Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Glenn Beck's Fox show ending

This post has 74 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 443
Points 9,245

Beck is being mocked to shreds on the Daily Show right now. It's just fantastic.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

Ricky James Moore II:

 

I find it hilarious when people here who supposedly believe in freedom are happy when anyone who isn't a pure doctrinaire anarcho capitalist happens upon misfortune.

Beck is a crank and acts like he's mildly retarded. His show is stupid, full of nonsense and focuses on totally irrelevant and often false 'issues' just like all the other news apes. I could care less about his vague political slant, the show is stupid and it sucks. All it's good for is seeing how much B.S. he can spout in an episode.

 

Wait, have you actually stopped to watch a complete hour of his show?  I have.  I admit that most of his show is entertainment, and that he often acts like a clown, but his actual facts are hard to refute.  This is because they are facts.  And he has the means to pay a lot of people to research on his behalf.  He is the fourth most popular show on cable television in the US, and is the only author to have a bestseller on the NYT list in the non-fiction and fiction catergorys at the same time.  He is primarily an entertainer, and he must be doing something right.  You may disagree with his analysis of those facts that he presents, but unless you actually watch the show, how would you know?

I, for one, am willing to make my prediction about what he is up to right now.

I think, that if none of his favorite Repubs make a good showing for the nomination to run against Obama, Beck will run himself for the LP nomination.   An active political campaign by an associate would put Fox News into the situation of conflict of interests, and Fox News has already put Palin on notice should she chose to run that doing so would end their business relationship immediately.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

They're hard to refute because they're not facts.  Beck has been thoroughly proved wrong time and again.
But I guess it's too much to think the Tea Party people would even care...

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

John Ess:

I'd like to know one 'new freedom' we have enjoyed since the advent of television.

.dDiv

 

 

vvvvvvvvvI

 

housing

 

Searching...

 

Hmm, how about the freedom for any race of old person to sit at the front of the bus? 

Gay men are now free to walk down a city street without the fear that they won't get a beatdown for their lifestyle from the cops?

What about the freedom to choose to use any number of Voip telephone providers for one's home phone line at less than $20 per month (long distance anywhere included) rather than a state supported monopoly lock-in with a private company called AT&T?

Or even just the idea that you can get broadband Internet service from a company that is not called AT&T?

What about the right to bear arms, in public?  (consealed or otherwise)

Right to homeschool one's children?

Right to marry outside one's own race without interference from the state? 

How about the right to pornography?  Cursing in Public?

 

I'm sure I could go on, but sure, you're probably not any freer today than you would have been in 1950; presuming that you are white, male, protestant and above the poverty line in income.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

Laotzu del Zinn:

They're hard to refute because they're not facts.  Beck has been thoroughly proved wrong time and again.
But I guess it's too much to think the Tea Party people would even care...

He has been wrong occasionally.  From what I've seen of his show (admittedly, not a great deal) those few failures are both minor in scope, and tend to be less often than his detractors.  I'm more often wrong than he is, as my family is quick to whip out their smartphones to call this old man to the mat.  Google has killed my fun of making up bs for children, because kids these days are in the habit of googling every new thing they hear.

 

I've been lurking on this forum for months now, and have been terriblely disapointed in the intelectual quality of the membership, considering this is a forum sponsored by an intelectual organization.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 429
Points 7,400

Just cause the new member is female, is using some fake profile picture, and likes Stirner, doesn't mean it's Liberte. Though it does make it likely.

No, it really is Liberte. Look at how the bio is written, and recall how Liberte's was written. That is no coincidence. I much appreciated her posts, so I'm glad she's back. Her and Ricky James have a future together.

Before you, there were two sarcastic women with a very bitter style, and we assumed they were the same person - Vichy Army and Liberte.

Umm... what? 'Liberte' and 'Vichy Army' were two usernames used for a single account. They were the same person.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 917
Points 17,505

He has been wrong occasionally

Most of what he says is wrong. Even if he's going the right way, he runs off the rails. His analysis of Progressivism is sectarian and silly and the ridiculous conspiracy theories he steals from Alex Jones don't help, either.

I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 283
Points 5,580

In evaluating Beck's usefulness to the libertarian movement one important question needs to be asked: Do you know of anyone on the left that finds him persuasive, informed, and educated? Facts or no facts, people on the left can't stand him because of his over-the-top presentation and silly dramatics.  On the right, he might swing a few neocons into the camp, which is nice, but the damage he's done to libertarianism's reputation on the other side is more significant and will prove difficult to repair. 

People who get their history, economics, and worldview from television are not very sophisticated. People will sit and listen to Beck and nod their heads, but when a Republican gets into the White House and turns to protectionism, welfarism, or imperialism, any good done by Beck will be forgotten.

I'd say I'm glad to see him go, but he's not going anywhere.

Television is not going to help us, as it has become the propaganda wing of the state itself. It's like expecting the government schools to be the vehicle for libertartian reformism. Not gonna happen. If we had the Mises channel run by Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker I would make an exception.

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 340
Points 6,230

If we had the Mises channel run by Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker

This needs to happen

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 173
Points 3,810
Brutus replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 9:10 AM

Personally, I like Glenn Beck's program. Do I agree with him on everything? Certainly not. Do I identify with his degree of religious identity? No. Do I watch him regularly? No. Do I like his information? Yes.

Glenn is a bit too eschatological for me. He's very "doom and gloom" as is the usual prescription from the people I speak with. However, he has sounded the alarm, warning of statism for some time. Yes, he gets too emotional and does a lot of flashy things for show...but I can honestly say I've learned a few key things from him; more accurately, I've learned how severe some things are.

I realize that Michael Savage also speaks of George Soros's involvement in currency and making profits off of sabotaging financial markets, but Glenn really did his research in that area. The other good thing is he doesn't do the standard Republican song-and-dance that Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do. Ever notice how similar their talking points are and that they hardly--if ever--disagree? I don't think that's coincidence.

My favorite to listen to on the radio is Michael Savage. Similar to Glenn, he's an independent, although he takes to nationalism too strongly for my taste. Nevertheless, I don't have to agree with the guy 100% to admire him and respect his information. The same goes with Glenn.

If you ask me, I believe Glenn's show is failing because he constantly keeps people up-in-arms without giving them a solution other than the become religious, which I disagree with. I believe in God, but I view religion and God to be completely different. That's a whole other ball of wax, one I'm sure the majority of the people on here will debate until they're blue in the face, and that's a debate I frankly don't care about.

Nevertheless, Glenn leaves viewers with a sense of despair; either that, or his rhetorical antics turns people off and they turn the station immediately. That's why I think his show is failing.

 

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 11:56 AM

"Except we're not going to arrive at that, because I live in the real world full of billions of idiots who don't care whether or not they're right and have a vested interest in primate status games. Some imaginary future is totally irrelevant to me, once I'm dead the planet can take an asteroid hit for all I care." - Ricky James Moore II

And once more to my point, whatever his imperfections, because of Beck more people are inclined towards a more free society in the present.

"Except it makes no difference, even if you manage to convince hundreds or thousands of people; so treating them like the herd animals they are seems appropriate and rewarding."

Often I agree and participate in doing so.  But I'm also smart enough to recognize when someone has revealed a toe hold for me and my views to climb out of the pit of public unawareness.  And I'm not going to berate someone who is more or less on the right path just because he hasn't gotten to the destination yet.

"It's not that they don't have specialized knowledge, it's that they have the gumption to form opinions about subjects they are obviously totally ignorant of, such as sociology, metaphysics, etc.   If they'd just shut their God damn mouths like I do about molecular biology and Armenian literature I wouldn't care much; but as long as they're going to spout their bullshit arbitrary opinions, screw them."

So the general condition of the world annoys you?  What should all them imperfect people do while your majesty holds forth on such lofty topics in you opinion?  The market is a process of moving resources around to their highest valued ends.  Education is a process too, and by impication that both systems are moving toward subjectively better conditions, both are imperfect now and have to work to get there.  Your part in that is what, if any?  I'm all for berating willful idiots, in fact I am actively against 'polite' debate, especially with people who lie.  But most people aren't lying, they're just ignorant.  As you were one time.  Now maybe someone berated you until you improved your knowledge and that's one model for teaching, but there are others?

"Most of what he says is wrong. Even if he's going the right way, he runs off the rails. His analysis of Progressivism is sectarian and silly and the ridiculous conspiracy theories he steals from Alex Jones don't help, either."

Facts and analysis are two different things.  A point which I think was made previouly.  Do you have an example of FACT(S) that he's gotten wrong, or is it his partcular historical interpretation of what they mean and their relevance to current events that you have a problem with?

"In evaluating Beck's usefulness to the libertarian movement one important question needs to be asked: Do you know of anyone on the left that finds him persuasive, informed, and educated?" - Lewis S.

Do you know of anyone on the left who be persuaded by anyone, one way or another, toward being libertarian or anarcho capitalist?  I don't dobut there are a few, you think they give much of a damn about TV or Beck?  Beck's show was useful outreach to conservatives who are sick of main stream Republicans but don't see other viable options.  If they watched Beck's show they might at least realize they're not alone in wanting some serious change as opposed to a nit tuck approach to reigning in government.

And, as Brutus points out, even if he's not quite getting the analysis right by your and Moore's standards, at least he's giving people some background on history and current events that asks qui bono?  One thing I would have loved him to do was turn that blackboard of his on to who is behind the main stream 'conservatives' in the US.  I don't think he ever did, but seeing a coherent and decently presented version of history and current events that indentifies the big players with skin in the game trying to make things go one way or another, that's actually a step towards getting a Rothbardian view of The Fed's history into the mainstream.  I guess a lot of people look at it as shady now, think they might right The Case Against the Fed?  Hell, Beck may even have presented that at some point.  He seems fair enough if skewed toward neocons too much for my taste.

Anyway, the broader point is you can fight a one man war and lose and feel ideologically pure despite accomplishing jack shit, or you can accept the fact that despite your protestations to the contrary you're likely not the most brilliant human being in the world, even in the areas you think you are, and work with differring people toward a common goal so long as it's useful and mutual.  Beck's going his own way for whatever reasons, however losing his show is I think a net loss for libertarians.  One venue where libs and perhaps even ACs could have gone to and spoken and been taken seriously is gone.  In our current world, that's not good in my estimation.  I'd have rather worked to get Beck and his audience closer to reality than lose the opportunity all together.

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

Am I the only one that has a problem with a show getting kicked off the air due to lo lobbying by random people being considered a great success of the free market? I bet most of these people that contacted advertisers didn't even watch the show. The show had great ratings, but because some people didn't like the content they threatened the advertisers with boycott. That isn't exactly the marketplace of ideas. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

While checking my mail at Yahoo.Com, I caught some foreign news bulletins posted next to the Inbox area, Scrooge McDuck.

Glenn Beck's firing was among the several news posted there. What is the likeliest explanation that was given by the advertised sources?

It turns out that when official unemployment figures started dropping, there was a general drop in demand for all TV talking heads. Before Beck, one or two TV talking heads had already lost jobs.

Beck got desparate and started upping his game...in the wrong direction. He tried to make his show even more conspiratorial.

It turns out that his latest series of conspiracy theories only ended up involving the very businessmen who happened to be good friends of both Fox News heads and its advertisers. But they could still tolerate that!

The last straw, however, was when he invited some anti-Semitic guest, without knowing he was anti-Semitic, and then did not bother calling that guest out when that guest suddenly threw out "Zionist conspiracy" during his tirades. With this guilt-by-association situation, the top honchos suspected his Mormon views may have coloured his views of Judaism a bit.

Not wanting to be associated with a potential anti-Semite, the boycott started.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 313
Points 6,560
Eric replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 1:43 PM

Yea Idk what happened to him. His show never used to be that bad but recently he has been acting more and more like the figure his critics paint him out to be (crazy and a nutcase).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

I'm not sure where all this language about him getting "fired" is coming from.  Maybe I missed something, and maybe he's just hamming shit up to save face, but this doesn't sound like a guy who got canned by his network...

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 917
Points 17,505

I know there is rarely a practical divide, but one can believe in a Zionist conspiracy and not be an anti-Semite.

I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 2:01 PM

"Am I the only one that has a problem with a show getting kicked off the air due to lo lobbying by random people being considered a great success of the free market? I bet most of these people that contacted advertisers didn't even watch the show. The show had great ratings, but because some people didn't like the content they threatened the advertisers with boycott. That isn't exactly the marketplace of ideas. " - Scrooge McDuck

Not likely, but I'm not one of them.  I think his show going away is a loss, but he has no partcular right to be on TV nor have his presence there deterined  by any particular system.

"The last straw, however, was when he invited some anti-Semitic guest, without knowing he was anti-Semitic, and then did not bother calling that guest out when that guest suddenly threw out "Zionist conspiracy" during his tirades. With this guilt-by-association situation, the top honchos suspected his Mormon views may have coloured his views of Judaism a bit." - Prateek Sanjay

Sure, blame the Jews...

