Restoring Honor - 8/28/10

[shagdrum]

I think out of the box and occasionally draw novel perhaps provocative comparisons that cut through the bluster.

In other words, your goal is to agitate; like a troll.

Intentional agitation in lieu of confronting the arguments on their merits is another rhetorical tactic that most people left in High School, if not their early twenties.

 

[foxpaws]

double post

 

[foxpaws]

No, Pelosi walked through the crowd with a gavel and locking arms with Lewis on their way into the Capitol building. This was designed to provoke a reaction from a very large, and very upset crowd, while on camera.

The LIE about Clybern being spit on took place as he was entering the building as well. Video does exist of that and I posted it.

The incidents involving spitting and racial slurs occurred earlier in the day - at about 1:00 - the photo you show Cal with the speaker, Lewis, et al, along with the video you posted is around 3:00 that day- they are at two different times

And despite all the hand held cameras and agitators, no video exists of anyone threatening Lewis with the racial slur. Despite all of those cameras running that day, and despite a $100,000 offer by Andrew Breitbart.

But, if you really thought this was a dangerous crowd of racists, why would you jeopardize your safety and burden your security details by walking through it? Congress people don't usually walk back and forth between the buildings, certainly not through the middle of agitated and passionate crowds.

As I said the first incident was before they realized that they would need security to protect them from the crowd - congress people move all the time between their office and the capitol without security, heck, if you know when they are going to be out and about it is a great time to approach them, say hi, tell them where you live in their district, and mention a cause or two ... If you notice in the photo with Pelosi, Lewis and all - there is security present then, after the fact.

And I am not surprised there is no footage of Lewis other than with him walking with Pelosi - nothing with him earlier in the day, when the racial slur was said to occur - obviously the right is oblivious to his place in history...

No it's not. It's an unsupported claim by a politician and opportunist.

It's funny you have to ask.... That was supposedly where the "incident" took place. Clearly, it did not.

Is that hearsay too?

it is all 'he said, she said' and there isn't going to be any change in that. I will say that the police did take someone into custody - something they don't do easily, and without at least some supporting evidence. And everything else you say there - about why the 'march' happened is sheer speculation on your part Cal.

You're on the attack here.
Is this the new tactic to eliminate Beck. Thanks for sharing it with us before the rest of the drones pick it up.

Yep - I am. I find Beck to be no better than a shock jock, rodeo clown, turned flag waving, teary eyed hypocrite. And I am never, ever afraid to attack him.

Too bad he makes it so easy.

No, but I recognize your effort to mislead.
The association and embrace of Mao philosophy doesn't end with the one convenient quote. You don't judge a person by their use of a single quote, NO ONE would suggest that the case. But if their use of quotes is consistent with the rest of their actions, it does reinforce the case.

Is your argument here that Dunn, or any of the other associated czars and advisers, are being misrepresented by Beck? Let's be specific?

Lets be specific - let's deal with Dunn, since that is what you brought up. Beck used one quote to tie her with Mao... What else did he use - nothing.... Where else in his attack does he use anything other than that one quote?

Do you think that Dunn does NOT have respect for Mao's governing and economic policies? I'm sure she isn't supportive of his mass starvation, but the social and economic principles?

I haven't seen anything on Dunn that lead me to believe that she would respect Mao's policies. His governing policies do support killing probably 50 to 70 million people, his economic policies are the exact policies that starved millions of people - so how can she support his governing and economic policies without being supportive of mass starvation and killing millions of people. The results go hand in hand with the policies Cal. And if you review Beck's words he did tie in the fact that she must approve of Mao's killing of millions of people, with the usage of the quote. You use the quote, you embrace all of the ideals. He does this over and over again.

I am just doing exactly the same thing back, with regards to MLK.

So, take Beck out of this. She's not Catholic.
But does she embrace Mao?
And more importantly, isn't it alarming when SO MANY members of one administration are identified and exposed as being so radically left by their own words?

Beck is at the heart of this - he tied her usage of a Mao quote to the fact then that she must embrace all of Mao. By the same application of "Beckism logic" since she used a Mother Teresa quote, she must be Catholic.

His logic is flawed.

Your words deceive you foxpaws. You are too well informed to not know what's really going on here. If I have the time or motivation today, I might go dig up some old public posts of yours (if I can tolerate the awful "search" feature here) that, with the benefit of hindsight, really betray you.

That I am liberal - very. That I support some progressive ideas, yep. Please do - hoist me on my own petard...

While I will gladly hoist you on supporting a fear mongering, hypocritical, ignorant idiot - Glenn Beck.

