|
In yesterday's post, "Rules for reactionaries: practice sheer hypocrisy," it was discovered that the quotes Glenn Beck read on his show from the Prologue of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals did not exist. It was fabricated like much of what Beck claims. Why don't Beck's followers rebel? Why don't they reject Beck for lying to them as much as he does? The answer is that people don't want to experience "cognitive dissonance." People want to believe his because to do otherwise would require that they've been wrong, and very few people have what it takes to do this.
In an article from last Sunday's Boston Globe entitled "How facts backfire," author Joe Keohane reviewed research which shows that truth in the end may not win the day. Researchers at the University of Michigan have determined that when misinformed people, especially extremely partisan people, are presented with facts that do not comport with their beliefs, they actually strengthen their misinformed beliefs. This has to be the best news Glenn Beck has heard all year, and it's the most frustrating information attained by The Glenn Beck Review since its inaugural post, Does Glenn Beck lie? (Volume I).
In the article, Keohane explains:
The research shows that the people most persuaded by the facts are the uninformed. They don't have a stake in the false beliefs built up over a period of years. From Keohane's blog:...most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
Matt Yglesias pointed out that this isn’t new because Americans have never been an informed citizenry when it comes to their government–and as I pointed out in the story, this is whoppingly true–however, you need to make a distinction between uninformed and misinformed. Uninformed people will listen, misinformed people probably won’t. This is why this research is so interesting. It works from the premise that the problem in America isn’t uninformed voters, but misinformed ones.
Miriam Case Brother Beck, You can't please everyone. You are doing a great job, and my husband, and I, enjoy your show and books. Keep up the good work, and don't back down.
Evelyn Lewis Glenn you are one of the great voices for truth out there on the front lines. Thank you so much.
Les Lindon Garner We may not have identical religious beliefs, but deeply admire your courage in light of the twisted messages and methodologies being used against you and all of us who respect the Constitution. These people are perverting Christianity and even if someone doesn't necessarily go to church, and even though there are bad apples in every barrel, the underlying message of Christianity as held by our founders is directly opposed to the kind of tyranny these people would justify in the name of God. It's one thing to disagree with another's faith; it's something altogether different and evil, I believe, to purposefully attempt to twist the words of someone's faith in order to demonize them as this so obviously attempts to do. We may differ on specifics of practice and dogma, but the underlying principals, Mr. Beck, are the same and I applaud you for your work....
The question then begs to be asked: what is the point of The Glenn Beck Review? First, there is a former supporter who was encouraged to question Beck's agenda. Her quest for the truth will soon be written as a guest post soon. Second, there are millions of people who have no idea who Glenn Beck is. They are the uninformed, at least about Beck's version of the "truth." These are the people who need to be reached before the extraordinary salesman, the most excellent con man alive, Glenn Beck, reaches them and sucks them into his vortex of regression, deceit and fake "punditry."
-------------------------------------------------------
Before more people start tuning into Beck's
CONvincing propaganda, 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
27 comments:
I sincerely hope you are sucessful in your quest to unmask this charlatan. This man has done untold damage to our country and seems to be able to say anything without consequense. I can only pray his act will finally fade out but I fear there are too many unhinged followers ready to do what ever he says.
It took me, what, 3 seconds to find a link showing how wrong you are.
Maybe you had the wrong edition?
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134#reader_0679721134
The prologue is all free reading, and you can easily find the quotes, around ten clicks in.
Look Luke, I have the 1989 Vintage Books Edition. I'll look around the link you offer because that is part of journalistic credibility. If I'm wrong about something, I'll correct my findings or understanding about the finding posted on this Review. I haven't read Rules for Radicals; I bought it to fact check him. I read the Prologue on my book twice. Beck's quote is in the next chapter in my book, and more important, you tool, is that Marxism was being set up as the way NOT to proceed, just like the Christian ideology in the next sentence. I really don't consider online versions of the book to be a reliable (copy and paste) version compared to the one hard copy in my hand, Luke. Maybe you have the wrong edition. Mine is hard copy; your link will take me to 1's and 0's. Luke; put yourself in my shoes. Would you believe the hard copy that you bought and know is unaltered by scissors or marker, or would you be inclined to trust what is a pattern of 1's and 0's. Luke? Put yourself in my shoes and answer which reference you would trust.
