GLEN BECK/RONPAUL; GREAT AMERICANS

I check out this site daily to see what’s happening and the trends are about the same, Glenn seems to have found his ‘general’ audience settling in.

There are good, honest people out there, who really strive to be straightforward with their fellow man in everything they do. If these people will watch Glenn long enough thye will feel to exclaim- he is the Real Deal – a truth teller.

People who are prone to dimiss him at face value without serious study, are more likely (not always) those who are gullible enough to believe whatever the liberals/socialist/fascists/communists want to feed them. They have been buying into that philosophy so long, they don’t know the difference. It is an outgrowth of their personal lives. I wouldn’t be surprised that they find it no big thing to tell a “little lie”- if they think it will bring about what they suppose is a greater good.

I’ll miss Blaffie. He’s a gentleman, something very rare on this site.

When you cannot argue with the plain facts that make up the content of Beck’s show, you attack the man. Great tactic! Gives the world some insight into the purity of your motives.

Let’s not forget it was Mr. perfect president Obama that took a side with the cambridge police vs professor ordeal, the side of yet another black man that used the race card.

This is really funny watching one side bicker with the other, when both sides are dumb and both are using race cards. God forbid a white male calls a black male racist for a change. Why can’t we just move on and recognize everybody is racist in one way or another?

I can tell you Glenn Beck’s show doesn’t cater to the hardcore GOP folks, they cater more to the independent people, or people who are more towards the center rather than left or right. He’s the only one asking questions and talking about things that other shows, including Fox’s other hosts, don’t want to talk about. Move him 2 hours into primetime, he’ll beat out O’Reilly in a day and Bill’s producers would have to be forced to change the show intro’s and video clips.

These numbers don’t cover the people who like me watch Glen Beck on the internet. At the sit I use appoximately 200,000 people watch. I am sure there are a number of others.

Not that I plan on leaving this place because I like seeing Glenn Beck on top!

This is likely to be random, since I will not exhaustively search for comments, and capricious, since I will go long periods without looking at comments.

If I end up deleting someone’s comments repeatedly, I’ll just block them entirely to save myself the trouble.

I’m honestly starting to think he is simply too intellectual for alot of people to get or understand. This explains the whole “he won’t refute the claim”. The claim that has no basis, reasoning or logic behind it.

I know, I know, nobody’s seen the proof that Glenn Beck murdered a young girl in 1990, but Beck hasn’t denied it, and won’t let people examine evidence on his person and effects.

He has not submitted to a DNA test.

Now I don’t have any evidence that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. In fact, it all might be some parody of Glenn Beck’s performance style of baseless accusations. But until these questions are cleared up, these questions will persist and only continue to grow.

You present a well-structured analysis of Beck’s 9 principles. I would refute your claim of their “silliness”, however, and specific points in the claim.

Which brings me to Beck. As someone who has watched him a few times, it’s fairly obvious to see why he’s so popular. He speaks quite passionately and has a very carefully practiced style of rhetoric. I don’t think I could speak half as persuasively as him, though I am quite certain I can provide a written account of his factual errors. For example, that speech he made when introducing the 9/12 project, the infamous one where he cried while on air. That speech was completely nebulous, and it was only until after health care reform became an issue that the whole project seemed to fixate on this. He’s fantastic on fixating on arbitrary facts and using them to present an ideology.

The 9 principles from his project are probably the silliest list of rules to live by I’ve seen in some time.
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/
The first one is so utterly meaningless as a principal it isn’t worth mentioning. The second excludes non-monotheists (and I suspect non-Jews/Christians) from the discussion and contradicts the eighth principle. The third isn’t too bad, but the second half renders it a bit absurd. It seems to assume you will lie at least once every day. The fourth is anarchistic, obviously, and has little to do with the quote used to support it. Five is good, so no complaints there. Six comes very close to acceptable, but an attempt to deny equal rights? Aren’t all men created equally? I don’t understand seven as the government has never enforced charity, unless it’s implying tax allocation should be influenced by the people, which is the whole point in having a democratic election. Eight is a good one, though it addresses a very specific concern in its phrasing and not the broader issue I’m assuming it wants to get at. Nine should be separated from the individual, and as it stands, it’s biggest crime is poor use of English.

If someone wishes to apply these principles to their life, they have every right to. But don’t assume those who don’t aren’t thinking critically about them. And more importantly, assuming one individual has a monopoly on the truth will always lead you astray as no one is infallible.

I was just using your deletion of Bob to make a point. Bob was using “nazi” to describe an action he didn’t like and that’s fine. However, it’s tiring hearing liberals constantly impuning conservatives’ character by calling them nazis or other epithets. The term “nazi” is especially annoying because it makes no sense since nazis were socialists, the antithesis of conservatives!

@Boris: interesting, but invalid and trite, tactic to change the argument to one of semantics over the definitions of “data”, “comprise”, and “factual information”. I was using “data” in its more restrictive form to refer to the numerical data presented here. By comparison, the remainder of the “factual information” refers to valid premises. Data and other factual information, plus inference, plus conclusion “comprised” the argument presented.

Unless there are more lawyers here than I think, all this is putting everyone else to sleep.

Definetely YES! Up my legs in the same vein as the famous song “speak softly, love and hold me warm against your heart…” But the warm feeling never lasted long due to thoughts of garrotes, baseball bats, and now Chris Matthews.

But lets face it Beck is not up against great people ether, with people like:
Rachal (Potsy) Maddcow
Keith Overbite
Larry (throw em a softball) King
And that weird guy who get a warm thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.
One question: Does anyone here ever get a warm feeling up their leg when they hear ANYONE speak? Lets face it, thats creepy!

By FOX’s standards all the other so called talent has been rendered incompetent.

“‘FACTUAL INFORMATION’ is comprised of far more than data.”

I suppose I’m just a girl who can’t say no…. Of course, nothing is ever “comprised of” anything, but taking the common solecism as granted, what you seem to be saying is that FACTUAL INFORMATION is “made” of FAR MORE than DATA.

A careful initial analysis of this explicitly non-data-based “informational stuff” would of course first ask what it’s made of. Surely it’s not made of deductive reasoning, which is “made of” data. Is the STUFF made of (better, does it “comprise”) inductive reasoning? Surely not in the formally provable sense, in which case it would again be “made of data.”

Is it “horse sense”? Revealed wisdom? Restoration of cosmic balance?

Is this New Epistemology really *necessary* to account for a swing of 500,000 viewers? Is the putative uncovering of a hitherto disguised “group mind” and branding thereof as “what America likes” *sufficient* to account for anything? Why wouldn’t this underlying, arational yet “true American” reptile instinct cause an even greater effect? What’s the limiting factor? Where’s that curve going to be on December 3?