Glen Beck should be required viewing.

reply to post by genius/idoit


Oh please, Glenn couldn't form an original thought if vick's made them in an eyedropper. Seriously, the guy is the Carlos Mencia of political talk. He distracts, obfuscates and discredits. He supported the bailout, bashed RP, bashes the truth movement and has no solutions outside of partisan politics. He has said nothing revolutionary. Required my behind.

I don't watch the Main Stream news/opinion went online to read other American opinions. But this thread recommends that I go watch the news and ignore the peoples opinion.
I hope that it does not go as far as I should start shopping at Wally-Mart
again
I have not been there in 10 years now!

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by metamagic

 

True is true
!.He co authored a book in 1977 that discusses population control.
In that book there is this quote

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

That makes what I said true.

This is the white house explanation

The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors' own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.

This isn't even a denial.

Are you really this unaware of how your "proof" keeps validating my side of the argument? Look at the last frigging line of your white house quote

Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.

In what possible way is this not a denial of the original Glenn Beck claim? And our first quote doesn't say anything except, at best, to warn us that there are no constitutional barriers to this techniques. It's not a proposal!

Is the problem that you are just learning English? Or are you just messing around now? Because I can't believe any longer that anyone could be this thick. Well, on the other hand you believe everything Glenn Beck says so maybe I just answered my own question.


[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by metamagic

 

It might "matter" but it doesn't make it a false statement.

It's raining outside. True or false? It only is meaningful to assign a truth value within a given context. Your claim of the statement being universally true is invalid.

reply to post by metamagic


Actually I do read Holdren as endorsing sterilants in the water, etc., in a veiled crocodile-tears way.

By analogy, it's like a parent saying "Son, I hope you will go to your room, so I don't have to call the cops to take you away."
Holdren in this analogy is saying "I don't want to call the cops, I said I hoped I didn't have to call the cops." - Ahh, but the cops weren't even potentially present in the situation until he mentioned them, by pulling them into the shortlist of possible options (in spite of his coy disavowal) I do sense the implicit threat to use such big methods if the verbal warnings don't work.

It is a question of nuance.

Rephrasing, if I said "I'm not saying that California should summarily execute all maximum-security prisoners tomorrow in order to help balance the state budget"...If no one had accused me of stating that idea, and that idea was not currently a commonplace in the state budget discussion, I do think that functionally my disavowal would serve as a sly trial balloon, bringing the previously unthinkable into the universe of discourse.

Of course, I am not a mindreader, and this is my interpretation of the connotation and not the denotation...But really, it does look like that to me. Maybe that's because I have some practice in not saying what I really mean...

[edit on 28-1-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

Oh... Viewing.

I thought you said Shooting, and was getting all excited

reply to post by metamagic


they are not denying he co authored the book.Where it did in fact have that quote.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by genius/idoit]

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by metamagic

 

they are not denying he co authored the book.Where it did in fact have that quote.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by genius/idoit]

At this point I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dense or are truly unable to understand how foolish your statements are. Your quotes refute your own arguments and you just don't get it. Not to mention your apparent inability to grasp the basics of reasoning.

On the other hand, I have learned quite a lot. This has been my first extended dialogue with a Glenn Beck lover and, until now, I really had difficulty understanding how anyone could believe the mental vomit served up on that show.

Now I understand.

And now, I fear for America.


[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

reply to post by metamagic


Wow I was going to say much the same thing to you.If you cannot read and comprehend the obvious I fear for us as well.

I will try one last time

He wrote the book.
the book had that quote in it.
The quote is attributed to him.

reply to post by metamagic


Wow I was going to say much the same thing to you.If you cannot read and comprehend the obvious I fear for us as well.

I will try one last time

He wrote the book.
the book had that quote in it.
The quote is attributed to him.

reply to post by genius/idoit


G/I, I completely understand your point and have asked the same thing.

Beck (if he is a NWO type) acts like we do! He finds info and has sources that we don't! He exposes crap no one else will.

if he's nwo we need alot more nwo people on TV !

The anti-Palin-istas are either koolaide drinkers ,misogynists, or just terrified that "OH MY GOD! AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN THATS A PATRIOT!"
god forbid that right?

We have a lady here in Texas running for Repub Governor. Debbie Medina.
She trounced Gov. Rick (good hair) Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison doing nothing but stating constitutional facts. Perry and Hutchison just sniped over her head at each other.

Two stations have refused (and relented) to have her appear on televised debates. Both with ties to Perry or Hutchison. They stated that Medina didn't "score high enough in a legit poll" or "she wasn't a PROFESSIONAL politician.

The PTB are getting worried and it shows.

Edit.

One thing that does put me off, is his "truther" bashing. I am hoping it is a "survival" technique. its better for him to stay on and get the message out than go full out ATS with Mr. and Mrs. Dense/Asleep America! Remember when he was talking about death camps and then reneged on it? That was him being scared shirtless! he says (frequently) that the state dept is making his life "interesting".

[edit on 28/1/10 by felonius]

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by metamagic

 

Actually I do read Holdren as endorsing sterilants in the water, etc., in a veiled crocodile-tears way.

It doesn't matter what you choose to "read into" a statement or look for hidden meanings or secret messages. Beck said he proposed it. He did not. Anyone can choose to "read into" something anything they want.

By analogy, it's like a parent saying "Son, I hope you will go to your room, so I don't have to call the cops to take you away."
Holdren in this analogy is saying "I don't want to call the cops, I said I hoped I didn't have to call the cops." - Ahh, but the cops weren't even potentially present in the situation until he mentioned them, by pulling them into the shortlist of possible options (in spite of his coy disavowal) I do sense the implicit threat to use such big methods if the verbal warnings don't work.

