or are certain discussions off the table? For me it depends on the topic but in many cases it's what I've just said. For instance the Tea Party is not part of the lunatic fringe but the 9/11 truthers are and if I may speak frank here I'm really getting tired of this group that can't accept what happened on that fateful day. Now if you break it down it all starts to make sense IF you're of the conspiratorial bent but where the case breaks down as in totally is the charge that it was really a missile that hit the Pentagon. So what happened to all those missing passengers on that particular flight? did they all get issued new IDs and simply relocate to other countries like Switzerland and Norway? As in the fake moon landing conspiracy theory which would have required massive numbers of people being in on it to successfully pull it off did not one of these people say "hey wait a minute, I ain't going along with this"? Not a one??? So the more people that are required to pull off a successful conspiracy the less likely you are to have a bona-fide conspiracy in the first place. Point Two -- if the conspiracy is actually true then if you're trying to shed light on the sit'chation then they come after you, take you for a ride in the back seat of that big black sedan G-car, have a little talk with you and then open the door where YOU can make a rolling stop. If true then Charlie Sheen should be dead right now instead of making some crappy sitcom whose only formula seems to be about some carefree guy with too much leisure time on his hands who gets laid five times a day and whose only real problem is where to take a nap in the middle of the afternoon (that's the subject of another blog, in what universe?).
So is Obama a Marxist hellbent on socializing the entire U.S. Guv'ment and nation? This may or not may not be true but it's plausible and if something is plausible then by its very nature that does not make you part of a lunatic fringe so the Beckster skates away scotfree on this one although for a while there it seemed close. You know when you think about the work detectives do on a daily basis they come up with myriad workable theories to solve various crimes and while some of their theories may turn out to be wrong in the long run they have to go by what's plausible, by what's workable so to simply ask questions or try to connect the dots in a plausible way does not a lunatic fringe guy or gal make. Now if you insist that Barbara Olson may still be alive climbing the Matterhorn that proves one of two things: you are either mental or took some acid. See how it works?
Bottom line this phrase lunatic fringe is so vastly overused it no longer has much meaning and you don't know who it really applies to anymore. It's the latest card in the deck and it's getting just as dogeared as the race card. Also calling a tea partier a teabagger doesn't change the nature of reality. Lawrence Kudlow - tea partier, Richard Simmons - teabagger. Get it straight!
Here's how Beck is not a member of the lunatic fringe (whatever that is): When you consider Obama's upbringing and the people he has associated with most of his life as pointed out by fellow bloggers, when you factor in most of these people were Marxists/Socialists and then throw in some of Obama's early quotes on various matters and even later ones like what he said to Joe the Plumber then the argument that he is at least a socialist bent on socializing the country is a plausible argument even if turns out to be not true or doesn't happen in the end (and that may be due to practical considerations on Obama's part). Now the fact that we are saying this is plausible about Obama says alot about Obama doesn't it? Glenn Beck is not an extremist or fringe guy but if he said something about someone who is clearly not a Communist or who doesn't have Marxist leanings, say he said Reagan was a Communist then by all means call him fringe but for me it breaks down like this and write this on the blackboard 20X kiddies:
ReplyDeleteObama has made Glenn Beck's arguments for him, has made it easier for him to say this because of his life lived thus far and his political philosophy as expressed many times and by his actions while in office. In short if Obama would like Glenn Beck to stop calling him a socialist then stop acting like one.
Which is why people try to tear down Beck the man because they cannot tear down his message.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with a plausible argument since to get plausible an argument has to have at least some evidence going for it so here is my challenge for people like Saty: come here and prove Beck's arguments have no plausibility. That Obama is anti-wealth is a given, that he wants to spread the wealth around is a given, that he wants to tell CEOs how much they can take home in bonuses is a given, that he has taken over certain sectors of the auto industry is a given, that he prefers the public option in health-care but couldn't do it yet is a given and so on down the line. They can try to tear down the man but they cannot tear down the message as you just said Beth or as Shakespeare put it "the truth will out."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I have said on numerous occasions that have apparently not been noted, so I'll repeat:
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck is constantly spouting off lies and half-truths and innuendos that get caught because they're so incredibly barefaced and bold, and he's forced to apologize. This happens over and over.
