Glenn Beck Distorted Barack Obama's Views On The U.S. Constitution In Video

[cpwill]

If Rosa Parks were still here I am sure she would disagree with you.

given that Rosa parks was protesting government action, i think perhaps she might.

...Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say — and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit — and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about. It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process...

 

[LiberalAvenger]

given that Rosa parks was protesting government action, i think perhaps she might.

...Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say — and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit — and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about. It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process...

I know this cracker who showed me an antique letter written by a freed slave who wanted to become a slave again because it was an easier life style for him. Your reasoning reminds me of that cracker.

 

[cpwill]

as i said, education is a dangerous thing.

 

[Rightwingnutjob]

I know this cracker who showed me an antique letter written by a freed slave who wanted to become a slave again because it was an easier life style for him. Your reasoning reminds me of that cracker.

Please grow up.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I know this cracker who showed me an antique letter written by a freed slave who wanted to become a slave again because it was an easier life style for him. Your reasoning reminds me of that cracker.

How come it's OK to use an old, outdated racist term like cracker, but an old, outdated racist term like nigger is prohibited?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

How come it's OK to use an old, outdated racist term like cracker, but an old, outdated racist term like nigger is prohibited?

Mohamad Ali once gave an explanation for that. He said that if you were black it was okay for you to use the word "nigger". I think the same thing apples to honkies like me. Another example is someone who bad mouths a Jew who is not a Jew. Mel Brooks used to make fun of Jews all the time. Look at some of the black comedians on the comedy channel they use "nigger all the time. Richard Pryor made a career out of its use. Same goes for different ethnic groups.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are perfect documents to only those that will welcome the failures of personal responsibility. There are plenty of countries in the world to choose from and you are free to leave anytime you want.

So you were totally fine with blacks being 3/5th human? And only landowners having rights? Those things are cool to you?

The documents are masterworks of freedom, but like all documents, they remain imperfect. What makes them great is that they can be amended to continually be made better (or worse - in the case of prohibition, which was later fixed). But to claim that they're perfect is nothing but blind nationalism. And the "love it or leave it" argument should be used against all those people who claim that they're taxes are higher (the vast majority of Americans are paying less now than they did even two years ago) and that they're guns are being taken away (gun rights have been expanded over the past year and a half).

 

[Rightwingnutjob]

Mohamad Ali once gave an explanation for that. He said that if you were black it was okay for you to use the word "nigger". I think the same thing apples to honkies like me. Another example is someone who bad mouths a Jew who is not a Jew. Mel Brooks used to make fun of Jews all the time. Look at some of the black comedians on the comedy channel they use "nigger all the time. Richard Pryor made a career out of its use. Same goes for different ethnic groups.

If Mohamad Ali told you it was okay to hit a woman would you do it?

Congratulations on sinking to the same low level as most of the fools you listed. Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed as the words, "cracker" and "nigger", are meant to be offensive and insulting. Just because you are white or black does not give you a license to use them. Whether you say the word "cracker" or a black man does it is equally offensive.

 

[cpwill]

So you were totally fine with blacks being 3/5th human? And only landowners having rights? Those things are cool to you?

um. the original Constitution contained neither of those things. I agree the documents weren't perfect, and the Amendment process is needed. it just needs to be used.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

If Mohamad Ali told you it was okay to hit a woman would you do it?

Congratulations on sinking to the same low level as most of the fools you listed. Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed as the words, "cracker" and "nigger", are meant to be offensive and insulting. Just because you are white or black does not give you a license to use them. Whether you say the word "cracker" or a black man does it is equally offensive.

So, you are inferring that I am a fool?. Don't tell me that I can not exercise my rights to free speecheither

 

[O_Guru]

Not that things like this shouldnt be pointed out no matter who and what side does it but sorry I just find no shock value in Glen Beck "Distorting"something or lying etc. Its common place for him and many in his line of work. WHile its funny when they get exposed its hardly shocking anymore. There are the people that KNOW he does it and then there are the people that will never believe the truth of him doing this no matter how true it is, oh well:shrug:

 

[FilmFestGuy]

um. the original Constitution contained neither of those things. I agree the documents weren't perfect, and the Amendment process is needed. it just needs to be used.

And you're not the one who said the documents are perfect; so I'm okay with your opinion. The great thing (as I went on to say) is that we CAN amend it.

I was posting it to the person who said both documents are perfect and if you don't like them, you should leave. THAT is an asinine opinion.

