Originally Posted By utahjosh Then why participate in the discussion? It's not about me, it's about the topic. It's about the opinions, the facts, and the discussion.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And before you make that leap, ecdc, can you show me where Glenn Beck has encouraged violence against Muslims? Until you can, your comment isn't worth further discussion.<< That's just the point. They don't ever directly encourage it. They use coded language about how they "want their country back." You've certainly seen the video of Beck talking about how he's "scared for his country." When you have millions of listeners, some of them are going to react. Like this guy: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/glenn-becks-incendiary-an_b_660429.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...429.html</a> Here's a direct link to Glenn Beck. He talks on and on and on about the Tides Foundation. So far as anyone can find, the only person in the media talking about this group is Glenn Beck. He talks about how it's a danger to America, how it's socialist, it's attempting to "seize power," etc., etc. Then lo and behold, some guy is arrested driving to the Tides Foundation with guns and body armor to kill everyone there and start a political revolution. Yeah, it's just a coincidence. Finally, if Barack Obama began talking about how Congressman John Boehner was a threat to America, how he was actually a puppet of the Chinese, how he was dangerous, how he wants to destroy our country, and then an Obama supporter, who listened to Obama's rhetoric over the course of several weeks, attempted to assassinate John Boehner, then it's pretty silly to say his words didn't have some effect. And yes, Obama's rhetoric would be indirectly responsible. Is it a crime? Is it illegal? Speech isn't all-protected. We have "fighting words" clauses. But I doubt it is illegal. I think Glenn Beck, crazy person, is allowed to spew his hateful, un-Christian rhetoric all he likes. But pretending like he's not influencing these people is ignorance of the highest order.
Originally Posted By utahjosh So you say Glenn Beck talks about how he doesn't like the Tides Foundation. He says it's a danger to America. He advocates non-violence all along the way. When a nutjob takes what he's learned about a possibly bad organization, and privately goes AGAINST what Glenn suggests, Glenn is held accountable? I understand Glen and the like do use fear. But just because they share information they believe is important, doesn't mean they are responsible for whatever nutjobs do with that information.
Originally Posted By utahjosh When you have millions of listeners, you can't be responsible for the violence 1 nutjob does with the information you provide. Especially when the person with millions of listeners consistently advocates non-violence.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///People like Glenn Beck should be arrested./// Should people like Glenn face criminal indictment also for political speech??? How about a conviction? Or how about a sentencing? Even better do you want the loudmouth Beck's to serve time in a US or state prison. My vote is a life term in something like a Fort Leavenworth Kansas(civilian style USA prison, of course) for having the audacity to exercise a sacred civil liberty.......... ......because it's better to keep the Bill of Rights in a bullet proof, air tight case at the National Archives and cherish it on a theoretical level than to actually apply it to the real world.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I understand Glen and the like do use fear. But just because they share information they believe is important, doesn't mean they are responsible for whatever nutjobs do with that information.<< Information isn't fear, and you're equating the two. Beck doesn't use information, he uses fear to prey on people's emotions. He does so out of either deeply misguided and inaccurate beliefs about American history and government, or out of greed. Either is disturbing. So when Glenn Beck says the government might be rounding up conservatives and putting them in internment camps, when he weeps that he's scared for his country, when he constantly compares Obama's administration to Russia and Hitler and Mussolini, when he tells people that they are in danger and their families are in danger and their country is in danger, when he demands proof from a Muslim congressman that he's not a terrorist, and when he calls the President of the United States a racist, then he's inciting people to take drastic measures. So your attempt to portray Beck as a benign provider of "information" is misleading. He is also teaching people a completely revised version of American history at long odds with reality, and then he says, "This is how it used to be" (it wasn't) and frightens people with how it is now. Why you are more interested in absolving him of responsibility than supporting respectful discourse is beyond me.
