LMAO! What a bunch of transparent shills for a lunatic fringe rag like MediaSmatters. Their lies fill up 53, that's FIFTY-THREE pages at NewsBusters. Don't take my word for it, find out what outrageous scumrag liars they are. (Of course, if you didn't already know.) http://tinyurl.com/26x86za
The Glenn Beck Review replies in blue:
I not only reviewed the site and read some of the articles there, I contacted News Busters and invited them to fact check my fact-checking. You seem to think that you're dealing with an ideologue here, but the first priority of The Glenn Beck Review is to get the facts right. Are you making the absurd claim that Media Matters for America never gets the facts right? If there is something here that cites them as a source, the Review will investigate any charges of inaccurate or misleading claims. Anyone defending Glenn Beck has no business accusing others of being "transparent shill for a lunatic fringe" when many of Beck's claims are sheer lunacy. You want to have a good look at the lunatic fringe, take a long look in the mirror.
* The three smell-tests little Lisa offers as Libertarian are exactly what proves Paulbots as immature, unprincipled and stone ignorant children. It also proves them only one-half step above the sniveling brats of a Progs.
No one offering support for a liar, a hypocrite and a fraud is in any position to deride others as "unprincipled and stone ignorant children." As pointed out in my reply, "you're a mean-spirited prick" like Glenn Beck is as documented in Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance (Wiley, May 2010) I don't expect you to read it; you don't seem like the open minded type.
* The unimaginable lie that our Founding Fathers weren't religious and did not establish our freedom utilizing the wisdom they learned from it is clear stupidity at face value. Regardless of faith learned or practiced, they knew morality played a foundational role in obtaining and maintaining liberty for America...Their quotes clearly reveal it. To even suggest that the separation of church and state is a complete refusal of religious influence on government is a Communist invention designed to destroy democracies.
The quotes of the Founding Fathers also show that Madison, a very religious man, and Jefferson were both clear about the separation between church and state. The guest post on Madison made it very clear that he was an extremely religious man, so your accusation is clearly ignorant of what is contained in The Glenn Beck Review. No one is arguing that morality did not play a roll in the founding of our Republic. You don't address Houserman's points, namely that Barton is a historical revisionist (in the fictional sense of the word) who pulls "facts" out of his ass, facts, as I've documented, that even HE disagrees with. You also don't address the video Houserman points to with a hot link by an expert on the subject, Chris Rodda. No one here suggested - EVER - "that the separation of church and state is a complete refusal of religious influence on government." Your ignorance of the blog contents is overwhelming! Your reactionary hero, Glenn Beck, is the biggest threat to our democratic Republic which is not a democracy. Even Beck understands this. Beck's irresponsible and divisive rhetoric is also inciting violence as seen in a recent shoot out with CA. police after a routine traffic stop. The anti-government fanatic was after one of Beck's targets, the Tides Foundation and allegedly wanted to "start a revolution." See "Was alleged CA gunman influenced by Fox News?"
* Little Lisa's bewilderment of Beck's rightful outrage over a bigoted Socialist who was elected president apprentice and is dismantling the foundations of our liberty within two years, is yet another testament to her stone ignorance. It's truly a sickening confession, really.
Actually, the sickening confession is your ignorant claim that President Obama is a "bigoted Socialist." Sure, that's the information you're getting from your reactionary sources including Glenn Beck; but if you actually pay attention to what the left is writing, you'd know that they are deeply disappointed with the President to date. Perhaps the most strident in his criticism in this regard is David Micheal Green as articulated on his site, The Regressive Antidote. You will not appreciate his POV because he's writing against reactionaries like yourself, but he's also critical of President Obama in a manner that your right wing "news" sources do not begin to convey. It would destroy the narrative and your false claim that this President is "Socialist." Since you probably won't read Green's work, let my quote him briefly. From "The do-nothing 44th President:"
Barack Obama has five major problems as president. The first is that he doesn’t understand priorities. The second is that he seems to have little strong conviction on any given issue. The third is that to the extent he stands for anything, it is for maintenance of a status quo that continues to wreck the country in order to service the greed of a few oligarchs. The fourth is that he fundamentally does not understand the powers and the role of the modern presidency. And the fifth is that he maintains the worst communications apparatus in the White House since Jimmy Carter prowled its corridors. In fairness to his communications team, though, he has given them almost nothing to sell. You try singing the praises of bailing out Goldman Sachs one hundred cents on the dollar, or of a health care plan that forces people to buy plans they don’t want from hated insurance vultures. It ain’t easy, pal. Yet, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney had far less than nothing to sell when it came to the Iraq war – indeed, they had nothing but lies – and their team handled that masterfully.
Oh, I could go on to completely burn up the rest of the authors as well as this joke of a blog in mindless twaddle but, sniveling brats rarely, if ever, benefit from the truth without an earth-shaking epiphany preceding it. Call if you ever mature enough to reach yours and the lessons will continue.
Burn away, you ignorant, name-calling reactionary; I'm so ready to take on Beckerheads that I'm gnawing at the bit in anticipation of your next, nasty, numbingly negative, nauseating, name-calling, near-sighted, meme infested comment. Remember what Glenn Beck (hypocritically) lectured about last week: context matters! You can start by telling readers of The Glenn Beck Review where you received your post-secondary education if you have any. You can also provide a sense of courage and honesty by telling us your real name, so we can fact-check your claim - if you make it - of having higher education. Quid pro quo, "wing hunter," quid pro quo.