 

[cpwill]

So, you are inferring that I am a fool?. Don't tell me that I can not exercise my rights to free speecheither

one does not have to give up one's right's in order to abuse them.

 

[Barbbtx]

So you were totally fine with blacks being 3/5th human? And only landowners having rights? Those things are cool to you?

The documents are masterworks of freedom, but like all documents, they remain imperfect. What makes them great is that they can be amended to continually be made better (or worse - in the case of prohibition, which was later fixed). But to claim that they're perfect is nothing but blind nationalism. And the "love it or leave it" argument should be used against all those people who claim that they're taxes are higher (the vast majority of Americans are paying less now than they did even two years ago) and that they're guns are being taken away (gun rights have been expanded over the past year and a half).

3/5 pertained to 3/5 of the number of slaves being counted. Not each slave was 3/5 of a human being. Those in favor of slavery wanted all slaves to be counted, since slaves couldn't vote, the slaveowners would have more representation in the electoral college. Those against slavery, did not want them counted at all, because they wanted slavery to end. I guess they reached an agreement at 3/5's.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

one does not have to give up one's right's in order to abuse them.

There are no free speech rights on a forum.

 

[cpwill]

true as well.

 

[Rightwingnutjob]

So, you are inferring that I am a fool?. Don't tell me that I can not exercise my rights to free speecheither

I'm a 100% for your and anyone else's right to act like a fool (not inferring), however, it doesn't mean that it is morally right to use such derogatory words.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'm a 100% for your and anyone else's right to act like a fool (not inferring), however, it doesn't mean that it is morally right to use such derogatory words.

Well then, write your congressman. Don't bitch to me about it.

 

[Zyphlin]

Any chance you could boil this down to a stated point? It's clear that you feel that Beck's videa is despicable; what you didn't mention is the specifics with regard to WHY you feel Becks video is despicable.

Beck's video doesn't change the context of the point Home-slice was making. He's a Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it. That's a simple fact... which isn't going to be Altered, by the anxious devotes of the Alternet...

You people are seriously trying to tell me these two things are exactly the same contextually?

The original constitution, I think is an imperfect document, and I think it’s a document that reflects some deep flaws in American Culture – the colonial culture nascent at the time. I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture and that the framers had the same blind spot. It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Well, you know, I think it's a remarkable document. I think the original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time.

African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And, in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

So with the edit let’s see what we have that changes in context. First, you lose the fact that he claims it’s a “remarkable document”. We must remove that, it’s a positive thing towards the declaration, can’t let people see him saying that. Have to cut out his explanation of what he means regarding what the flaws were exactly, pointing to the fact that African American’s were still considered less than a person . He couldn’t show that, there’s people that may’ve thought his point was far more understandable in what he meant if he showed that! And then it cuts out again him calling it remarkable and that it’s the foundation for where we are today despite it having flaws.

Yes, clearly those are exactly the same context and wasn’t dishonest at all for Beck to attempt to cut words, some of which are in the MIDDLE OF A FREAKING SENTENCE, and play them as if they’re one continuous statement without alerting his audience that it’s a clipped line. :roll:

 

[dontworrybehappy]

The problem is, Obama did say those things, in his own words. He said it was flawed. I think it was chopped up a little too much, but I agree that it still doesn't change the gist of his statement. If I say that I think a Toyota is a remarkable car but that it is deeply flawed, if anything, I'm contradicting myself anyway so either I'm full of a **** or I think Toyotas are deeply flawed. If you chop up my statement it doesn't change what I said.

Beck is pressed for time on his show. He can't sit there and let you wait 10 minutes to let Bobo babble on. He cuts it to make a point. He's a nutcase anyway, why worry what he says? He's a talk show guy. I know I don't take him seriously, but he does make good points.

 

[TennesseeRain]

The problem is, Obama did say those things, in his own words. He said it was flawed. I think it was chopped up a little too much, but I agree that it still doesn't change the gist of his statement. If I say that I think a Toyota is a remarkable car but that it is deeply flawed, if anything, I'm contradicting myself anyway so either I'm full of a **** or I think Toyotas are deeply flawed. If you chop up my statement it doesn't change what I said.

Beck is pressed for time on his show. He can't sit there and let you wait 10 minutes to let Bobo babble on. He cuts it to make a point. He's a nutcase anyway, why worry what he says? He's a talk show guy. I know I don't take him seriously, but he does make good points.

So, you weren't contradicting yourself in that last sentence?