Originally Posted By Oldschool Disney You would never see any liberal or Democrat say things like Beck or Limbaugh do. And if they do they are properly called out on it. There is no accountability for conservatives.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Glenn Beck has a first amendment right to spew all the hateful bile he wants, as long as it stays just on the good side of laws against "fighting words" and incitement. And he (and his lawyers) are smart enough to know where that line is and he's careful not to cross it so he can cover his butt. But there's a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. The link in #24 shows that this obscure and rather innocuous organization was nearly unknown until Beck decided to make it the focus of his rants. And when you have this person talking about how we're "losing America" and he's "very afraid," and "your Republic is over!" and all that rot, and then you have this same person targeting this organization specifically as "the nasty of the nastiest," and that it was out to create a "mass organization to seize power" ... then YES, I think he has a moral responsibility when someone tries to shoot them up. Because almost certainly this person had never even heard of them before Beck attacked them literally dozens of times. Now yes, nutcases can hear things and twist them - Manson can hear "Helter Skelter" and twist it to his ends and obviously the Beatles aren't responsible for that. But the Beatles didn't demonize Sharon Tate (or anybody) in that song. Beck IS demonizing the Tides Foundation and essentially saying it is evil. So does he bear legal responsibility for the attempted attack? No. Does he bear moral responsibility? Hell, yeah.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's the thing about a guy like Beck: He likely doesn't believe much of the rhetoric he pukes out there. That makes it all the more morally reprehensible. It's an act, a "rodeo clown" schtick, to use his own terminology. He fans the flames, but really only in pursuit of fame and wealth. If he was all about "we've got to show our disgust at the ballot box!" okay, fine. But usually his teary rants are about ""they" who must be "stopped"'. The details of how to do so are left hanging.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm 100% convinced Glenn Beck would tell everyone to kill their wives, children and mothers if he thought he could get away with it and get good ratings that would put even more money in his pocket. That's how morally reprehensible he's become.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<When you have millions of listeners, some of them are going to react. Like this guy: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...429.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...429.html</a> Here's a direct link to Glenn Beck. He talks on and on and on about the Tides Foundation. So far as anyone can find, the only person in the media talking about this group is Glenn Beck. He talks about how it's a danger to America, how it's socialist, it's attempting to "seize power," etc., etc. Then lo and behold, some guy is arrested driving to the Tides Foundation with guns and body armor to kill everyone there and start a political revolution. Yeah, it's just a coincidence.>> Excellent article at the link. This is what I don't understand about Josh's reasoning on Beck's rhetoric. Josh claims that Beck constantly preaches non-violence. How can that conclusion be logically reached, given all the gun and shooting references he's made on the air? Check out these Beck quotes from the HuffPost article: * Progressives "are sucking the blood out of the republic" and are "gonna start getting more and more violent." * "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter." * "[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun" and "before I acquiesce and be silent." * "This game is for keeps"; "[Y]ou can shoot me in the head ... but there will be 10 others that line up." * "There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America"; "God help us in an emergency."' You call that "non-violence"? Making statements like this on the air? No way. This guy is clearly advocating violence as a solution to the misdirected anger and frustration that disturb his viewers and listeners. He isn't stating it directly, but he doesn't have to, given the clear intent of the statements and the language used therein. Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly and his constant never-ending rant against Dr. George Tiller? "Tiller the Baby Killer" "Tiller the Baby Killer" "Tiller the Baby Killer" ...ad nauseum, year after year. Then finally a nutjob took matters into his own hands and shot the guy. What O'Reilly did was slanderous. He should have been sued for it and fined millions. As Dabob pointed out, these guys are pros and know precisely where the line is and how close they can cozy up to it before crossing over and getting their butts in litigation hot water. They know exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it. It is beyond reprehensible and disturbs me greatly. It's all about tearing down the middle class and giving more wealth and power and control to their bosses at the very top of the economic food chain. Nothing else matters. It's all about their wealth and control and obtaining more and more of it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>he's inciting people to take drastic measures.<< The dude stabbed a cabbie. Even if absolutely everything you said about Glenn Beck is true, how is stabbing a cabbie going to stop the revolutions he's been going on about? The Tides Foundation is a different topic. I'll gladly help you pin that one on Beck. But not the cabbie thing. The alleged stabber worked for a group that SUPPORTED the Muslim community center. He's been in Afghanistan for several months. No evidence that he listens to Beck. No info one way or another why he did it. >> There is no accountability for conservatives.<< A classic DAR conclusion leap. Of course there's accountability. When it's deserved. If the guy turns out to be a Beck-head, then we can talk. Until then, it's just a kook in a cab. Innocent until proven guilty. It's an America thing.
Originally Posted By Oldschool Disney Screwing people over to make more money is wrong and immoral. It would be better if everyone made the same amount.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It would be better if everyone made the same amount.<< Oh good grief. It's lonely in the middle .....
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Don't feed the DAR...er...the troll.<< You just may be on to something there.