But no one remembers that. All they remember is the emotional reaction he's cranked up in them while he told those lies and half truths and innuendos.
He's an emotional manipulator. It doesn't really matter what he says, because the people who listen to him will believe whatever he tells them. He cries, he's angry, he's so very concerned for America's future. They are too. They believe everything he says, and they cry, they get angry, they get scared.
When it comes out that he's told enormous lies, and has to apologize, that doesn't carry the big emotional reaction, so it doesn't have the same effect. All they remember is the emotion.
Beck's dangerous. In Europe, he has run for weeks without sponsorship because no one wants their brand to be associated with his. Even his coworkers don't want to be associated with his brand. Every day he loses more sponsorship here, and moves further into the fringe, which is assuredly where he belongs.
I couldn't help but notice that all you can do is CLAIM he lies, but cannot produce an actual lie.
ReplyDeleteBecause that is all you can do, try to tear down the man, not his actual words, I'll say it again, and thanks for helping me prove my point Saty.
ah.. this took a hot ten seconds to document..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/12/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-health-care-bill-includes-insura/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/19/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-us-only-country-automatic-citize/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/10/glenn-beck/beck-claims-universal-health-care-driving-massachu/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/15/glenn-beck/beck-says-45-percent-physicians-would-quit-if-heal/
That ought to keep you busy for a bit.
Did you check out Obama's Truth-o-Meter? Do you really think Beck getting it wrong is more dangerous than the President of the United States lying?
ReplyDeleteBeth told Saty
ReplyDelete"I couldn't help but notice that all you can do is CLAIM he lies, but cannot produce an actual lie.'
Well said Beth, but as we know this is the shtick that the Lefties and in this case the Socialists use. Say a lie often enough and they expect it to become true.
Obama's blaming Bush for his Socialist status is getting to be boring.
And, of course, "lunatic Fringe" is only used to describe the RIGHT fringe in the media, right?
ReplyDeleteI heard Megyn Kelly say "Fringers" yesterday and thought "she slamming Republicans now at FOX, too, following Shepard Smith?" and realized she meant BOTH SIDES.......sometimes, it's tough to get used to REAL fair and balanced reporting!
We don't debate whether Ronald Reagan was a Marxist or even a socialist so the very fact that we're having this discussion tells you something. Obama has had Marxists in his administration (e.g. Van Jones, Anita Dunn) and so Beck has every right to weave a plausible theory about this. I think the American people get that about Beck, he has the right to make the argument and it's why he's not fringe but mainstream.
ReplyDeleteThe whole area of plausible arguments and that's what this blog is about lest we forget, the whole area is fair game in my book. It's like when the Terri Schiavo case was hot in the press and many people defended Michael Schiavo and many people felt he wanted her dead because he did something to her. THAT is a perfectly plausible argument with which I subscribe and it's why it's not legally actionable since it was never proven what exactly happened to her when she collapsed that fateful night and so people are left to theorize. So to reiterate and get this thread back on track the focus here is on plausible arguments, plausible and workable theories. Call us political detectives so in my view Obama's task or what he should do is instead of complaining about Beck and going on the warpath against him engage in actions to make his arguments less plausible. Can he do this? doesn't seem so to me because he has that socialist streak in his nature. I do believe that in his heart of hearts he is a socialist so if this is Beck's biggest crime to call him a socialist that does not an extremist make. Also if Beck is so patently wrong sue him for libel and slander but he can't do this because the very definition of who Obama really is politically is very much up in the air and you can thank Obama for that. You can't sue for defamation because folks have every First Amendment right to theorize and that's the beauty of the American way.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, "lunatic fringe" is completely without substance in precisely the same manner as is "extremist".
ReplyDeleteLunatic fringe of what??
Extremist of what??