 

[Rightwingnutjob]

Well then, write your congressman. Don't bitch to me about it.

What's to right about. I support your right to speak in a misguided and derogatory manner. I don't condone it. I really don't understnad your statement.

 

[Zyphlin]

The problem is, Obama did say those things, in his own words. He said it was flawed. I think it was chopped up a little too much, but I agree that it still doesn't change the gist of his statement. If I say that I think a Toyota is a remarkable car but that it is deeply flawed, if anything, I'm contradicting myself anyway so either I'm full of a **** or I think Toyotas are deeply flawed. If you chop up my statement it doesn't change what I said.

Well yes, that wouldn't make sense in the extremely narrow comment you just made. However, lets look at a more realistic analogy:

"The Toyota Prius is a remarkable car, but I think its an imperfect car at this point and reflects some of the issues with automotive culture based on the previous generation of automobiles. It still runs on gasoline, which even with its wonderful advances in technologies and attempts to be green and forward thinking, still adds to the population and the countries reliance on fossil fuels.

And in that sense, I think we can say that the Prius refelects an enormous blind spot in the automotive culture that we've seen spread to other companies as they focus on hybrids. The focus isn't on removing gasoline from the equation and to find a new cleaner source, but to simply use less of it. While this lowers our dependence, it doesn't remove it. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that the Prius was a remarkable car that paved the way for greener, more environmentally friendly gasoline powered automobiles and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw in the auto industry in their reliance upon gasoline."

If you cropped that down to

"The Toyota Prius, I think its an imperfect car and reflects the issues with automotive culture. It still runs on gasoline, which still adds to the population and the countries reliance on fossil fuels.

And in that sense, I think we can say that the Prius refelects an enormous blind spot in the automotive culture that we've seen spread to other companies as they focus on hybrids. The focus isn't on removing gasoline from the equation and to find a new cleaner source, but to simply use less of it. While this lowers our dependence, it doesn't remove it. it reflected the fundamental flaw in the auto industry in their reliance upon gasoline."

In one case, if the comments are taken in full, you can see clearly that the person is praising the Prius for what its done and what it represents while still saying its far from perfect because it incorporates some historical negatives within it. In the other its just badmouthing the Prius.

Likewise, in Obama's full text he's calling the constitution something that is not "perfect" but is still remarkable and a good thing, but is pointing out that even it contained things that were flawed and problematic. That is far different then just showing him saying essentially the constitution sucks.

Beck is pressed for time on his show. He can't sit there and let you wait 10 minutes to let Bobo babble on.

Absolute bull**** and it shows your dishonesty and bias in this right there. The entire thing would've taken a minute or two longer, hardly anything. Indeed, had he shown the full thing the issue wouldn't have been time, it would've been that it wouldn't have allowed him to make the same rant he made. THAT'S why it was cut, not time.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

How can you say it's bull**** when you don't:

1. Work for FNC
2. Have your own TV program
3. Have any idea how to fit a TV program around commercials

He only has about 45 minutes to do his show. I already said, had you been paying attention, that he chopped it up a little too much, but I can understand why he did it if he did do it for the reason I stated. Since you can't PROVE otherwise, I rest my case.

Being as how I don't watch him with any hint of regularity (I've seen one episode in 2010) I have to take my talking points from the liberals on this board. I don't like the fact that he chopped up the quote but it's still Bobo's words. If he doesn't want people to use this stuff, maybe he should learn to keep his trap shut. :roll:

There is plenty enough wrong with that dog **** in the white house to not have to edit his quotes, I will say that.

 

[soccerboy22]

How can you say it's bull**** when you don't:

1. Work for FNC
2. Have your own TV program
3. Have any idea how to fit a TV program around commercials

He only has about 45 minutes to do his show. I already said, had you been paying attention, that he chopped it up a little too much, but I can understand why he did it if he did do it for the reason I stated. Since you can't PROVE otherwise, I rest my case.

Being as how I don't watch him with any hint of regularity (I've seen one episode in 2010) I have to take my talking points from the liberals on this board. I don't like the fact that he chopped up the quote but it's still Bobo's words. If he doesn't want people to use this stuff, maybe he should learn to keep his trap shut. :roll:

There is plenty enough wrong with that dog **** in the white house to not have to edit his quotes, I will say that.

I agree with Zyphlin that it is bull. Beck could have easily not had as much music and intro going on and still added the extra minute or two to President Obama's clip.