Beck quotes out of context, even has video editors rip up and piece back together to make Obama appear to mean something that - even then - Beck misinterpreted. He is sleazy, dishonest and unprincipled. AND, he's not qualified to discuss much of anything as an expert, much less the range of issues he misunderstands. We're not dealing with three digit IQ with Glenn Beck. I am sure of this, but have no data to back this up. Beck and Limbaugh are the champions of the misinformed, who are misinformed (and extremely partisan) by the champions themselves. Convenient: these two get working people angered at the people who intend to raise the taxes on people like Beck and Limbaugh. These are clever and talented men, but Limbaugh is a controversy driven bigot and Beck is the same, "only" resorting to race-baiting like Fox did all last week. Beck rails against racism, then links the New Black Panther Party to the White House. It's utter bullshit, but propagandists like Beck and Limbaugh do not care about facts. They know their supporters won't check or even believe counter facts like what is available in the Contents on the Review. The controversy they create with their mouths is the key to their financial success.
I was going to start my next post about Beck's "Restoring History" which, of course, he got wrong about MLK's radicalism. I stopped writing notes when Beck told his audience, "We unite on character." Uh, Earth calling Beckerheads: Glenn Beck is a hypocrite, an easy to detect hypocrite on several matters including free speech.
Glenn Beck admitted recently that he is "a recovering dirt bag." The position of The Glenn Beck Review is that he has a long way to go before he can claim high moral ground against Progressivism or Liberalism, or even Conservativism. He needs to stop lying and become a principled man instead of going against his own stated principles. He needs to restore his own honor, if he ever had it, before he "marches" to Washington to restore anyone else's.
Luke; no anti-racist I know besides Glenn Beck, engages in or supports race baiting black men, including the President. Beck does; Glenn Beck is a hypocrite on many issues.
Luke, I'll trust my hard copy before a configuration of 1's and 0's, OK? You need to check out Barnes and Noble; stop being so gullible.
You can easily find one, within ten clicks of many metropolitan centers. If not, go to your local library. I have the Vintage Edition, 1989.
Still, you miss the point. Alinsky was arguing against Marxist and Christian ideologies. (Oh right, Beck left that out.) When is comes to deceiving, I yell at Beck: are we there yet? ARE WE THERE YET?
Wow, just wow. I try to find truth regarding Glen Beck. It just so happens that I firstly stumbled upon this post and guess what? You're lying about Glenn Beck lying. I've tried to disprove my dad who regularly watches the show and each time all I find is a different interpretation of the one Beck proposes. The original source, like in this case, is always there. It is a matter of interpretation that extends well beyond Glenn Beck himself. I'm sorry, but the guy who runs this blog just attempts to be another demagogue, like Beck, by attempting to "disprove" him. Lets be honest here. You're not concerned with truth, you're concerned with power, such as Beck, but you're just worse at it. If it's so easy to be a lune and a liar, you'd already be on TV.
Anonymous: what power? Perhaps you could be more specific about what I have wrong. Unlike Mr. Beck, I will correct any facts that I don't have correct.
It's clear that you haven't spent much time reading The Glenn Beck Review beyond this post. There is a unwavering commitment to facts. What you write seems emotional and devoid of facts. Tell me how I'm lying. Tell me where I have something wrong about Mr. Beck. Explain how I'm a demagogue. Tell me how I "gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people."
It doesn't take much to disprove Glenn Beck; you seem oddly emotional about this.
It seems to me that the owner of the blog is in fact the one that is "oddly emotional".
Anonymous said he/she tries to disprove Beck to their father that watches all the time. So, it's not like you need to convince your commenter that Beck is right or wrong. Why then do you resort to belittling that person? Seems to me that you should be trying to convince that person instead.
Missed opportunity? Darn.
Anonymous: "You're lying about Glenn Beck lying. I've tried to disprove my dad who regularly watches the show and each time all I find is a different interpretation of the one Beck proposes. The original source, like in this case, is always there. It is a matter of interpretation that extends well beyond Glenn Beck himself. I'm sorry, but the guy who runs this blog just attempts to be another demagogue, like Beck, by attempting to "disprove" him. Lets be honest here. You're not concerned with truth, you're concerned with power,..."