Again, this isn't about MLK.
While Beck will be the first to recognize that he doesn't agree with the government POLICIES that MLK may have embraced at the END of his life, and I'm sure Beck wouldn't endorse his behavior at times either, but he respects the man and the fundamental principles for which he's identified.

And while people should be able to disagree with policy, we still can agree on principles and values. Freedom of speech. Civil Rights. Equal Rights. Equal Justice. Non-violent Resistance. Faith in God and the goodness of the American people.

Unfortunately, propagandists and opportunistic racial antagonist like you insist on using identity politics to expand your political power. Rather than embracing the commonality and unity here, you insist on driving a wedge between people, for purposes of political power and manipulation.

Really Cal - using identity politics to what? Ah isn't that exactly what Beck did when he went after Dunn (tying her illogically to Mao's policies)... He is the one driving a wedge between people, and he isn't doing it for political power (unless, god forbid, he actually runs for office). He is doing it 20 hours a week, on TV, on Radio, for the almighty dollar - for ratings - for personal gain and ego...

But to address your recent charge, he actually HAS done this.
Sign the Pledge of Non-Violence.

Or you can see it discussed right here:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39574/

See - I can use the search feature - that is how I found it, and told you about it cal - I was trying to find anything that would tie Beck's Restore rally and MLK - I couldn't - but I did find that he is co-opting MLKs Pledge... Of course he forgets to mention that his 'going to cost millions of dollars' rally is going to be on one of the most important days of MLKs career, but he sure is quick to grab onto one of MLKs famous documents. Once again - he is using 'part' of MLK - so I think we should assume, by Beck logic, that he embraces the whole of MLK.

That's not important, isn't an event about MLK. The fact that the two share the date is a convenient and interesting historic coincidence.

But, since I've already taken your bait on the issues of MLK, I might as well respond. I can't presume to know where MLK would be in his life right now. As I stated earlier, he started out as a Republican he was being swayed by the socialist left as the decade persisted. But it's of no importance.

He certainly COULD feel comfortable at that event. Because he'd be at an event where he wouldn't be judged because of his color. Unlike the culture of the left where racial identity and identity politics define and separate us, the people attending the 8-28 Restoring Honor will be united by shared values and principles.

Of course it isn't an event about MLK - just because it is happening on the anniversary of what has been widely acclaimed as one of the three most important speeches in the history of America, it shouldn't even mention the man... And then to have the audacity to have it at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the exact location of MLK's speech....

How about Jefferson's Memorial - how about at the base of the Washington Memorial... At the steps of the capital...

And I think MLK would be very disappointed at the crowd - once again a crowd that reflects his ideals basically on the surface - just the whipped cream, they certainly wouldn't be supporting him once he started talking about his beliefs.

Are you sure that crowd would cheer him when he mentions that he believes affirmative action is just and right? Are you sure that crowd would be saying 'amens' as King expounded on pro-government health care policies? Are you sure that crowd could be counted on supporting his impassioned pleas as he called for government guaranteed jobs? Are you am sure they would be all over how wonderful it would be if we would follow his ideal of a socialist take over of resources, and equal distribution of them?

Oh, yes Cal - the man would be comfortable. Especially after all the booing...

He wasn't just about the color of your skin. He was also about social justice. How the government needs to help create equality. He knew he needed legislation to create his dream of equal rights. He also knew he needed legislation to create his dream of social justice.

If that were infact true, I'm sure you'd be thrilled.
Of course, you have little respect for the constitution or the first amendment.

Of course the 30% viewership story you're mentioning was false. Infact, the week it was reported, originally ON MEDIAMATTERS, Beck had the HIGHEST rating television show on Cable TV that week.

Oh, Cal - your source is Mediaite - not Media Matters - just to get that straight...

His viewership is off 30% - that doesn't have anything to do with ratings - hopefully you will someday understand that Cal.

His viewership is at about 2,039,000 viewers (may 13) down from 2,969,000 viewers on 2/10/10

But I wouldn't expect the truth or context to interefere with your lies, foxpaws.

And I wouldn't expect a real knowledge of media viewership to get in the way with how you state things Cal - his numbers are falling - by 1/3...

The numbers don't lie. However you seem to, or at least are so unfamiliar with the subject perhaps you should stand back and let the experts handle this Cal... I never talked ratings, share, or anything but raw numbers - Beck has lost almost 1/3 of his audience....

And yes, everyone is down a little right now in that time slot - but Matthews and Situation Room have lost about 10% and 15% respectfully - so, if you want, most importantly - Beck's share is being eaten away as well.

