Originally Posted By Mr X Since you both (along with others) asked for "proof" that Glenn Beck is a lying shyster (for the life of me I can't figure out why you love the huckster so much, but anyway...), here's a big one. <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/glenn-beck-george-washington-restoring-honor" target="_blank">http://motherjones.com/politic...ng-honor</a> Not atypical, to say the least. The guy is a conniving dirtbag who will say whatever he wants to get the reaction he wants in order to receive the millions of dollars he wants. And you like him WHY, exactly?
Originally Posted By utahjosh So the article says Glenn got a VIP tour of the National Archives, was personally shown the document he talked about. "Cooper acknowledges that someone at the archives did show the document to Beck, but that was the extent of it." (However, we haven't heard from anyone who was actually there except Beck). I wasn't there, sounds like Cooper wasn't there, and you weren't there. Did he hold it or not? Policy says no-touchy, but nobody said "I was there and he did not hold it." Whether he touched the document or not, THIS is the BIG scary, lie you are worried about? He said he held it in his hands and possibly the real story was that he stood inches from it instead? Big whoop.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^I think the concern Josh is that Beck is a demagogue and a habitual liar.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Or that he'd change his story, even if by just a bit, to make his point that much more dramatic. He's looking to brainwash so bending the truth to make that easier is within his level of moral standards.
Originally Posted By hopemax They talked about another one of Beck's historical inaccuracies during Countdown last night. Yes, I know it's an evil show, and all it does is lie too. What Beck said: “Behind you, in front of me, the Washington—alone, tall, straight—if you look at the Washington Monument, you might notice its scars. But nobody talks about that...but a quarter of the way up it changes color. Did you know that it did? Look at it. Look at its scars. “How did the scar get there? They stopped building it in the Civil War. And when the war was over, they began again. No one sees the scars of the Washington memorial, the Washington Monument. " Doesn't that give you the idea that construction of the memorial was just happily going along, until War broke out, and picked right back up again once it was over? No controversy, no struggles, just a terrible war? So, to quote Paul Harvey, "Here is the rest of the story." The Washington Monument was started as a private construction project. Marble bricks were given as donations from a wide variety of sources: social organizations, businessmen, foreign nations etc. Including, one stone from the Pope. This stone became infamous when, in 1854, the anti-Catholic political party known as the "Know-Nothings" STOLE the brick, and reportedly threw it in the Potomac. Construction continued until the private group ran out of money in 1854, 7 years BEFORE the Civil War. Those "Know-Nothings" engineered a takeover of the group responsible for the construction, and held it for 2 years. The monument in the hands of a group that did not believe in religious tolerance was an affront to many, and the project floundered from lack of public support(money). They did manage to add some bricks to the project, but were of such poor quality that they had to be removed. Of course, then the Civil War did interfere, and the Monument sat there as a stump in the ground until money could be raised during the Centennial to finish it. Construction finally restarted in 1879, 14 years AFTER the end of the Civil War. It seems, if one were really trying to "restore America," the construction of the Washington Monument would be a perfect allegory for the scars that religious intolerance can leave behind. The legacy of the Know-Nothings would be a cautionary tale to those who would use religious intolerance as a rallying cry. So I guess, maybe there IS hope for the rest of us.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I saw that on Keith's show last night as well. I knew about the different shades of stone before Beck's rally, but I didn't know the why. Fascinating story. What I'm witnessing from the followers of Beck or even just from folks who like him and/or agree with his rhetoric, is the desperate need to have representation in government and/or the media for values that they personally hold. I was listening to the Young Turks radio program on Monday, and Sam Seder (who used to host the Minority Report with Janeane Garofalo on Air America) was their guest. Sam went to the rally last weekend and interviewed attendees about what they believed Beck was talking about, how specifically America has "lost honor," and how specifically America was no longer following the Constitution. The responses from these attendees was mind boggling. One woman was absolutely dead to right certain that our government has strayed far away from the Constitution. She stated that she was deeply concerned about that, and how it would affect America's future. Sam asked her what specifically in the Constitution wasn't being adhered to by our government, and she openly admitted that she did not know, that she knew virtually nothing about the Constitution, and was signed up to take a class in October to learn about it. ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME?? She willingly confessed that she did not know ANYTHING about the Constitution, yet she was absolutely stone cold certain that our government has strayed from it. How does she know? Because conservative wingnut pundits like Beck are telling her this, and she is believing them, without proof to the contrary. This is what I mean by these followers desperately needing someone, anyone, to be in a place of authority and leadership who theoretically represent their value systems. Never mind the fact that these pundits like Beck or politicians like Bachmann and Boehner do not actually care about her or the middle class she is a part of. Beck and Palin and their ilk only care about their millions and millions of dollars that they're earning through media contracts, book sales, post-government lobbyist positions, etc. People like this woman, or another woman Seder interviewed who disliked Obama for lying to the public about not being a Muslim, desperately want SOMEONE LIKE THEMSELVES inside government, in the media, telling them that everything is going to be OK, that they won't allow the rising tide of cultural change to affect them personally, i.e., white middle class Christians. These Beck followers are desperately clinging to anything they can pin their hopes on to prevent this change, to the point of ignoring what these pundits and politicians actually consist of, what they actually desire, and how little they care about the followers who are making them stinkin filthy rich. They conveniently ignore their own inconsistencies in their beliefs, as well as the inconsistencies between word and deed of those they are following. The desperation to stop the cultural change is so great, they will believe virtually ANYTHING coming from someone they perceive as being "one of them." This is EXACTLY how Hitler and Mussolini came to power, by preying on those who were desperate to avoid the cultural change that was sweeping across Europe after WWI. These two megalomaniacs knew precisely how to play to those fears and desperations to their political advantage. Beck and Palin and the Republicans are now taking that same psychological playbook that Hitler and Mussolini used and are using it themselves, for their own financial and/or political gain. History is repeating itself, once again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Beck and Palin and the Republicans are now taking that same psychological playbook that Hitler and Mussolini used and are using it themselves, for their own financial and/or political gain. > Well, I'm not going to say those two are "like" Hitler and Mussolini, but yes the tactics are the same. It's absolutely an appeal to fear, specifically the fear that the good "we" are losing power to the scary "them." And the irony is, they convince their followers that it's Obama who is like Hitler - a fascist or a socialist (never mind the internal contradiction there right off the bat) - complete with posters of Obama as Hitler, etc. They accuse the people who oppose them of doing the very things they're doing. A certain poster here, without a hint of irony, used to call that "projecting."
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Or that he'd change his story, even if by just a bit, to make his point that much more dramatic." Is this the part where someone is supposed to say, "Oh, well, of course he does that. He's an entertainer"?
Originally Posted By hopemax What I wonder, take the Washington Monument example... Are the followers of Beck, satisfied with the "it was just the Civil War that delayed construction," story? Is knowing the real story irrelevant, less interesting, has no bearing on our world today? I like history, I would prefer to know, quoting Paul Harvey again, "the rest of the story." I would be disappointed in whoever told me the story that left out most of the story. I would wonder what else they were "leaving out" of stories of other things. I would wonder if the person who left those things out, even knew the actual history. Was he speaking from an informed position, or just an, "Oh, I bet that is what happened, and I'm so confident I don't even need to look it up," position. Does that person do that a lot?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance He isn't an entertainer. He reports on world events and tried to convince people to think like him. He should be forced to stick to the straight facts when spewing his rhetoric or else put disclaimers on the bottom of the screen for everyone who thought they had tuned into a news program.. WARNING GLENN MAY DISTORT THE TRUTH A BIT OR A BOATLOAD TO BRAINWASH YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES. THE LARGER HIS GROUP OF MINIONS BECOMES, THE LARGER HIS BANK ACCOUNT WILL GROW.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Skinner, sounds like the lady in the story was inspired by Beck to start learning about the constitution. Sounds like a plus to me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Actually, he misled her (as he does so many) into thinking that Obama is "no longer following" the constitution, but of course never really saying how. The story shows how, far from educating people, he "mis-educates" them. Which is just a more subtle way of lying to them. It's nice this woman is taking a class eventually (and let's hope she learns just how she has been misled), but obviously she is far outnumbered by the thousands Beck misleads who never bother to find out how he has done so. But nice attempt at justification. Are there no hoops you won't jump through for this guy?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Skinner, sounds like the lady in the story was inspired by Beck to start learning about the constitution. Sounds like a plus to me.<< Depends. Is she taking this class from an accredited university taught by a Con Law professor or historian? Is she assigned reading material to explore the complex past of the Constitution, how it's been used over the years and interpreted, and how Madison came to write it? I have a co-worker who went to Beck's rally after taking a "class on the Constitution." It was taught by a high school graduate religious fundamentalist who assigned W. Cleon Skousen's books as texts. As I've already pointed out, Skousen was a man so right-wing he was denounced by Mormon leaders in the 1970s for his extremism. He had no qualms about just making stuff up in his books about American religious history, especially the Founding Fathers. Being indoctrinated to total myths surrounding our country's founding is not "a plus."
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And the irony is, they convince their followers that it's Obama who is like Hitler - a fascist or a socialist (never mind the internal contradiction there right off the bat) - complete with posters of Obama as Hitler, etc. They accuse the people who oppose them of doing the very things they're doing*** IF you wanna know what the Republicans are up to, just take note of what they are accusing the OTHER side of being up to. Works like a charm.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Skinner, sounds like the lady in the story was inspired by Beck to start learning about the constitution. Sounds like a plus to me.>> And your post sounds like misdirection. Whether or not she signed up to take a Constitution class is totally beside the point. This woman was absolutely 110% confident that she KNEW the current administration was NOT adhering to the Constitution while AT THE SAME TIME fully and willingly admitting that she knew NOTHING about the Constitution. This is a prime example of the main problem I have with the followers of Glenn Beck. She contradicted herself, Josh. She contradicted herself more than once. She repeatedly told Sam Seder that she was absolutely certain that the Obama administration was operating outside the boundaries of the Constitution, all without being able to tell him exactly HOW the administration was operating outside the boundaries of the Constitution. She openly admitted she didn't know anything about the Constitution, yet she felt perfectly qualified to judge Obama and his actions regarding said document. Why can you not see the inherent problem with her conclusion? Or is it that you see the problem all too clearly and don't want to admit it? The overwhelming majority of Beck's followers are like this woman. They believe right down to their toenails that everything Beck is telling them is 110% accurate, truthful, honest, moral, and just. But most of them cannot site any FACTS in order to defend that belief. You go right ahead and defend her, Josh. Go ahead and defend Beck as well. But you'll end up looking like a tool in the process.