What power? What power? How is your assertion even rational? You want an example of a blatant lie from just this week? Read: "Glenn Beck is a bald-faced liar" at http://wwww.examiner.com/x-55810-Syracuse-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Glenn-Beck-is-a-baldfaced-liar
You might also explore the contents link here. Back made 15 false claims in one week two weeks ago. That's a polite way of saying that he lied.
The message as a whole is think, read, know your history, have values, etc, from Glenn Beck. But, your point is to devalue that message by showing him to be a liar, a charlatan with his communication. I think I will do both. I don't need to trust someone, to take from their message that which is the better path. I am neither a fanatic, nor a complete skeptic. I think the real message here is, question everything, but also your message as well. I question any rationale meant to destroy an image, when the image is of stronger value. In my interpretation of facts (since they are all that), I see his actions concerning Sherrod more amicably than you do. Concerning cognitive psychology, you are suffering from attribution theory, where we apply labels to others character based on our like or dislike. All I am trying to say is, that your thesis, your point per se, seems suspect, motivated, and otherwise intentionally, not objectively (as you state using facts and truth-seeking in general) pursued. Would you dispute that you are a liar? If you do, it becomes most evident that not all lies are lies, but perspectives. And confusing the two, well convicts you the same of cognitive dissonance... So, unfortunately your motives are suspect or you and Mr. Beck are the same. I think both...
Daniel, how are deceit and hypocrisy "of stronger value"?
I started this blog because I knew, just from watching the news and having listened to candidate Obama that Beck was lying. There's nothing subjective about Beck claiming that Obama ran on a campaign of "peace." That's not a fact.
If you think "know[ing] your history" is important, then how do you rationalize Beck's frequent guest David Barton, a historical revisionist who I caught telling a blatant lie and people far more versed in early American history than I show that Barton makes facts up?
I see his actions concerning Sherrod as having changed from that Tuesday morning on his radio show to his Fox show that afternoon. Why? And remember, to Beck she is a Marxist or a redistribute the wealth type. There's no possibility in Beck's rhetoric that she's just being a good Christian, something Beck seems to know too little about.
"How are deceit and hypocrisy "of stronger value"?"
I didn't say this, so don't put your poorly chosen perspective into my mouth. What I said was don't trust any source, look to the greater message. The greater message, specifically so you can't re-interpret it for me, being that you should question everything (including now and specifically YOU), and also apply good general principles towards understanding what is important (e.g. read history, think for yourself, don't take any information on just authority, know logic/rhetoric, etc.).
You purposely interpreted what my message was, due to cognitive dissonance and/or other reasons, such that I wouldn't be talking about you. You are just as bad as Glenn Beck. You think by bringing into question specifics, you somehow are able to generalize, but that is bad logic. I am an expert, and sir, you are a con man, an angry one, who thinks that they can wield facts like weapons, but in my opinion are just as dangerous as a ignorant man, because you think you are above reproach. But, I would like to show, that you are just as deceived. Like I said, your problem isn't in your facts, but your faulty interpretation. You intrepeted my message, incorrectly. You don't lack knowledge, you lack wisdom.
Do you need me to break it down any more simply for you?
No, you didn't say that. I'm challenging your words in the context of Beck's over all character.
I do question my message. I invited Beck's guests that I cover to read my posts about them and correct where I have something wrong. Perhaps you need to read "What is the truth about Glenn Beck" to better understand my own approach - as find tuned by David Stephen Ross - to determining the truth.
If I misunderstood your message, I apologize. When you can show that I have anything factually wrong about Beck, when you can demonstrate any hypocrisy in my work, when you can show that I'm utterly unqualified to be writing The Glenn Beck Review, then you will be on solid ground to accuse me of being "as bad as Glenn Beck."
I do not think I am above reproach. Just the opposite. Go ahead and show how my interpretation and analysis of Beck's deceit, hypocrisy and utter lack of qualifications (beyond his gift of propaganda) is wrong. Prove to me and my readers where my interpretations are faulty. Show where I lack "wisdom."
Yes, you need to stop the empty rhetoric, Mr. "Expert," and "break it down for" me, this time with specifics that I can address.
Tell me/us how Beck is not a deceitful and hypocritical charlatan.
If you want to submit a guest viewpoint, I am willing to publish it unedited.