The implication for both is intended to be a negative one. But the obvious question to ask is can an individual have an "extreme" amount of virtue?
Basically soapie and thanx for dropping by it's to further restrict and limit what's allowed to be said in polite society and I believe the endgame is ultimately to restrict certain speech entirely. Let's say you want to totally abolish the income tax to use but one example and inveigh against the IRS two things happen: the champions of the status-quo who now feel threatened by YOU say you're an extremist and also that your dangerous rhetoric against the government may have dire consequences. To me free speech is free speech and if folks don't accept 9/11 then explain to them point by point why they should but the name-calling really doesn't accomplish anything and that's the problem.
ReplyDeleteIf I may digress here it's like with this trendy new expression sex addiction, well aren't we all addicted to sex in one way or another so the real issue is acting in a civilized manner so I much prefer the older way of putting things, he misbehaved or put his marriage at risk. We all like sex as much as Tiger Woods but it's the way he went about it and all that that's the psychological issue here. Dunno, to say you like the sex act too much kinda smacks of thought crime when it ain't the issue. The real issue is acting like a dick.
ReplyDeleteObama doesn't enter into this discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou said I was attacking Beck the man by 'claiming' that he lies, and now I've proved yes, he does lie.
So don't distract from the fact that I was right by trying to bring Obama into it.
All I'm saying is, period, Beck is a liar. No more, no less.
Why can't the president enter into this discussion?
ReplyDeleteBecause you're using the president to distract from Glenn Beck, and to avoid admitting that Glenn Beck is a liar, and that I (and the rest of the people who point out that Glenn Beck is a liar) aren't just 'attacking the man', we're attacking the fact that the man is a LIAR.
ReplyDeleteI notice you still haven't admitted that Beck is a liar, even after being confronted with the proof.
So don't distract from the issue, Beth, by trying to bring in the president. Face up to the fact: Glenn Beck is a LIAR.
But you claimed that Beck was dangerous, why? Because he has gotten his facts wrong on occasion? You don't think that Chris Matthews or Keith Obermann have ever made an error? But if telling a lie is dangerous, then why can't I bring in the President of the United States' lies as being uber-dangerous then?
ReplyDeleteSeems like you can dish it out but you can't take it.
But even if Beck has made mistakes, the things that he tells that are right, that have facts and history behind them, are what is truly scary to those of us who love our country and the freedoms it stands for.
Beck is only dangerous to the SOCIALIST agenda, because he proves it doesn't work. That's what I think.
He's dangerous because his appeal is emotional and not factual, Beth.
ReplyDeleteThat's why.
Because he lies, repeatedly, and people don't remember that he lies because they're too caught up in his emotional manipulation.
That easy enough for you?
HA HA HA! Like Obama didn't use emotions with the boy whose mother was going to die because she didn't have health care so we MUST pass the health care bill, you freakin' crack me UP Saty!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, where do you get that Beck uses emotion and not facts? Have you watched his show? I think he uses more facts than anything, but I like that he is passionate about our country, I don't see anything wrong with that.
You like that he uses facts....
ReplyDelete...so does this mean you didn't know that these things he said were lies, in other words you believed every bit of it until I showed you otherwise?
Beck isn't using facts, Beth, except maybe as condiments.
I wish you were watching him right now, you really should before you judge.
ReplyDeleteYou're really good at not addressing the actual topic, Beth.
ReplyDeleteI admire it... no matter what, you dodge the issue.
You must practice.
Seriously, what are you afraid of?
ReplyDeleteHeights.
ReplyDeleteI understand now, I guess it's easier to watch Saturday Night Live's parody instead of actually watching the Glenn Beck Show, Glenn is on a higher intellectual level and you're afraid of heights.
ReplyDeleteAnd that entirely baseless, unsubstantiated, unrealistic and patently silly extrapolation is exactly what happens on a larger level in our country, Beth.
ReplyDeleteYou learn that from Beck?
Give me a break, will you?
Nope, learned it from socialists, thanks.
ReplyDeleteCmon, