughout its existence as an institution--especially the German and Russian states of the 20th c. If you read through a lot of the school system's textbooks, it takes on a "the state is good and benevolent" bias. Remember, the state is responsible for war. And typically it is the state that commits genocide. And it is usually only the state that creates inflation. Ultimately there is no perfect system. It's near impossible to completely sever the links between the public and the private sectors.

I think states do have some purpose, which you (Patrick) have written well in your bio. I agree with your points there. I'm very concerned about individual freedom and rights, and the state tends to habitually trample on them.

If Glen Beck murdered a girl in 1990, he'd write a book about it

And still ...................... No denial about the rape and murder.
Not a single peep.
Nada. Nothing.
Man! Have you no shame ????

And yes, rayscar is correct !

Gee. Reading previous comments, one finds a lot of whining birther libertarians.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

You guys make me sick. Stand up and reason.

In many of these responses, I see a dearth of understanding of the big picture. In the big picture, what a manipulative bozo does is irrelevant--even when he behaves contemptuously in how he talks about the President. It is the system itself that is cancer-ridden. Hence, it would be more constructive if citizens would stay focused on the big picture.

The Google documentary, "The Money Masters," makes it clear what runs our nation. Hint: it's not the President. It's a 3.5 hr. video, but the player has a slider to mark the segments viewed. Ive seen it four times in the last four years. There is so much spellbinding history in it, that with each viewing, I see new connections among many behind the scenes players. These players shape nations, charting the courses of national destinies more powerfully than any administration or office-holder--even if we can't directly see their hands at work. They do so by controlling the money supply.

As for Obama, he's smart, personable, and charismatic, and this is good for the national spirit. When it comes to power, however, he doesn't have much. For starters (as the documentary shows), there's no substantive difference between the two major parties (despite impressions to the contrary). Really, there' just one party, which I like to call the Money Party. The money party controls all Presidents--Obama included. They have done so since the Fed's inception in 1913.

One tell-tale indication of Obama's (or any President's) power is this: there are 26 security clearance levels above the clearance given the President. Question: how did the President get pushed that far down the clearance ladder? Who had enough clout to arrange for that? JFK was the last President to have the highest security clearance. As his speeches show, he intended to break the veil of secrecy which had grown up around the government. He was opposed to behind the scenes forces anathema to a democratic system. His voice was silenced, however.

The Money Masters makes it easy to figure out why some leaders die prematurely. They don't "play along." After I saw it the Money Masters, I was both shocked and disoriented. I found it necessary to re-evaluate nearly everything I thought I knew about how life works. Unfortunately for me (someone with two Master's Degrees), my professional friends were completely disinterested in what the video offered. Being Bay Area folks, they were too in love with being Democrats to listen to anything that challenged their core belief system. Thus, I was alone in my awakening.

Moreover, I was disheartened over their being close-minded to ideas bigger than any one party. Of course, had they never been been offered profound information such as the video shows, they'd have remained unwitting dupes of the system (just as I had been). After they shut their ears, however, I came to see them as willing dupes of the system. Sad, very sad.

Patrick, I admire what you've done with this site. You've earned its tremendous following. Likewise, I saw your goodwill in putting together a nursing home database, so people could avoid the kinds of obstacles you had encountered. I now hope you'll take a harder look at what America became once the Fed weasled its way into our governance. Watch The Money Masters. Or, if you like, tackle the works of Dr. Carroll Quigley (Georgetown), regarding the hidden controllers of the economy and the government. (Quigley was Bill Clinton's mentor and was lauded in Clinton's inaugural address. His credentials are impeccable.)

The more the populace can wake up to the corporate rule of this nation (via money control), the more hope I'll have that we won't be consumed by it. We still have a chance to take our democracy back from the two sold-out parties and the corporatocracy which runs them. We can still reclaim the Constitution-based governance which existed prior to 1913--or at least, that's my hope.

bwen said:

As a physician, I can tell you that the government has not been successful in its role of quality care at a good price; the private companies have done it better.

This is a baseless assertion, not supported by facts. I myself am also a physician, and am embarassed by bwen's lack of evidence in his assertion. It reflects poorly on our profession. Also, his assertion that VA and other federal systems deliver poor care is way off the mark; VA quality systems lead the nation, and have been adopted by many high-functioning private systems (Mayo Clinic, UCSF, Cedar-Sinai). Our public systems work, and deliver better outcomes than private systems to a greater number of people. Public systems do not deliver dividends to private sector specialists who demand above-average fees for their services, this is why some physicians are upset; physicans who are motivated towards the public's health are generally in support of the current reforms.

Patrick,
Your comment is no different. Now you are speculating.

Beck knows many of his viewers (most?) are racist and horrified we have a smart and articulate black president, especially in contrast to Bush, who was neither smart nor articulate.

HELL YES HE KILLED HER, I WAS WITH HIM AND WATCHED THE RAPE AND KILLING. HE NEVER SPENT A DAY IN CAMBODIA, VIETNAM OR ANYWARE IS SE ASIA... I CAN PUT HIM AWAY FOR A LONG TIME, BUT AS LONG AS HE KEEPS PAYING ME (CASH), I'LL KEEP MY PROOF TO INSURE THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND HE PAYS ME. BESIDES WE HAVE A GAY RELATIONSHIP... NOT GOING TO GIVE UP MY LOVER TOY BOY.

"Just like FDR made the depression much worse with his Communist programs."

Good God, people have about as much knowledge of history as dogs or rats.
I wish I could find this thread funny except the ignorant scare me too much.

monkframe says

Good God, people have about as much knowledge of history as dogs or rats.
I wish I could find this thread funny except the ignorant scare me too much.

monkframe,
Many of the points in this thread are quite intelligent. Several people tried to point out that there are many views and we should listen to them all.

You flatly insulted people as ignorant of history and economics without yourself doing any research. So you reject any opinion that does not match your own as without merit. Like it or not, believe it or not, many historians and economists have studied the great depression and concluded that FDR's programs extended the depression.

One reference:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Well, I (for one) want to know why he continues to ignore this whole issue. He needs to deny it.

While we're at it, I'm sitting by the phone, waiting for George Clooney to call me and give a personal apology for not calling me the night after.

Funny thing ... I posted a comment regarding Obama's 20 year attendance at a "church" that promulgated the racist Marxist theology known as "Afro Centrist Liberation Theology." It appeared on this site for a day ... and now it has mysteriously disappeared. It appears Patrick didn't like what I posted and eliminated it. So much for Free Speech.

RayAmerica says

Funny thing … I posted a comment regarding Obama’s 20 year attendance at a “church” that promulgated the racist Marxist theology known as “Afro Centrist Liberation Theology.” It appeared on this site for a day … and now it has mysteriously disappeared. It appears Patrick didn’t like what I posted and eliminated it. So much for Free Speech.

You might be victim of a new feature, the "impolite" function. According to Patrick, if several people designate your post as "impolite" it will be automatically removed.

It’s all political. Why should you pay your irresponsible neighbor’s mortgage? That’s a political question.

The answer to that question, and to our military spending, and to the bank bailouts, and to why our health care system makes little Bobby’s parents choose between his chemotherapy or their retirement funds: corporate involvement in government.

----------------------------------
It is a moral question, not political. Where do you get your morality from? What is the basis of your morality? Morality is inescapable. Morality is based on religious views - whether atheism, humanism, Judeo-Christian, pantheism, new age, etc. My moral source is the Bible - it has answers to all what man needs to know - I said NEEDS, not wants.
This nation is headed to ruins. Obama is just accelerating it. The Day of reckoning will come. God has been judging this nation for years and we are reaping what we are sowing - serfdom, slavery, wars, high taxes, debt, strife, sexual perversion of all kinds, murders (including abortions), family breakdown, drug and alcohol addicts, etc.

I think morality is innate. You just know when you're being wrong, and evil. There are many ways to put it, such as "do unto others and you would have them to unto you" (Christian) and "do not unto others that which is hateful to you" (Jewish).

I think the Buddhists understand it all the best. Namely, when you're making a strict separation between yourself and others, you're on the wrong path. At some point you understand that other people ARE you in every important way, and then it all becomes clear.

wcalleallegre says

Morality is based on religious views - whether atheism, humanism, Judeo-Christian, pantheism, new age, etc.

That is absolutely absurd. Morality may be based on religious views, but most morality is secular in nature. This is why we don't kill, rape, or steal.

I'm not religious, and I still have a strong moral code that I adhere to and teach to my children, and it only really has one point: do not harm anyone that does not deserve to be harmed.

I don't adhere to this because I'm worried about being punished after I die or because I believe in some sort of cosmic retribution, but rather I do so because I desire to live in harmony with the world around me.

dan-o says

bwen said:
As a physician, I can tell you that the government has not been successful in its role of quality care at a good price; the private companies have done it better.
This is a baseless assertion, not supported by facts. I myself am also a physician, and am embarassed by bwen’s lack of evidence in his assertion. It reflects poorly on our profession. Also, his assertion that VA and other federal systems deliver poor care is way off the mark; VA quality systems lead the nation, and have been adopted by many high-functioning private systems (Mayo Clinic, UCSF, Cedar-Sinai). Our public systems work, and deliver better outcomes than private systems to a greater number of people. Public systems do not deliver dividends to private sector specialists who demand above-average fees for their services, this is why some physicians are upset; physicans who are motivated towards the public’s health are generally in support of the current reforms.

I've been a social worker for many years, both public & private agencies. I agree with dan-o on. It seems to me that many physicians are insulated from those people who are on the bottom rung. If a patient doesn't have insurance, he may never make it to the MD's office. If the physician doesn't accept hospital patients on rotation, they may never be affected by the uninsured/poorest of the poor.

Physicians have so many expenses and it irritates me when people trash 'em. Starting with office rental, stocking of supplies, salaries & employment related expenses of office staff, billing/collections-related expenses, insurance write-offs, denials & appeals, ongoing education, malpractice insurance, student loans, auto expenses... They're often on-call 24/7, are paged/called/texted all day & night... That they draw larger salaries than many other professions is mistaken as living the good life. Doctor's spouses & families are often frustrated when they aren't able to spend peaceful holidays, attend kid's sporting events, etc without interruption. So I don't begrudge them wanting to be paid; I do have a problem with insurance companies that profit handsomely by denying benefits and setting prices. If an MD performs a procedure he/she deems necessary, that doesn't ensure payment.

So they often don't see the patients that enter the E.R. and can't afford to pay. They often aren't the ones telling patients that there's no program available to help out, and they often don't realize that the medications prescribed won't be filled. There are some good qualities in both public & private systems, but the private ones are profit-based and looking for every reason to deny benefits. It truly sucks, and many physicians have been able to insulate themselves from those patients they'll never have to treat for free (or even pay out of pocket for some costs).

This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck, other than that many people believe the propaganda of big insurance and hospital corporations that claim to provide compassionat care, making money hand over fist at the expense of others. Glenn Beck makes millions, as does his network, while the "grass roots" organizations they enrage with innuendo donate from their meager funds to further line his pockets. People drink his kool-aid.

Glenn Beck needs to publicly apologize for not having denied this horrific crime. He's been strangely silent on this issue, even tho he's demonstrated a lack of ability to remain silent many other times. He needs to cry for those poor young girls who may or may not have been his victims, and start a "grass-roots" movement to condemn all killers of young girls everywhere.
Meanwhile, George, you haven't called me yet... Have you lost my number?

elliemae says

If he didn’t rape & murder a young girl in 1990, why hasn’t he denied it yet? Why does he choose to remain silent on the issue? What’s he hiding? He needs to come clean on the issue.
Either that or hope that some songbird nymph is upstaged by a talentless piece of shit on national teevee and take away the attention from his purported crimes…

I guess in parody we could add the evil Glenn Beck
to this list of Obamas Friends....

Rashid Khalidi (antisemitic)
Antoin "Tony" Rezko (real estate crook)
William "Bill" Ayers (terrorist)
Rev. Jeremiah Wright (anti American racist)
Michelle Obama (anti American racist)
ACORN (voter fraud) (housing market collapse)
Raila Odinga (dictator)
Michael Pfleger (anti American racist)
Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae under Clinton)
Bernadine Dorn (terrorist)
Jesse Jackson jr. (racist and race baiting)
Jesse Jackson (racist and race baiting)
Al Sharpton (race baiting )
Van Jones (communist and racist)
Emmanuel Rahm (laundry expert)
Jimmy Carter (race baiting)
Hugo Chavez (anti American)
Robert Gibbs (apologist and spin doctor)
Nancy Pelosi (Darth Vader's twin sister)
Glenn Beck (Parodist subject)

elliemae says

This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck

Tell that to the physicians who tried desperately to revive the young girl that he raped and murdered in 1990.

Kevin says

elliemae says

This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck

Tell that to the physicians who tried desperately to revive the young girl that he raped and murdered in 1990.

:) my bad...

In response to Patrick: "I think morality is innate. You just know when you’re being wrong, and evil. There are many ways to put it, such as “do unto others and you would have them to unto you” (Christian) and “do not unto others that which is hateful to you” (Jewish)."