Interestingly enough, I was not defending Beck, in the way you think, about any single issue or any single fact. I was addressing the (well, in my opinion) simple idea that specific instances are not generalizable logically, in the sense of being perfectly deductible, as you present. Once a liar, if even that is provable, does not equate to always a liar. And I call into question the notion of your wisdom in interpreting these events, when not once have you stated, in what I would consider clear terms (objectively) that his actions and statements are intentionally misleading.
This makes me believe that you are yourself working off of a biased perspective, some emotional content that leads you to believe that his statements are due to character, rather than your own interpretation.
I would suggest, for your own personal reasons, that you learn to make this connection, this is where I feel you fail to make a proper interpretation.
So, I put it on you to present, to me and your readers, an instance of purposeful misdirection on his part? Can you show that he is intentionally lying, separated from your interpretation that he must be?
My statement is related to what your factual proof of his character as a liar, otherwise it seems that you are not as objective as you would think...
Daniel, here's a clear example of Beck lying:
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-syracuse/glenn-beck-is-a-bald-faced-liar
Daniel, who is not working off a biased perspective? MRC and News Busters are conservatives looking at mainstream media for liberal bias. Media Matters are progressives looking at conservative media outlets for false claims.Bias is what gives them the critical mindset that allows them to do their jobs more effectively.
For the most part, I set aside my bias about his politics. It's a free country; he can be a reactionary. That's his right. My issue is with his ongoing deceit whether it derives from conscious and malicious lies as the example I've given here or from Beck's ignorance regarding the world we live in.
Mostly I suspect that Beck says things as fact that are not fact because he's ignorant of the facts. Ignorance is no excuse for spreading misinformation.
Ignorance is my third primary charge against Beck. He is not qualified by any stretch to be a television commentator. It performs well, but he routinely gets his facts wrong for whatever reason. He is a fake pundit, an exceptional, fake pundit.
His "Crime Inc." is nothing more that connecting the dots between individuals and groups working for a common cause. There's no crime. Beck never has asserted what law is being broken because there isn't one.
When Beck says, "Hope is truth," how do you interpret such a stupid definition of hope?
When PolitiFact finds his claims false, is that because Beck is ignorant or purposely deceitful? Ditto with the many false claims that Media Matters finds.
Beck has made flat out absurd claims about this Administration. I have a post ready to go, but I'm waiting on verification of the source before publishing a few of them.
You have your example. Read it and weep.
Well, I have made my case. I think you have made yours. I still don't think you understand what I am saying, but I don't mind leaving it to your readership. I hope it was clear that I was trying to be civil and engage in an intelligent diatribe. Again, of the few things I caution you to do, or maybe at least consider them tidbits of wisdom, I would add that you watch the snide comments as well.
"Read it and weep." That doesn't help your case, and I don't think I ever said anything warranting such playground-esque behavior. I would argue, again, that makes you more like Beck than you would ever recognize, because that is one thing that no one gains from in any truthful conversation; a petty attack to come off colorful, witty or more intelligent than you warrant. Good luck with your site! I would do things differently, but I am not you...
Daniel, "read it and weep" is a term used by poker players when they lay down their hands which they know at that point to be a winning hand. You obviously don't play the game because if you did, you'd know that it's not a "playground-esque" expression. Since you did not remark on the article that I pointed at, I can only assume your response attacking me in an ignorant manner is anger about the fact of Beck's bold-faced lie. Maybe not, but next time you come back here, "do things differently:" address my claims and drop your typical ad hominem, and in this case ignorant, attacks.
I'm far less interested in wit and color than I am in exposing Beck as a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan. I have demonstrated sufficient intelligence for this undertaking even if my writing has much to be desired.
Alright, I will engage you in this, with the point of showing that I believe you are not making a logically deductive (aka 100% accurate) claim of Glenn Beck lying. In my opinion, you argument is not sound.
I read the article you posted @ (http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-syracuse/glenn-beck-is-a-bald-faced-liar). To make things explicitly clear, what exactly is the lie (you can paraphrase Beck, but a quotation would be better) he told? I need to see you re-write it, to therefore highlight where I believe you are adding content, that doesn't exist.
I want you to write it here, so that those reading these posts will have a clear idea exactly what you are saying, and what I am saying as well.
So, what is (are) the statement(s) he made, and what is any other relevant information, that is the lie?
We will debate this out, right here, for all of your readers to decide...
Daniel, I hope you can understand my delay in publishing your response and responding to it. I was in Washington for two days.
Here's Beck's quote which is a lie: "they were talking about how I damaged this woman and I hurt her career. I'm sorry. I think the only time I talked about her, I supported her. That's weird."
On his morning program on Premier Radio Networks, he said that morning, that they "have a video of tape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." He was at the point piling on and not - by any stretch of the reactionary imagination - supporting Sherrod. On his Fox show, for whatever reason, Beck decided by that afternoon that "context matters," which is hypocrisy in itself; and he did support her. Why he changed his mind only Beck (and perhaps Breitbart) knows, but he lied about it unless you want to cut him slack for "forgetting" what he had said just 30 hours earlier on the radio about the tape's contents.
Daniel, you seem to be suggesting that I'm claiming Beck always lies or never tells the truth. Beck blends facts and fictions together to weave a believable narrative which is a figment of his and his feeder's (Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works) minds.
Beck is not a pathological liar. He is a clever and deceitful propagandist and a hypocrite.
Daniel, maybe Beck will take what he said in his speech yesterday seriously and turn a new leaf like the slave ship captain supposedly did. (I am skeptical of everything he claims until I verify it.) If Beck stops deceiving his viewers, engages in loyal and honest dissent and stands by his values instead of duplicating the current reactionary meme, I'll stop posting here.
I oppose his reactionary politics, and so do most Americans. That's why he has to lie about the progressive agenda and the Progressive Era in American history.
Oops, didn't finish my sentence...unless you want to cut Beck slack for forgetting what he'd said 30 hours earlier, "I think...," then you have to agree that he did not support her. In fact, "the only time" is a lie. He talked about her twice, on the radio (not by name) and during his hypocritical "context matters" show.
This is largely a matter of biased assimilation. YOu are defending his honesty, but everyone at the NAN rally, who knew of Beck, understood him to be a liar. I'll be writing about the Washington trip later today time permitting.
If he said, "I think..." and he is wrong, that isn't a lie. That is value-added judgment by you.
If he, on the radio, did not talk about her by name, and that is your referenced comment that shows he lied, that is also a value-added judgment. You might think that he was, but you can't prove it. Your statement wouldn't hold up in court. Your read it and weep statement, doesn't go beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor show logical soundness. He is only as much a charlatan, as you believe him to be, but your opinion that he is, does not make it so. Good thing, we don't have judges like you, or legal arguments as sound, otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble.
I don't think you are, btw. Mislead by your egos attachment to your self-conceived integrity. His perspective is what you are judging as bad, not him. You can disagree with him, fine. But, don't ever think you are so right about your perspective that you aren't involved in the same such propaganda war than he his. It sounds like you are way more upset that people are listening to him. Of course, it couldn't be because his underlying message has merit. Of course not, haha. You couldn't be wrong...
And that is what this is about. I see your comments about thinking he is lying, about how he tears down others, about the progressive movement, about the president. I am sorry, but you sound hurt, that he and his different opinions of how these people and events influence the world we live in, is affecting people. And you have taken it upon yourself to be his strongest critic. But, as I said before, people aren't resisting your message. They are resisting you. Because they can sense on the surface and underneath, that you are not yourself as reliable, fully wise and intelligent, nor without fault.
Trust me, I am not a fanatic. I don't buy into any movement, beyond what it says and does, with any gusto. I don't believe in God, I am an atheist. I am not a conservative, but a libertarian. I don't judge the message, by the man. Even if he was as you say he is (which you are grasping at straws, making conjecture, and implying facts that don't exist, as far as any court or reasonably wise person would bet on), his message is not sullied by it.
I don't think you can change. I wish you could. You are not an objective source. And your message will continue to fall on deaf ears, because your truth is not THE truth, and anyone, ANYONE who claims they are, is selling something.
You can continue to debate any single point. It won't save your argument. I don't think you are as intelligent as you think you are. It probably drives you nuts that people such as Beck and Palin are as influential as they are, and you are not. I have nothing left to say to this argument, nor a larger generalization about your wisdom in deciding the fates of others. People don't believe in people like yourself. Because, leaders can and do make mistakes, but it is how their they learn from them. You couldn't admit you have made a mistake, or you will hide it (like this conversation, you are probably secretly happy that it isn't on your front page, I would be). Leaders are not as great as their movements. You are attacking his movement, by attacking him. I can't explain it anymore simply than that.