(c:

"I'm not sure where all this language about him getting "fired" is coming from.  Maybe I missed something, and maybe he's just hamming shit up to save face, but this doesn't sound like a guy who got canned by his network..." - John James

I think he looks on the bright side more than most if you take my meaning.  Contrarily, I've been amiably fired before and have amiably fired some people myself.  It's not personal, and they're not bad people for it nor am I.  Sometimes even the most competent, best intentioned people screw up so bad you have no other option, and can still part on good terms.  Especially when the person getting canned is honest and lives up to their screw up.  A capacity for empathy helps in understanding why you're getting canned.  And Beck sure as hell was empathetic.

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

I am not "blaming the Jews", xahrx, but I would blame Beck for inviting the wrong sort of polemics.

Like, in the name of TV ratings, he was possibly just this close to inviting IHR's people there. Then what would have happened to Fox?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 917
Points 17,505

Prateek Sanjay:

I am not "blaming the Jews", xahrx, but I would blame Beck for inviting the wrong sort of polemics.

Like, in the name of TV ratings, he was possibly just this close to inviting IHR's people there. Then what would have happened to Fox?

It would have been better. As wacky and axe-grinding as it is, IHR is ten times as good on history as the mainstream media. James J. Martin and L.A. Rollins have both written for them.
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

One speech at IHR killed Joe Sobran's career.

Just one speech.

Can you imagine?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

Brutus:

Nevertheless, Glenn leaves viewers with a sense of despair; either that, or his rhetorical antics turns people off and they turn the station immediately. That's why I think his show is failing.

 

His show is still the fourth highest rated show on cable television, so I wouldn't call that failing.  He's up to something, considering the show doesn't actually end until September.  As I stated before, I think that he's going to run against Obama as either a lib or an independent, if one of his favs don't look like they stand a fair chance at taking the Repub nomination.  He is not an ideal lib, but neither am I, and there have been many a LP nomininee that was lacking in the strict libertarian sense.  He already has a pretty large base, if his rallies are any indication, and presidents are elected on their popularity and noteriety, not their expertise.  And he has shown that he has the ability to effectively hire expertise wherever he is lacking, which is probably everywhere.  This is an admirable quality in a president, and one that Obama has not done well in.  In the long run, I don't believe that any human president could do much to alter the curreny trajectory of the state, but it'd be interesting to watch what he could do.  I'd sooner vote for Ron Paul, but I doubt that I will ever get that chance before it doesn't even matter.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

Andrew Cain:

'Like Woodrow Wilson being the father of progressivism and getting us involved in a war we should have avoided and starting social programs we likewise should have avoided?  But, then again, Beck still worshipped Lincoln.  Yeah, he was imperfect.  What are you, The Terminator?  As for retarded, most people would call his demeanor 'precious'.'
 

And this right here is why I have an immense dislike of Glenn Beck. He doesn't do actual historical research yet blabs about history often times making false statements and giving idealist carictures of history. Woodrow Wilson was not the father of Progressivism. Progressivism started with the Populist Party in the 1890's, perhaps even in 1885 with Josiah Strong's work Our Country. Beck, like other political pundits, has no business involving himself in the study of history since he is not trained to engage in such things. You see this so often in the history profession. Inept research, unverified presentation of "facts," plagarism, forgeries held up as originals and it is almost always from amateur "historians." Individuals who engage in history as a hobby and not as a profession. Sometimes I just want to go to the political history section of Barnes and Nobles and shred all of those idiotic books by pundits. "Democrats strangle kittens: The history of how Liberals are screwing over the kitten community and destroying our way of life"

 

 

Alright, I've let this false meme carry on too long.  Glenn Beck has not called Woodrow Wilson the father of progressivism.  He has called WW the worst president ever, an evil SOB, and a racist.  I believe that GB has called Teddy the "father of American progressivism" but also has traced the roots of the American progressive movement as far back as Andrew Jackson and back to the Fabian Society of Britain.  I do not always check his facts, but I have checked them before, and never found him at fault.  I have disagreed with his analysis, but generally speaking, he seems about as accurate as any other pundit and probably moreso.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 7:41 PM

"I am not "blaming the Jews", xahrx, but I would blame Beck for inviting the wrong sort of polemics." - Prateek Sanjay

Trust me, I know.  I was kidding.  Admittedly my sense of humor is lost on most people.

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 173
Points 3,810
Brutus replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 10:23 PM

@MoonShadow

I would worry that by running as an independent he would split the vote and have Obama the Destroyer (as Savage calls him) in for another tour of wrecking us.