And something even more odd - O'Reilly - down about 25% - Olbermann maybe 1%... huge share gain there.

So, rather than address this issue honestly, you basically lie about it.
You know full well what is going on regarding this issue. It's even addressed on the front page of this forum.

I don't lie about it, I am being extremely truthful - I don't have much of any type of background with environmental issues - except a little with the automotive industry Cal. I am sorry - once again, I am not the person that needs to have a discussion about that - I would be as lost as Petesweet, although to be truthful - I think Petesweet might know more about climate/environmental issues than I do.... I wouldn't be comfortable discussing that.

However, back to something I do know a little bit about....

Don't give money to the rally, UNLESS you support the rally.
That's a fairly obvious statement and one that's made abundantly clear. The point is that any money raised BEYOND the cost of the event is going to go the SOWF fund.

Don't give any money to the rally. The people who run the rally can work on corporate sponsorships, and add in their own funds. They should not be asking everyday people to support it. If you want to give money-give it to the charity directly - do not give any money to a rally that is merely a PR event for Beck and his ilk to commercialize their stands. Don't buy a t-shirt, don't buy a door mat, don't buy a hat, don't buy a bumper sticker.

One day that a man will be judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character.

Not that power hungry politicians would seize power and impose a totalitarian government upon us, stealing our liberty, and discarding the Constitution, while people like you actively worked in support of it, by lying and engaging in efforts to silence dissent.

I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few.​

If the personal attacks on him, and the growing awakening resistance, continue to fail, how much longer before the feds find legal ways to shut him up, or it down?

It's interesting how, despite the fact the man spend 20 hours a week speaking, foxpaws, you don't respond to anything he says. You don't challenge the facts he presents of the conclusions he's drawn. In fact, you avoid those threads. Instead, you periodically pop up with threads are are deliberately designed to divide people. You're last effort was to isolate him from religious people. This thread is basically to paint him as some kind of insensitive racist.

I certainly did - with the Dunn issue - I specifically attacked what he 'said'. Along with the social justice issue - I specifically attacked what he 'said'.

And here I am more than happy to point out to people the disgust that many feel regarding his rally on the same day as "I have a dream". I think this rally should be labeled "I have a nightmare". That nightmare is that people actually believe the garbage that Beck spews day in and day out. That people will actually give this man money to support causes that have nothing to do with the restoring of America and have everything to feed the ego that is 'Beck'.

You also threw in the cliche, "he's only doing it for money" dig too.

It must be frustrating for you, the public is becoming aware of the little playbook of personal attacks and smear techniques you guys use.

You're sudden passion for Beck is really very telling.
I guess he's getting harder for you and your statist ilk to dismiss

Cal - I never said he was doing it for the money, want to retract that little statement? He doesn't need the money - he is trying to find a way for people to fund his rally so he doesn't have to. He is preying on people. He doesn't need to have people fund this rally, he has the funds to do it himself-so why doesn't he put his money where his convictions lie Cal?

And once again - I am very happy going after him every chance I get. In some ways it is quite humorous watching the wagons circle each time I do.

Again, let me quote The "regulator czar" or more accurately the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a no less ominous title.
He's the man who wrote that government agents, "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

Yep, I have infiltrated LvC... Cal, do you realize how stupid that sounds - 10 people read this... maybe... on a good day.

Or are you comparing Beck to a percolating conspiracy theory? I love it - I must use that somewhere. However I am trying to raise doubts about his lack of factual premise and his logic which can't even rise to 'casual', you got me there...

 

[04SCTLS]

In other words, your goal is to agitate; like a troll.

Intentional agitation in lieu of confronting the arguments on their merits is another rhetorical tactic that most people left in High School, if not their early twenties.

My "agitation" as you call it is only bringing to light past successes in co opting a group's celebrations and making it your own.

Just because you can't or don't want to see the comparison does not mean it doesn't exist.

You're too caught up in excitement of the details to step back and see a bigger picture.

 

[foxpaws]

The intention for the event was to be held at the end of the summer, purpose being so that families would be able to attend while their children were still on summer vacation.
And it has to be on a Saturday.

The reality is that it's a historically coincidence that the last Saturday of August in 2010 happens to fall on the 27th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" Speech.

Is the implication here that NOTHING should be allowed or tolerated to take place in D.C. on 8/28 forever unless it's specifically being organized to support marxist government policy? That's simply absurd. It's obvious, this is just foxpaws repeating the organized attack on Beck to delegitimize and demonize this noble rally.

