• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History profs: Beck's documentary smearing progressives is a "complete lie"

Look again.

Here's another:

Wonk Room Congressional Budget Office Debunks Glenn Beck’s ‘Lies’: Clean Energy Economy Costs Only A Postage Stamp A Day

Just Google "glenn beck lies" if you want.

But really, Beck's inaccuracies aren't the worst part, it's just the wild, preposterous, goofy paranoid lunatic stuff he spews that makes him a wild, preposterous, goofy paranoid lunatic.
Yip, adding yet another example of rhetoric but not an instance where Beck "lied" with supporting evidence of his lie/error strike out. This is what happens when you don't actually "read" what you post. Now remember this is supposed to be Beck "lying" and yeah it reads like the rest of the hyperbole in this thread. Dead on arrival.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News
 
The Red Queen Herself, Hillary Clinton, called herself a "Progressive", linking herself with the famous dastardly other Progressives of the past.

So Progressivism clearly sucks, and no sane person should want it.
 
I was hoping to find wisdom in those reactions to my support of Glenn Beck, something I could use to teach my children debate skills based on logic, statistics, credible news stories, and history.

To my posting, misterman says,”Beck is a lunatic and a liar. Saying he's not doesn't change that. “ (hardly the stuff of wisdom). This was followed by nojingolingo who said, “Yeah you sure showed those democrats a thing or two, eh? It doesn't make you radical but it does show you're easily hoodwinked.” That’s it. I’ve been hoodwinked by facts and the truth.

I went back to the beginning to look for specific lies made by Glenn Beck. Most of the accusations are general, unfouinded, and without specifics. Some believe two university professors who said so. Just who is drinking the Cool Aid? Those who think Beck to be a liar are probably likely to believe Al Gore.

A lie is defined as: an untruth, known to be an untruth, and said to deceive.

Nobody but nobody has specifically identified anything said by Beck that meets the definition of a lie. The word “liar” is as perverted as is “racist” and its variations.

And Yes, I am easily hoodwinked by the truth, facts, and statistics. Which must then make me a radical since I am not duped by emotional rants and ravings, exaggerations, distortions, fabrications, and platitudes.

On last Friday, it is said that 4 million radicals watched Glenn Beck all gleeful at being hoodwinked by Beck’s charts, facts, statistics, and history lessons. I and my family were part of those proud radicals excited about Beck’s exposure of the enemy within.

In the opening post, one professor, Stephen Marks, is quoted as saying, “"No one in their right mind is going to defend Stalin or Mao or Che Guevara," Marks said. "The implication is that this is what's going to happen if Democrats get their way. This is just a complete lie. (emphasis mine)."

A close advisor to Obama, Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director speaking this past June to high school students about Chairman Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers right alongside Mother Theresa. It should be noted that Chairman Mao is said to have killed 70 million of his own people. I don't know how many Mother has killed.

We have a new generation young people wearing T-shirts and other paraphernalia glorifying Che Guevara.

Who is the deceiver, Beck or Professor Marks?

Besides, Beck’s statement was a projection, a prediction, of a possibility if progressives get their way. If predictions that don’t come true are lies, all weather forecasters are liars.

Let he among you who never lies cast the first stone.

Beck's lies have been exposed in this thread, you've simply conveniently missed them. Also, he makes specious connections that he HAS to know aren't really connected. He also calls or hints that Obama a socialist, communist, nazi, racist, is destroying America... blah blah blah. He knowingly misrepresents both sides in his favor. All of that plus his crying makes him a turd. If you think you're getting truth then that tells us all we need to know about you.
 