I know first hand how powerful a following Beck has; I went to the first 912 March on Washington, and trust me, when you see a crowd going from the Capitol building all the way back to the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, so long that you can't see it end and so wide that it shut down the D.C. roadway system, then compare the pics to Obama's innaugeration of 1 million people, you know we had well over 1 million, possible even 2 million some estimated. Yet the next day we read how "tens of thousands protested big government." Yeah, the fu@king liberal media and their bias, they couldn't stand seeing a huge crowd, possibly the biggest ever in D.C., organizing to oppose growing tyranny.

I have to say, that was probably the most beautiful thing I've ever witnessed and been a part of. Really, the site of Gadsden flags in conjunction with some American flags from modernity and the original 13 states was nothing short of beautiful. Beck wasn't even there, yet his word started it all. At least for that I will always admire him. Too bad the movement isn't helping with these assh0les in the House after the Tea Partiers voted them in.

I have to say, though, that day showed me that there are millions others like me. Sure, there were mixtures of all kinds of people; hell, one guy on our bus dressed up like Patrick Henry, who was vehemently opposed to the U.S. Constitution, lol. I'd say the prevailing theme there was the support of the 10th Amendment (states' rights).

Still, though, I hope he doesn't run as an independent and split the vote. He talks too much about a third party, and it worries me. Name me one independent candidate that has won in the last 50-100 years in a super important election and compare it to the amount of failures. It sucks, I know, but the reality is the political machine exists, and if you aren't part of it, you'll likely not get enough votes to take the victory and you will simply help out your opponent.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

John Ess:
When the show goes out of circulation, it is forgotten by all but those who can salvage it through youtube (and search for it on youtube).

I really hope you're kidding.  You make it sound like YouTube is some kind of doldrums in the deep recesses of the Internetz that you can only find with magnifying glass and and compass.  First of all I shouldn't have to tell you the popularity of a site like YouTube and how many viewers it gets every day.  But go to that site and do a search for "Milton Friedman".  You'll get no less than 5000 hits of clips and full programs of the man spreading brilliance and devouring anyone who dares debate him.  The vast majority of those clips are over 30 years old...and have more than 100,000 views each.  The "what is greed" clip from the Donahue show in 1980 has over 1.22 million views alone.

Quite the contrary to the way you make it sound, YouTube is giving new life to these things and is bringing these lectures and interviews to more people than ever before.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230
MoonShadow replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 12:38 AM

Brutus:

Still, though, I hope he doesn't run as an independent and split the vote. He talks too much about a third party, and it worries me. Name me one independent candidate that has won in the last 50-100 years in a super important election and compare it to the amount of failures. It sucks, I know, but the reality is the political machine exists, and if you aren't part of it, you'll likely not get enough votes to take the victory and you will simply help out your opponent.

Well, Brutus; you certainly have good reasons for holding such a position.  Personally, I'm past the point in life where I can honestly expect anything of significance to change in the politcial realm within the remainder of my lifespan.  So I don't think it really matters that much if GB runs or does not, or splits the vote or does not.  Sure, it matters to whoever gets into office; but they don't matter to me.  Case in point; Ron Paul has been saying the same stuff for so long that you can literally splice his speeches together across a 30 year span and listeners might have trouble determining which quote is recent.  And yet, he is still irrelevant.  It's certainly good that Ron Paul and his son are there in congress to say these things, but they are alone.  Mr Smith goes to Washington is not reality.  The lone voice crying in the wilderness always sounds frustrated because he has been crying like that for decades and nothing changes.  Ron Paul seems like the one person in Washington who is not affected by it, and when Rand was campaigning, I personally asked him the question, "Do you really believe that you can affect Washington more than it will affect you?" (that's the redacted version)  His response was slow in coming, but amounted to "I don't know, but I feel that I must try".   GB probably feels the same way.  Basicly that it's only proper to exhaust all peaceful avenues before resorting to the last.  I admire that, but I don't believe that it will work.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

I thought that was Ricky James.

RJM II is Liberte/Vichy Army.  He has said exactly the same things that Vichy Army said word for word.  The only female here is ladyphoenix.  Nobody pretends to be a married, mild-mannered woman on the internet.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 430
Points 8,145

RJM II is Liberte/Vichy Army.  He has said exactly the same things that Vichy Army said word for word.  The only female here is ladyphoenix.  Nobody pretends to be a married, mild-mannered woman on the internet.

So challenge him/her to a Skype duel. I'd love to listen in if you do so :P

“Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Why?  I'm just pointing out the facts for the record.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 430
Points 8,145

Facts? It's incredibly difficult to say that one person is, in fact, another. There needs to be more sufficient evidence than 'writing style' or 'point of view'.