My smallest little request, if it is all you could afford me to show respect, let's let this one fall on our arguments, and let others decide. Don't respond to my points, in a continued attempt to show me wrong, let others come to their own conclusions, just as much as you ask others on your site, to respect your wishes that only Beck responds on that page. I think others can decide for themselves, who is right or wrong, if we grant them that we believe they are intelligent, moral, and wise through their experiences.
I like this debate, and I hope we both can learn from it.
Do you understand what I am saying? If you do, please tell me...
Daniel said...
"If he said, "I think..." and he is wrong, that isn't a lie. That is value-added judgment by you."
I probably should have waited to release your comment because it's late and I have banking to do before retiring.
I have suggested, in my interview with Media Matters, that Beck shows signs of being burnt out from his drug and alcohol use. If he could not remember what he said 30 hours earlier about the only person going through what Shirley Sharrod was going through, then he's not qualified to do his work on a major media network. That gets to the charlatan side of my argument against Beck. He comes off as a liar if his short term memory is that bad, and worse, he has no credibility for never pointing to his radio statements.
I have speculated on the Syracuse Examiner that the reason Beck resorted to "Context Matters" when he did defend her is because he and his good friend Breitbart may have had a conversation about Breitbart's tape. I will speculate again, here, that the reason Beck never did mention here name is that Breitbart contacted Beck during his radio show and suggested he drop the subject for now.
YOu also suggested, "It probably drives you nuts that people such as Beck and Palin are as influential as they are, and you are not."
It doesn't. This isn't about ego; I've made exposing Beck as a liar and a charlatan because to people who know the facts of our world, it's obvious to PolitiFact and many others that Beck's paranoid style is deceitful. Even Beck's notion that "context matters" was a lie for him. That episode was also an excellent of hypocrisy. Context doesn't matter for Beck.
You missed the point. Again...
I am starting to think you are simple-minded, because you continue to regurgitate the same point, without addressing that you present speculation as fact. You cannot see the difference. I will say it again, YOU PRESENT SPECULATION AS FACT!
You haven't clearly or soundly presented a deductive argument, and you don't understand that you haven't. I think you need to go back to school, and take a basic logic/rhetoric course. So, here we are, I am going to be your teacher.
I usually don't say things like this, but I feel that you present so much evidence to this idea. You are an idiot. Maybe I should take it upon myself to continue to show your readers this. I say good luck in proving otherwise, you are going to need it.
Every spelling error, every mistake of logic, every speculation and improper generalization are going to be our little class. You will learn, or you will look stupid. Now we are onto something real...
It is actually sad, that in comparison to Glenn Beck, he makes you look stupid, and I don't even think that highly of his intelligence. The qualities I respect the most from him are his attempts at asking people to learn history, to read, to be better people, to not take any one authority at its face value, etc.
You are a clown shoe... Come my friend, let's walk together.
Daniel, three points:
1) you are not my friend and you are not going to post another comment here until you can demonstrate that you have read this Review from beginning to end. Prove that I'm wrong about this: you won't!
2) I'm not name calling when I declare here that you are a tool.
3) How can you rationalize Beck telling provable lies about history, his supposed forte, during a speech about truth and honor?
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html
Go do your damn homework, and until you demonstrate some real knowledge about Mr. Beck, beyond your pathetic attempts to rationalize his entertaining deceptions, you are cut off from commenting here! You're a time consuming tool, and I have NOT got the time for someone as hood-winked and insulting as you are.
It's no wonder Beck's tools are called "Beckerheads." You're one who is worthy of that insulting label. YOu'd be ashamed of yourself defending this rodeo clown turned messenger of God if your moral IQ where nearly as high as you pretend your IQ is.
So much for free speech!
Didn't you say free speech is welcome here?
You are a tool of the first order!
You have free free speech. I get to publish on my schedule, not yours.
That's all you have?
How am I a tool? So ironic coming from a supporter of Mr. Beck. Did you even read this post?
im willing to bet there are alot of hired shills and disinfo mongrels on this thread
Xcentric News, yes, Daniel for sure.
Post a Comment