Before more people start tuning into Beck's deceitfulpropaganda,
get involvedPost a commentAll non-spam comments approvedFree speech is practiced here------------------------------------------------------Please get involved for 10 minutesShare this URL with your friendshttp://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.comThank you
Way to go Victor! Now that I've gotten away from some on Fox who claim that the "liberal media" is in love with the president, I'm seeing for myself how wrong Fox is on this issue. I was pretty shocked to see some of the criticism since I was "programmed" to believe there was none.
Look, as I said in one of my comments after the original piece I did, I simply was giving a testimony as to my "life with Beck."
Some of these goof ball posters aren't worth the effort. As I said before, one must have an open mind to explore other opinions and seek out the truth. This goes for all walks of life including, but not limited to: religion; politics and any other issue that comes to mind.
Even when I used to defend Beck, I never, in a month of Sundays, berated the opposition and name called like our dear friend Winghunter did. Some folks have class and others do not.
I refuse to get into some sort of back and forth rant with this person as it will do no good. I do, however, commend you for taking him to task. I just don't have it in me to fight with folks who are clearly, clearly set in their ways.
Very nice job, as usual, with this, Victor. Hats off to you for your swift and fact-filled comebacks. I've never been much of a debater and simply wanted to share my story with others. I thank you again for the opportunity.
Little Tiff sure likes to talk a tough game here.
However, he got his ass kicked roundly over at Flopping Aces and has yet to return to defend his positions.
All anyone needs to do it read the Flopping Aces post to which "Anonymous" refers,...Actually no. Just the way the spineless "Anonymous" addresses me should give a clue on how the Beckerheads at Flopping Aces behave. Attack the messenger and undermine the message with deceitful tactics.
I also announced that I was done with the low brow name calling from the Beckerheads there. Why would I return there for the ... what...20th time?
Check it out: http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/05/13/glenn-beck-all-the-presidents-men/
Read the comments and come back here to convey who was the calm and factual voice on that page.
I wasted enough time on that site.
He who calls people "spineless" and "Beckerheads" decries "low brow name calling".
That's really rich.
Of course, over at Flopping Aces, Little Tiff had his azz repeatedly handed to him when he was demonstrated to be the liar, the hypocrite, and the charlatan that he wishes Glenn Beck was.
Yeah, we all see why you're "done" with that site.
You don't have the stonz to handle spirited debate.
"All Non-spam Comments Approved
Free Speech is Practiced Here"
Considering the fact that you didn't have the stonz to publish my last comment you should be intellectually honest and change the footer on your posts to accurately reflect your comment policy.
Of course, we both know that you'll do neither.
Anonymous has made two more comments, the second expressing his impatience with my releasing his comment. Anonymous: I have 15 balls in the air that I'm trying to juggle. You comments are still pending as your reactionary nonsense is not my highest priority. I post all non-spam comments on my schedule, not yours.
Anonymous, you sock puppet: post a comment as your real name or deem yourself a coward hence forth.
Beckerheads is not a name chosen by myself; Stephen Colbert is a proud Beckerhead. Tell us what you think supporters of a liar, hypocrite and a charlatan ought to be called?
Spineless was uncalled for. I was using it to get his ardent followers on his website to question his honesty and face the facts about Glenn Beck. It was wrong, and I'll apologize as soon as anyone from the reactionary Flopping Aces apologize for calling be a sock puppet for using my real name there. Eh?
I wrote that I was not coming back there, and I'm not going to waste any more time on that post. I listed the URL above in a comment; readers can go there to see who was being calm and collected and who were the name-calling, wing nuts attacking the messenger.
There was no demonstration that I am a liar, far from it. The data pulled from TV by the numbers by Aya Chiwowasockpuppetname were from the wrong month, not when Beck was speaking. Nice try though.
The only thing that was handed to me was a gang beating for having the audacity to challenge the man many of you over there treat like a Messiah. I can have more sophisticated discussions with school children.
Winghunter, I have now had time to investigate your charges about Media "Smatters," and the timing of what's posted there corresponds to my understanding of their improvement recently.
For 2010, the posts there cover an ABC interview where they were not identified as liberal or progressive, about posts about what Media Matters did not cover, as opposed to them getting their facts wrong, a post about them not covering an ABC story about conservatives who support Kegan and this in one post:
Maeres chose to question the motivations of the people who want The Post to cover a controversial issue; and cited Media Matters For America to do so. He also used their sourceless report to question the motivations and affiliations of J. Christian Adams. Notice that Maeres does not question Media Matters’ motivations in covering the story and if Fox News’ coverage can be dismissed out of hand because of an alleged conservative ideology, surely so can the coverage of the self-described progressive Media Matters.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-robare/2010/07/22/journalism-review-upset-washington-post-covering-black-panther-story#ixzz0vJwS28Qs
This is people talking about Media Matters, not proving that anything they uncovered as deceitful that they uncovered was in fact true.
One could do the same postings on a media watch dog group toward something that News Busters choose not to review. So what?
Post a Comment