I suppose the mods could check based on IP address, but that's for them to know and not us. Besides, anyone can use a proxy.

“Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 8:16 PM

"I hope you're kidding" - John James.

 

I'm not disagreeing what you said.  I said that what is on TV will ultimately go down the memory hole, unless someone throws it on youtube.  In addition, someone must search for it as well.

But on the other hand, people overestimate the 'internet being forever', too.  Because it is 'forever' for all things, it also has to compete with a deluge of info.  People don't keep all info in their memories forever.   Milton Friedman may be as important as Fred.  Mostly people are chopping up 3 minute clips from Beck's show that show something conservative in some overly convoluted/paranoid manner... or something edited by liberals to prove that he is dumb.  Mostly the latter.

So it is not long-term, or maybe even short-term, 'victory' if some person is on TV espousing something.  Someone may spend 20 years trying to get on CNN for 2 minutes to speak some truth.  It won't change the fact that someone who easily got in the door will say the usual nonsense and people's minds will go back to their old beliefs.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

RJM II is Liberte/Vichy Army.  He has said exactly the same things that Vichy Army said word for word.  The only female here is ladyphoenix.  Nobody pretends to be a married, mild-mannered woman on the internet.

I find one common perspective between the two:

Yes, they are. The University of Beijing is far less politically correct than American Universities, and there are more pro-marketeers than in any American school except for maybe Hillsdale or GMU. And the latter are nowhere near as prestigious or important, relatively speaking, as Beijing U. The former Dean of the Beijing Business School was an Austrian economist who harshly criticized the Chinese central bank. How many Harvard Professors are going to do that?

Outside of pro-Chinese chauvinism, I don't see much. Do remember that L / VA was an East Asian woman, while RJM II says, "These people are better than us." Why would an East Asian woman lump herself in with European Americans and say East Asians are better than her?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"Alright, I've let this false meme carry on too long.  Glenn Beck has not called Woodrow Wilson the father of progressivism.  He has called WW the worst president ever, an evil SOB, and a racist.  I believe that GB has called Teddy the "father of American progressivism"

Well if he really believed that then why is he always going after Wilson? Why not talk about how Roosevelt was so ingrained with imperialism that he wanted to have war for the sake of war? Or Albert Beveridge's constant push toward the China market through the conquering and colonizing of the Phillipines?

"but also has traced the roots of the American progressive movement as far back as Andrew Jackson and back to the Fabian Society of Britain"

If you have the quote or article in which Glenn Beck thinks Andrew Jackson is a progressive I would like to see it. And "back" to the Fadian Society? The Fabians were just coming around the same time as the Populist Party in America.

'I have disagreed with his analysis, but generally speaking, he seems about as accurate as any other pundit and probably moreso.'

Because these pundits are never accurate. They aren't historians. They are amateurs.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 146
Points 2,230

Andrew Cain:

"Alright, I've let this false meme carry on too long.  Glenn Beck has not called Woodrow Wilson the father of progressivism.  He has called WW the worst president ever, an evil SOB, and a racist.  I believe that GB has called Teddy the "father of American progressivism"

Well if he really believed that then why is he always going after Wilson?

Because he doesn't like him.

 "but also has traced the roots of the American progressive movement as far back as Andrew Jackson and back to the Fabian Society of Britain"

If you have the quote or article in which Glenn Beck thinks Andrew Jackson is a progressive I would like to see it. And "back" to the Fadian Society? The Fabians were just coming around the same time as the Populist Party in America.

I might be confusing GB with regard to Andrew Jackson, I can't remember.  But GB's opinions on the Fabian Society was deep, it took him weeks just to lay it all out.  And no, the Fabian Society is older than even it's own official history implies.

'I have disagreed with his analysis, but generally speaking, he seems about as accurate as any other pundit and probably moreso.'

Because these pundits are never accurate. They aren't historians. They are amateurs.

Everything is relative.  A professional family doctor from 1950 couldn't even pass the requirements to be a nurse practitioner today.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

"Because he doesn't like him."

Because....?

"I might be confusing GB with regard to Andrew Jackson, I can't remember.  But GB's opinions on the Fabian Society was deep, it took him weeks just to lay it all out.  And no, the Fabian Society is older than even it's own official history implies."
 

Then by all means, enlighten me as to the time period in which the Fabian society started.

"Everything is relative.  A professional family doctor from 1950 couldn't even pass the requirements to be a nurse practitioner today."

How is this at all an argument against what I said about pundits and their accuracy in history?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (75 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS