Of course there is racial bias on Beck's lack of statement. /s

I usually appreciate your posts but because he did not talk about Haiti, he is racist?

Explain to me your post. It does not make sense to me. I kind of need a slap in the face style.

Or is this the "supposed" Beck style, lead in with I don't understand why some people don't talk about Haiti, it must be racist.

Maybe because he has seen the vitriol of anyone even talking about it has been jumped on. Hmmmm? That is a good question.

Maybe it is a sneaky way to catch people doing this kind of thing? I don't know, maybe


edit to add-Is racial bias the new code word for race card?

[edit on 1/14/2010 by endisnighe]

I havent listened to him in a long while but as I recall he generally dislikes going off of the scope of the show to acknowledge current events. Even during hurricane Katrina the only or that tsunami were when specific stories overlapped like the FEMA mess.

Though, for a guy who cries about spilled milk nonstop you'd think a tear could be shed for this.

Then there's always the simple reality that pointless gestures such as "my prayers go out to .... " are complete wastes of effort and amount to little more than wasted breath and PC pandering "just because you're supposed to" and I've always hated crap like that. I havent said anything about it to anyone beyond "yeah that sucks." So am I a cold heartless possibly racist SOB? Maybe. But the reality is I really dont care what happens to a bunch of people Ive never met and even if I did know a victim of the earthquake my concerns would be on the well-being of the victim I know and what I could do to help that person.

I can make sappy statements and look sad all day long but it doesnt change the fact that I really dont care and I'm not going to go out of my way to make myself care. What purpose would that serve?

I'm glad Beck didn't discuss Haiti. They already had an earthquake, they don't need a flood too.

With everyone else covering Haiti nonstop, do we really need Beck to weigh in on this? His show is political and not current events per se.

I don't see what the issue is.

Has Beck said anything about the Executive Order for the Council of 10 Governors? You would think he would be all over this. I haven't seen this mentioned a single time in any of the mainstream news media.

I found his Palin interview to be very strange and definitely has raised my eyebrows.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Of course there is racial bias on Beck's lack of statement.

I'm a little puzzled on this... Is Haitian now a race? No, it's not. It's a nationality.

I'm also not clear on why it's necessary for a political commentator/entertainer to discuss a natural disaster that has occurred in another part of the world, unless he can find some way to make the subject political or entertaining.

I don't think the earthquake in Haiti has any political or entertainment value, do you?

As for my own personal views on Haiti, I think it's an island with a corrupt government and a lot of violence in the streets, and I know that my nephew risked his life going down there in the 1990s on the orders of President Bill Clinton (for no good reason whatsoever except to reinstall a corrupt regime).

As for my sentiments on earthquakes and earthquake victims, I know that earthquakes happen every day, all over this planet. It's perfectly natural. When these quakes intersect with centers of human population, there's going to be injury and fatality, but not because of the earthquake itself — rather, it's substandard architecture that causes injury and death.

Every time.

Now, should I feel compassion for earthquake victims? Sure. Should I pour out my charity upon them? That's my decision, and my charity is a personal affair — if you have to grandstand and proclaim your charity to the world, or try to shame others into being charitable, then you're a grandstanding hypocrite, IMO.

This is what I know for a fact: The American people are the most charitable in the world and have sent more relief to more countries in need than all of the other governments of the world combined, and we do so without being shamed into doing it.

Only sanctimonious hypocrites think that charity must be extracted through increased taxes, or that we should keep a tally of those who announce their compassion to the world and those who don't.

True compassion and true charity does not have a return address.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 1/14/2010 by Doc Velocity]

I would also like to add that his segment on with African Americans already aired last weekend. I watched some of it.

I also didn't call him a racist...i said it looked like racial bias.

I've seen it personally in my own life. My former employer relocated to Mexico 3 years ago. The company employed many Mexicans while I worked there...fully legal citizens.

When my company announced they were relocating, everyone was suddenly angry at the Mexicans that currently worked there even though they had nothing to do with it. It was actually the new CEO and stockholders who were seeing an increase in profits with their stocks. Many of them were scared and people who used to talk to them no longer would because my fellow "white" co-workers somehow thought they were responsible.

Originally posted by David9176

But still...nothing....except for this. This is a transcript of the only part I heard him mention Haiti. I wonder if he will mention it tonight...but then again...it's only been 2 days!

I'd give Beck a break, after all it took Barack (CSPAN) Obama 3 days to mention the underwear bomber.

Originally posted by David9176
For someone who seems to be a strongly religious, Christian man....[Beck] sure as hell doesn't have much to say about dying children.