And as you can see by the response to your thoughtful comments, intelligent even moderately sensible and thoughtful commentary is not a strong suit with either of the utterly typical internet types you mentioned. Don't hold your breath waiting for any improvement in that situation either.;)

The irony of posters going to Media Matters, a proven source of lies half truths and constant omission of relevant facts in their non stop daily allegations, to say "so and so" lies tells half truths and is constantly makes omissionsof relevant facts to their allegations, is of course lost on the same kind of poster.:roll:

The irony of posters going to Media Matters, a proven source of lies half truths and constant omission of relevant facts in their non stop daily allegations, to say "so and so" lies tells half truths and constantly omts relevant facts pertinent to their allegations, is of course lost on the same kind of poster.:roll:

Assume that bromide is worth nada anywhere but Trolls R Us.;)

Yip, adding yet another example of rhetoric but not an instance where Beck "lied" with supporting evidence of his lie/error strike out. This is what happens when you don't actually "read" what you post. Now remember this is supposed to be Beck "lying" and yeah it reads like the rest of the hyperbole in this thread. Dead on arrival.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Thanks for all your wonderful input on just this page alone. :doh
 
Yip, adding yet another example of rhetoric but not an instance where Beck "lied" with supporting evidence of his lie/error strike out.

Quoting the Heritage Foundation doesn't cut it.
 
Quoting the Heritage Foundation doesn't cut it.
Does not cut it perfectly describes the pedantic material put forth by the rabid anti Beckites in this thread. This is often the case with typical internet twaddle and the more thoughtful posts in this thread certainly are not coming from you and NJL. You may now return to quoting Media Matters and other "biased" sources that lie and mislead the public as you complain about biased sources that lie and mislead the public.
circular-reasoning1.jpg
 
Does not cut it perfectly describes the pedantic material put forth by the rabid anti Beckites in this thread. This is often the case with typical internet twaddle and the more thoughtful posts in this thread certainly are not coming from you and NJL. You may now return to quoting Media Matters and other "biased" sources that lie and mislead the public as you complain about biased sources that lie and mislead the public.

On no, not you again.

You don't even know what a circular argument is, do you? You think it means an argument where you repeat yourself, like going in circles, right? Admit it, that's what you think.
 
On no, not you again.

You don't even know what a circular argument is, do you? You think it means an argument where you repeat yourself, like going in circles, right? Admit it, that's what you think.
You seem genuinely amazed that you argue in illogical circular arguments. Go figure. But then you are the same poster who failed to read his so called "proof" that Beck lied. And so goes yet another internet twaddle waddle, and yeah it really is just that pedantic.
 
Last edited:
You seem genuinely amazed that you argue in illogical circular arguments. Go figure. But then you are the same poster who failed to read his so called "proof" that Beck lied. And so goes yet another internet twaddle waddle, and yeah it really is just that pedantic.

Just admit it. You thought a circular argument was an argument going in circles, and you just now looked it up and found out it isn't.
 
Just admit it. You thought a circular argument was an argument going in circles, and you just now looked it up and found out it isn't.
That would work so much better on a play ground, don't ya think? Chuckle. What next, n'yah n'yah games?
 
That would work so much better on a play ground, don't ya think? Chuckle. What next, n'yah n'yah games?

So you did think it meant an argument going in circles. I thought so.
 
You did no thinking there at all.:cool:

Good thing you looked it up, huh? You weren't nearly as smart as you thought you were. You go around saying "that doesn't jive with this" too?
 
Pretty much.

Are we reading the same link?

Discounting and Climate Change Economics: Estimating the Cost of Cap and Trade
Discounting and Climate Change Economics: Estimating the Cost of Cap and Trade

Excerpts:
“How, then, does the EPA transform $7,465 into $174? It adjusts for inflation and then takes the discounted present value. It is this second step that can be misleading“. . . “the lost income corresponding to the EPA's lost consumption calculation would actually be $1,867“. . . Lastly, a household is not necessarily a family. Three college students sharing an apartment are a household according to government statistics, but in reality they are part of three separate families. The EPA uses the average household size of 2.6 for its cost impact. Adjusting household size to a family-of-four standard adds another 53 percent, bringing the cost of cap and trade to $2,872 per family per year.” . . . “The EPA, with some very generous assumptions (doubling nuclear power output in 25 years, for example), projects that the Waxman-Markey energy tax will have an impact of $174 per household in 2050 in present discounted value. However, even using the EPA results shows that the inflation-adjusted impact per family of four would be much higher at $2,872 per year in 2050. Those are some very expensive postage stamps.”. . .
 
Good thing you looked it up, huh? You weren't nearly as smart as you thought you were. You go around saying "that doesn't jive with this" too?
It is a lot easier for you to do this playground stuff, than admit your link did not exactly "prove" anything beyond of course, you did not read your own link. Chuckle.
 
It is a lot easier for you to do this playground stuff, than admit your link did not exactly "prove" anything beyond of course, you did not read your own link. Chuckle.

You started it. ;)
 
You can't be serious?

You're that clueless on footnotes???:confused:

So, what you're saying is that only two of the two items are footnoted... Gee, how did I miss that.

Footnote 65 refers to a excerpt from a book :Hans-Joachim Braun, "The German Economy in the Twentieth Century", Routledge, 1990, p. 102

66 - Arthur Schweitzer, "Big Business in the Third Reich", Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1964, p. 265

You have information that the books are misquoted or incorrect -- let's hear it.

I know its hard for you but please try and keep up.

Your statement

Well, since everything on the wiki source was footnoted to an academic source...( Did bother to check did you? oops)

That was your statement. I quoted even in that one paragraph that you are dead wrong when you claimed "everything" was footnoted. Do you understand how footnotes work? See they occur after each sentence they represent and since the majority of sentences in that wiki link are not footnoted your claim was a complete lie and painfully easy to prove.

You screwed up and you don't even have the courage to admit it. Pathetic.

This is so pathetically desperate.

Is that what you call all factually based statements?

If you have information that the wiki article is wrong, then offer it up. Let's here it. Address the statements in the article with a logical, fact based argument. Can you do that? Huh, smartguy?

Must you continue to misstate everything? I said there is no way to verify their links are accurate.

You might try something other than wiki as your primary source if you want to be taken seriously :)
 
Last edited:
"Disagreement" and "falsehood" are two totally different things. You tried to pass off your disagreement as a lie, and it didn't fly.

The fact that not as much as one fact-check website did a report on Beck's documentary should have been your first clue.

Dude, he uses Wiki as a primary source with no backing in his arguments. That tells you all you need to know :2wave:

And you know its killing him Beck is how the second most favorite tv personality next to Oprah in the country :D

Oprah, Glenn Beck are America's favorite TV personalities: poll

See hazlnut, thats a real news source. Not everyone can edit it anytime they want :rofl

And please, take off the moderate label from your profile and stop living a lie. No one is gullible enough to believe it anyway.
 
Last edited:
You started it. ;)
Yes I do tend to read and notice when someone posts something that does not say what they claimed it does. Maybe next time you post something that is supposed to support one of your specious allegations, you'll actually read your own material. I'm dead certain anyone paying attention does not expect you to have the character or spine to admit (anymore than Hazelnut) your goof, as you certainly did not have either here. But the child on the playground stuff completely hides all of that, no really it does. Chuckle.
 
Dude, he uses Wiki as a primary source with no backing in his arguments. That tells you all you need to know :2wave:

And you know its killing him Beck is how the second most favorite tv personality next to Oprah in the country :D

Oprah, Glenn Beck are America's favorite TV personalities: poll

See hazlnut, thats a real news source. Not everyone can edit it anytime they want :rofl

And please, take off the moderate label from your profile and stop living a lie. No one is gullible enough to believe it anyway.
You gotta laugh though, Wikipedia as a source, Media Matters as a source and links to blog articles that go nowhere, you can see these misfits really have deep seeded issues with "bias" and lying. Truly the pot calling the kettle biased. :rofl
 
You gotta laugh though, Wikipedia as a source, Media Matters as a source and links to blog articles that go nowhere, you can see these misfits really have deep seeded issues with "bias" and lying. Truly the pot calling the kettle biased. :rofl

Just declaring a source wrong or unreliable doesn't make the information wrong. The Media Matters links clearly document their claims from primary sources. Try again.
 
Just declaring a source wrong or unreliable doesn't make the information wrong. The Media Matters links clearly document their claims from primary sources. Try again.

Yet they will use Fox, Drudge, Heritage Foundation, Rush, the Weekly Standard, The National Review, redstate.com and such as sources.:rofl
 
Yet they will use Fox, Drudge, Heritage Foundation, Rush, the Weekly Standard, The National Review, redstate.com and such as sources.:rofl

And then vehemently attack Media Matters as a partisan source
 
Back
Top Bottom