I think that morality is not entirely innate. If you put a person in the right (or horribly wrong) environment, you can create a sociopath. Read B.F. Skinner's research. It's the classic nature versus nurture argument. I take the view that morality is a combination of environment and innate genetics. I think it also has to do with learning to feel properly. Our emotions serve a purpose.

I'm a religious man (Eastern Orthodox) so I have my own religious convictions. One does not need to be religious to be moral. Although being religious I think can certainly steer one in the right direction. Learning virtue from vice, and pro-social behavior takes learning and examination of one's motives with perhaps some reflection. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, they're at the core very pro-social and encourage us to take others interests into account and not just our own.

In response to wcalleallegre:

Moral perversion and corruption has been with us since the beginning of time. From the time of the Ancient Greeks, through the Roman Empire, to today. I think that many Americans who grew up during the 1950's lived through an idealized, innocent, and very ignorant time that filtered humanity's true potential for good and evil. But I agree with you, the Christian sowing and reaping principle is a good tool of analysis. If you sow papers of fraud, you reap houses of defaults!

Erickk Hoogenbaum says

I think that many Americans who grew up during the 1950’s lived through an idealized, innocent, and very ignorant time that filtered humanity’s true potential for good and evil

On TV, maybe. Even if you ignore the matters of racial segregation, the cold war backdrop was a great illustration of the potential for evil in the world.

'Hey kids, everything is A-OK. Now lets duck and cover!'

The 1950's were not sweetness and light. Racial killings in the south, Korean war, Mccarthyism, red scare, cold war, hydrogen bomb, etc.. There were some pretty ugly chapters of American history written in the 1950's. Joe Mccarthy makes the Glenn Becks of today look like pikers in terms of smear tactics. It is interesting to see revisionist history being written about Joe Mccarthy by a number of conservative hard liners. Ann Coulter actually wrote a book about it. Now that's a ringing endorsement! I wasn't even aware that Coulter could read and write.

I don't think she can.

Kevin: "The 1950’s were not sweetness and light. Racial killings in the south, Korean war, Mccarthyism, red scare, cold war, hydrogen bomb, etc.."

This is true, and you're right. I had in mind the media and education though. Compare it to now.

First, to say that "morality is innate" within a thread created to have people visit a crass web site joking about a man raping and murdering a young girl in itself is amoral.

Erickk Hoogenbaum:

Yes the "morality is innate" statement doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny. Most morality is dependent on what you have been raised to believe. If morality was innate you would see a consistent moral code through all human cultures regardless of time, societies, religions, locations, etc. Many of the things western civilization finds repugnant such as rape, child prostitution, slavery, genocide are not seen as amoral in many parts of the world even today as well as much of our own history. Not because they are/were different human beings but, because these things were taught to be acceptable.

I've often wondered about the 50's. I think the generation that was brought up in the depression and fought WW2 tried to shield their children from what they had faced. I believe many people in America circa 2009 are very innocent or, more properly naive. We may be more exposed to sex, violence, and apathy today but, are innocence in the belief that nothing bad will happen. In the 50's there were still plenty of people that had lived through a depression and a serious war where the survival of their way of life was genuinely in jeopardy. Today, many people think these things can never happen again and increasingly look to government for answers.

Renaim say:
"First, to say that “morality is innate” within a thread created to have people visit a crass web site joking about a man raping and murdering a young girl in itself is amoral."

The web site doesn't joke about anyone raping & murdering a young girl. That's not funny. It does, however, joke about the rumor that a high profile pseudo-celebrity who refuses to address the rumors that circulate the interweb about whether or not he perpetrated crimes upon young girls in the 1990's. Not just one girl...

nosf41: "as an aside though I think as a point of order you should have provided some references to when Glen made this comment."

Are you frigging serious? This was huge news. All you have to do is go to youtube and search for "beck obama racist"

He's been caught in lies too. Like his ominous accusation that Cash for Clunkers was a government plot to take over your computer (youtube search: beck cash for clunkers). Never mind that what he was suggesting is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, though his computer "expert" pretends it is. He pretends that he can't access the page he wants to show because the system is too busy. We'll turns out he was lying. It was because he was not a DEALER and so did not have a dealer account.

And how about his taking up the cause of FEMA camp conspiracy theorists? He quickly backed off that one, but the just the fact he's started asking questions in his typical way ("I'm not saying it's true, but I can't debuk them!") shows the man has no scruples. Youtube search: beck fema camp backflip.

This guy throws out unsupportable nonsense all the time.

And yeah, why exactly has he not answered accusatoins that he raped and killed a girl in the 90's?

MarkInSF says

nosf41: “as an aside though I think as a point of order you should have provided some references to when Glen made this comment.”

Are you frigging serious? This was huge news. All you have to do is go to youtube and search for “beck obama racist”
He’s been caught in lies too. Like his ominous accusation that Cash for Clunkers was a government plot to take over your computer (youtube search: beck cash for clunkers). Never mind that what he was suggesting is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, though his computer “expert” pretends it is. He pretends that he can’t access the page he wants to show because the system is too busy. We’ll turns out he was lying. It was because he was not a DEALER and so did not have a dealer account.
And how about his taking up the cause of FEMA camp conspiracy theorists? He quickly backed off that one, but the just the fact he’s started asking questions in his typical way (”I’m not saying it’s true, but I can’t debuk them!”) shows the man has no scruples. Youtube search: beck fema camp backflip.
This guy throws out unsupportable nonsense all the time.
And yeah, why exactly has he not answered accusatoins that he raped and killed a girl in the 90’s?

Could you double check the source of that quote? I do not remember posting anything like that.

nosf41 says

MarkInSF says

nosf41: “as an aside though I think as a point of order you should have provided some references to when Glen made this comment.”
Are you frigging serious? This was huge news. All you have to do is go to youtube and search for “beck obama racist”

He’s been caught in lies too. Like his ominous accusation that Cash for Clunkers was a government plot to take over your computer (youtube search: beck cash for clunkers). Never mind that what he was suggesting is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, though his computer “expert” pretends it is. He pretends that he can’t access the page he wants to show because the system is too busy. We’ll turns out he was lying. It was because he was not a DEALER and so did not have a dealer account.

And how about his taking up the cause of FEMA camp conspiracy theorists? He quickly backed off that one, but the just the fact he’s started asking questions in his typical way (”I’m not saying it’s true, but I can’t debuk them!”) shows the man has no scruples. Youtube search: beck fema camp backflip.

This guy throws out unsupportable nonsense all the time.

And yeah, why exactly has he not answered accusatoins that he raped and killed a girl in the 90’s?

Could you double check the source of that quote? I do not remember posting anything like that.

Sorry wrong poster. Didn't know how to use the blockquote until now.

Really, the simplest and best solution is to outlaw healthcare.

Anyone who disagrees with me is Ageist, Classist, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Speciesist, Xenophobic, and suffers from Religious intolerance and Reverse discrimination.

I, like, totally agree. If only we'd outlaw'ed healthcare, Glenn Beck may not have been healthy enough to perpetrate crimes upon poor virginal children in 1990.

I haven't been reading many of the MISC threads at all, but I saw a reference to this thread today and thought I would read it.

I think the parody seen here is absolutely priceless. Brilliant is the word. It shows exactly how Glen Beck and some of (I did not say ALL) tea-party people operate.

Guilty by false accusation until you prove yourself innocent. Very dangerous, and very wrong.

SATIRE! Oh Mr. Beck never uses that does he? Oh wait I've heard entire monologues dripping with sarcasm, satire, cynicism so thick you'd expect it was written by an 8-year old. The bit that Patrick linked is written in Beck style to turn the tables on him.

Mr. Beck frequently employs the tactic of vague accusations and insinuations, but then refuses to fully back and source his claims, thus avoiding responsibility for it. A big tell is how many times he says "I'm not saying that,,,,," or "I'm just saying" to distance himself from what he just said. You don't use that phrase very frequently if you have provable allegations and are telling the simple unvarnished truth. You use it when you are spinning a web of deceit and half-truths and innuendo.

E.g. one interview among numerous examples:

Beck: (Obama is) "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don't know what it is..."

When Fox's Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama's administration are white, so "you can't say he doesn't like white people," Beck pressed on. "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem," Beck said. "This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Now I'M NOT SAYING that Glenn Beck murdered a girl in 1990, or indeed is part of the conspiracy to hide Obama's true birth origins, but isn't it suspicious how he denies it? Until we have a REAL investigation, with PROOF BEYOND ANY DOUBT that he did not KILL A GIRL IN 1990 then we should keep asking questions shouldn't we?

Updated Linkage:

Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Girl in 1990?

justme says

Guilty by false accusation until you prove yourself innocent. Very dangerous, and very wrong.

yea .. like Dan Rather and the fabricated AWOL Bush fictional story? Great point.