Not even close. What specifically are the verbal warnings that Holder has made that he has to back up with implicit threats? And don't try and claim that documenting other countries use of brutal techniques thirty plus years ago was intended as an implicit threat now. Theunsourced quote used by genius/idoit rightly points out that there is a danger, that there is no constitutional protection against a government using these techniques. It sounds to me that if he is "implying" anything, it is that we have to plug this loophole somehow, probably through legislation so that they can't be used legally.

It is a question of nuance.

In what way exactly? Or is it a question of projection?

Rephrasing, if I said "I'm not saying that California should summarily execute all maximum-security prisoners tomorrow in order to help balance the state budget"...If no one had accused me of stating that idea, and that idea was not currently a commonplace in the state budget discussion, I do think that functionally my disavowal would serve as a sly trial balloon, bringing the previously unthinkable into the universe of discourse.

Really? Please do show me where Holder used this specific trick of discourse. Are you saying then that if in 2000 someone in the Bush administration had said "I'm not saying terrorist will use planes as flying bombs...." then it should have been taken as a sly trial balloon? No your analogy tends to fall flat. Giving a warning can be done for other reasons (and usually is) other than flying a trial balloon for a nefarious plot.

Of course, I am not a mindreader, and this is my interpretation of the connotation and not the denotation...But really, it does look like that to me. Maybe that's because I have some practice in not saying what I really mean...

Nice things about basing your arguments on nuance and interpretations of connotations and disregarding the actual meanings of the statements is that you can make it mean anything you want it to without the those pesky issues of validity, logic and truth to worry about.
[edit on 28-1-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Fear mongering is not quality journalism,

I'm only going to enter this to make one statement. Glenn Beck is not a Journalist, never worked as one, never claimed to be one and only does opinion shows on both the radio and news.

It is sad how many do not know the difference between the news and an opinion show. Even sadder many actual Journalists now present opinion as news.

As to Beck, he is what he is. He is popular because he correctly identified some very bad people, doing some very bad things. He is a bit much for me, but I've never caught him in a lie.

To avoid becoming a victim of brainwashing myself, I watch all sides of all issues. The debate over which programs to watch is a trap just like the Political Parties are. Convince you there is only one right answer, only one correct point of view and they control you completely and they do appear to control a large part of the population with that method.

Ahhhhhh. The Glenn Beck machine. The most insulting show on TV.. Its actually why I quit watching FN. If Mr. Beck is reading this..."Sir please quit your job. You are the worst invention since crack."

reply to post by metamagic


For sure there are easy ways to reduce the methodology I'm using to an absurdity, or to make it produce absurdities... but for some reason we all do use it in everyday life...

Try this one...a girl you know has previously told you she doesn't have the money for her rent this month. If she now says to you something like:

-" Oh, I sure hope I don't have to go out and turn tricks to come up with the rent money" or...
-"You know, some girls wind up having to go out and turn tricks to come up with the rent money" or...
-"Girls turning tricks to come up with the rent money is the worst thing in the world" or...
"I would never ever turn tricks to come up with the rent money"... Would you not in fact score her (in all four cases) as being more-likely-to-be-or-become an occasional prostitute than if she had never mentioned turning tricks at all?

I sure would, and if you say you would not, I must question either your candor or your discernment (but good luck to you either way)...

The truly unthinkable mostly never gets mentioned...There are after all numerous conceivable genocidal programs that would have also reduced population pressure, that Holdren could have also name-checked and then eschewed, alongside sterilants in the drinking water, if he were merely listing activities (/activities-of-other-nations) that were possible-but-unthinkable...He does not, because those others are to him more nearly unthinkable...He is bringing sterilants in the drinking water forward, in order to suggest that such might become necessary, to make it more imaginable than Logan's Run or poisoned food aid or overpopulation-Auschwitzes or state-sponsored-cannibalism-lotteries etc. (all of which would also presumably reduce population pressure), in order to legitimize it as a possible policy.

He wants that tool in his possible arsenal.

People don't just mention things for no reason, in my experience...maybe I am hypervigilant, or maybe you live in a less cogent area...



[edit on 29-1-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

reply to post by genius/idoit


I cannot believe you went here.

I am going to S&F you just for the balls you exhibit. I did a test a little while back. I am even afraid to read the comments.

I heard this thread start while taking a shower. The SHRILL screaming from the progressives almost burst my eardrums.

I believe Glen Beck is a tool used by the elites for disinfo and propaganda purposes. He brings up important topics and trivializes things, distracting from what should be the real debate about the federal reserve, American military presence overseas, encroachment on civil liberties etc..

He claims to be an independent conservative, but he's really a corporate shill. If a republican is elected in 2012, I think he'll turn on a dime and defend whatever GOP administration and establishment tooth and nail for Roger Ailes, instead of sticking to his "libertarian/tea-party" line.

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Someone336

 

Well that makes it true doesn't it?

How does writing something in a textbooks about various things become the same as endorsing it?

Does writing about Hitler mean you support Nazism?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by genius/idoit

 

I cannot believe you went here.

I am going to S&F you just for the balls you exhibit. I did a test a little while back. I am even afraid to read the comments.

I heard this thread start while taking a shower. The SHRILL screaming from the progressives almost burst my eardrums.

I don't see any shrill screaming, just people voicing their opinion against a person who they feel is less than reputable in their so-called reporting of the news.

In your post, you have cast the whole lot of us "dissenters" in with the group that Beck himself accuses of supporting worldwide dictatorships, eugenics programs, Obama's administration, oppression of the poor, government corruption, communism, and fascism. For the majority of us, I feel that nothing could be further from the truth.