On the contrary, over the years I've heard Beck lament and rail at length regarding the deaths of 800,000 unborn children annually in the USA at the hands of the abortion industry — over 40 million abortions in the USA since such butchery was legalized in the 1970s.

Anybody who remains silent on that sort of genocide cannot rightly call himself a Christian. Beck has proven himself a Christian, in my book.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by David9176
True. The reason we were the most charitable though was because we were the wealthiest in the world....which is changing by the way.

No, not really. When you hear these dire pronouncements on the American economy, keep this in mind — our economy is down only relative to itself, NOT relative to the rest of the world. When the American economy sneezes, the rest of the world catches economic pneumonia.

Seriously, on America's worst economic day, we could still buy the European Union, grind it up and feed it to Africa, while continuing to support the rest of Third World with money, medicine and food. America is still an economic giant compared to everything else on the planet, including China.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
we could still buy the European Union, grind it up and feed it to Africa,

Even though, if you combined the entire European Union - including those not in the Euro currency, we have a larger economy than the United States.

GDP (millions of USD)

European Union 18,387,785
United States 14,441,425

The only reason it is not officially mentioned is due to the European Union is not a single sovereign nation. We are even larger on purchasing power parity too.

In other words, this is not the 1930s. You owe the world even more money. Nearly two trillion to Asia. A trillion to Europe and the rest to private companies.

Might want to rethink your "Disinformation Specialist" title.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite
In other words, this is not the 1930s. You owe the world even more money. Nearly two trillion to Asia. A trillion to Europe and the rest to private companies. Might want to rethink your "Disinformation Specialist" title.

Thank GOD it's not the 1930s, when America first started squirming under the socialist thumb of FDR and the early globalization agenda.

Any student of economics knows that the USA has been the engine of the global economy right up to the present. Economists only acknowledged in 2008 that dependent nations such as China and India were finally beginning to "decouple" from the economic train that the USA has been hauling for many long decades — meaning that these dependent nations were finally able to creep along under their own power.

Many, many nations are yet dependent on the U.S. economy, on our unsurpassed technological development, on our vast agricultural resources, and upon our charity. If the USA closed up shop tomorrow, the world would be back in the Dark Ages by the end of the month.

To deny that stark fact is to betray one's own economic ignorance.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by David9176
If he is so strongly against the deaths of children through abortion, why does he ignore the deaths of children happening in Afghanistan and Iraq caused by our drone strikes?

Perhaps because, like myself, he's not convinced that such reports are true. I know that in any armed conflict in the Middle East, it's a common propaganda tactic to release reports of all the children being killed by the big, bad USA. The same thing happened when Russia was mired in Afghanistan, because the USA was pumping out the propaganda for the Mujahideen. We were in the propaganda business in Afghanistan, as well as in the business of supplying and training the Afghan rebels.

They know how much we hate reports of child deaths, which is why they crank out the propaganda. Those insurgents and Taliban asshøles also have a tactic of hiding within civilian populations, using children, women and the elderly as human shields, daring us to strike them.

They learned their propaganda tactics from us. And I sure as hell don't believe U.S. propaganda — why should I believe that of insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq?

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 1/14/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by David9176
Why does he defend the health insurance industry that funds those abortions although he is against the government funding them when essentially it is the same exact thing as we have no choice but to buy into it unless we are filthy rich?

I haven't heard Beck "defending" the health insurance industry, particularly in regard to abortion-on-demand. Never heard him do that.

Also, I don't get this "filthy rich" propaganda, the suggestion that only the rich can afford health insurance in America. It's simply not true.

For more decades than you or I have been alive, the USA has provided government-subsidized healthcare to the elderly and disabled, those who USE the healthcare system more than anyone else. In short, those who need government-subsidized healthcare the most already get it and have gotten it for half a century.

Supposedly, this new healthcare reform mess brewed up in the Democrat-controlled Congress was designed to provide healthcare options for those Americans who couldn't afford health insurance... However, there are only about 20 to 30 million Americans in that situation — 20 to 30 million Americans out of 300+ million Americans.

The vast majority of Americans CAN afford health insurance and healthcare, or they are already covered by MediCare and Medicaid.

In other words, this sweeping legislation, affecting every American, was conjured up to accommodate a mere 10% of Americans or less.

And, yes, I hear Beck ranting about this health reform debacle almost every day — God, don't get him started or he'll never shut up. He hates the scrambled bureaucratic mess like poison... And ask him how he feels about the gubbermint subsidizing abortion, and he'll chew your ear off.

— Doc Velocity