Most kids start back to school before August 28th Cal - that doesn't seem to be a good reason...

And I think if Beck was really incorporating a real tie-in to why this date is so important in history - it would be nice. What is terrible is that he doesn't even acknowledge it...

I will once again gladly demonize this noble rally. A rally that for some reason needs to be paid for by everyday people. A rally that is so commercialized they have door mats for sale using the logo. A rally that will be so opposite to what King believed for and fought for it is sad.

So Cal, do you really think this rally will have anything to do with King's ideals other than the politically correct - 'not be judged by the color of your skin'? Remember, the man supported many, many causes beyond that. You are making him one dimensional - not me.

 

[shagdrum]

My "agitation" as you call it is only bringing to light past successes in co opting a group's celebrations and making it your own.

And drawing comparisons that have been demonstrated as false in this thread.

Just because you can't or don't want to see the comparison does not mean it doesn't exist.

More accurately, just because you want there to be a connection doesn't mean there is one.

You're too caught up in excitement of the details to step back and see a bigger picture.

Now you are projecting.

You are someone who intentionally avoids the big picture when it suits you (ignoring political theory for example) and intentionally avoids the details when it suits you.

 

[04SCTLS]

And drawing comparisons that have been demonstrated as false in this thread.



More accurately, just because you want there to be a connection doesn't mean there is one.



Now you are projecting.

You are someone who intentionally avoids the big picture when it suits you (ignoring political theory for example) and intentionally avoids the details when it suits you.

A comparison is not a connection.
A connection would be if I said christians then and christians now but that is not what I said.
Perhaps you think that's what I inferred.
And a theory including political is something that has not been proven but only assumed to be true until proven otherwise in the real world.
To me it looks like Beck is trying to co opt MLK and upend a tradition despite the friendly overtures.
You see it differently.

 

[shagdrum]

A comparison is not a connection.

Doesn't negate the fact that you are drawing a demonstratively false comparison; intentionally ignoring inconvenient facts that give lie to that comparison.

Perhaps you think that's what I inferred.

If you are not attempting to infer something, then your only purpose is to agitate

And a theory including political is something that has not been proven but only assumed to be true until proven otherwise in the real world.

Not quite.

But it was nice attempt to rationalize dismissal of all political theory/philosophy.

To me it looks like Beck is trying to co opt MLK and upend a tradition despite the friendly overtures.

And you have demonstrated that you refuse to consider any other possibility. That is called bias; a lack of objectivity/intellectual dishonesty.

 

[04SCTLS]

And you have demonstrated that you refuse to consider any other possibility. That is called bias; a lack of objectivity/intellectual dishonesty.

So what is your opinion of Beck doing this on this date.
At some point theory gives way to actions.
Just a coincidence?
Is he trying to get in on the party by bringing his own?
A Tea Party MLK day?

Well if not quite then how?
Theories have some proven facts and some educated opinions.
When all facts are known it's called a proof.
What makes political theory any different?

I'm not dismissing everything nor do I refuse any other possibility but I have a certain cynicism about such a coincidence.
Maybe Beck felt no other date would work for this and who cares anyways, we'll make it work.
That's another possibility.

 

[shagdrum]

So what is your opinion of Beck doing this on this date.

No opinion. I haven't looked into it enough myself. However, I am familiar with Beck (as opposed to the false characature of him promoted by dishonest leftists like foxpaws) and therefore question the narrative coming from people who habitially lie and misrepresent Beck in continued attempts to demonize and marginalize him.

At some point theory gives way to actions.

??

That may sound good on a bumper sticker but it is to general and incoherent to be considered more then a platitude.

Theories have some proven facts and some educated opinions.
When all facts are known it's called a proof.
What makes political theory any different?

The dichotomy between theory and reality is only as cut and dry as you make it out to be in hard sciences. In soft sciences (including political science, economics, philosophy, etc.) that dichotomy is much more vague.

I'm not dismissing everything nor do I refuse any other possibility but I have a certain cynicism about such a coincidence.

Your cynicism is ill placed. Maybe if you were better informed you would know that.

 

[04SCTLS]

No opinion. I haven't looked into it enough myself. However, I am familiar with Beck (as opposed to the false characature of him promoted by dishonest leftists like foxpaws) and therefore question the narrative coming from people who habitially lie and misrepresent Beck in continued attempts to demonize and marginalize him.



??

That may sound good on a bumper sticker but it is to general and incoherent to be considered more then a platitude.



The dichotomy between theory and reality is only as cut and dry as you make it out to be in hard sciences. In soft sciences (including political science, economics, philosophy, etc.) that dichotomy is much more vague.



Your cynicism is ill placed. Maybe if you were better informed you would know that.

Beck is entertaining without being particularly funny.
He makes a lot of money with his alarmist shtick and his audience eats him up.
He's the right's Jon Stewart although he doesn't sell himself as a comedian or shield himself from criticism that way.

You can talk about political theory as a soft science but then doesn't that softness make it less a science than an art, the art of politics so to speak.

You yourself say it's vague and open to interpretation which is the opposite of exact and you love exactness in discourse and consider vagueness "dishonest"

Saying the right thing at the right time to get elected is the art of the deal then.

It's convenient of you to argue a point while professing to have no opinion of it.
If as you say you haven't looked into this enough to form an opinion but have one anyways based on your familiarity with Beck then it is you who are showing your bias

 

[shagdrum]

Beck is entertaining without being particularly funny.
He makes a lot of money with his alarmist shtick and his audience eats him up.
He's the right's Jon Stewart although he doesn't sell himself as a comedian or shield himself from criticism that way.

In other words, you have not actually developed your own views on Beck but simply bought into the false characature of him drawn by the left.

The more you talk the more you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in you are talking about.

You can talk about political theory as a soft science but then doesn't that softness make it less a science than an art, the art of politics so to speak.

That is an interesting discussion for another thread. For this thread, it is sufficient to say that political science attempts to apply the tools of analysis and examination from hard sciences to the realm of politics.

You yourself say it's vague and open to interpretation which is the opposite of exact and you love exactness in discourse and consider vagueness "dishonest"

It is vague in certain ways. In other ways, not so much. However, that greater margin of error is why there is a stronger need for exactness and correct terminology and understanding in those discussions.

That means not simply accepting the characature drawn of Beck by Stewart and the like but actually listening to Beck, understanding what he has to say and making your own interpretation; something you clearly haven't done.

It's convenient of you to argue a point while professing to have no opinion of it.

I am not arguing a point. I am simply calling out a flawed and exceedingly one sided "analysis".

If as you say you haven't looked into this enough to form an opinion but have one anyways based on your familiarity with Beck then it is you who are showing your bias

Not so much.

I can simply spot a flawed and biased "analysis" and am pointing that out.

 

[04SCTLS]

At some point theory gives way to actions.

At some point theory gives way to actions.

What I mean't here was that at some point you have to form an opinion about a particular event.
Becks motives may be pure as snow but some MLK supporters will resent him for what they see as walking in on and crashing the party so to speak.
I don't have to know Beck to deduce this.
I don't watch the pundits and blowhards on msnbc or fox prefering to read stuff online while watching the late shows on the dvr.

 

[shagdrum]

What I mean't here was that at some point you have to form an opinion about a particular event.

That is in no way suggested by your line. Unless you are absurdly suggesting that theory has no place in forming that opinion.

Considering the social processes involved, you could not, in any way, form a coherent, let alone reasonable opinion without theory.

Becks motives may be pure as snow but some MLK supporters will resent him for what they see as walking in on and crashing the party so to speak.

That is not at all what you were saying before.

I don't have to know Beck to deduce this.

For the conclusions you have drawn about Beck to be at all accurate you would HAVE to be familiar with Beck's work. However, it seems you are only familiar with the misrepresentation of that work common on the Daily Show.

I don't watch the pundits and blowhards on msnbc or fox prefering to read stuff online while watching the late shows on the dvr.

In other words, I was correct in assuming that you have no clue about Beck, yet can pass judgment on him and attribute ulterior motives to him.

Also, by the standard you just laid out, I would hardly call you informed.

 

[04SCTLS]

That is in no way suggested by your line. Unless you are absurdly suggesting that theory has no place in forming that opinion.

Considering the social processes involved, you could not, in any way, form a coherent, let alone reasonable opinion without theory.



That is not at all what you were saying before.



For the conclusions you have drawn about Beck to be at all accurate you would HAVE to be familiar with Beck's work. However, it seems you are only familiar with the misrepresentation of that work common on the Daily Show.



In other words, I was correct in assuming that you have no clue about Beck, yet can pass judgment on him and attribute ulterior motives to him.

Also, by the standard you just laid out, I would hardly call you informed.

You maybe more well informed than I but you hardly ever add an original thought to that of others opinions you present.

I have some clue about Beck (there you go again with the all or nothing argument- I either know everything or nothing) and see him as a creative partizan giving his audience what they want much like Stewart does with his.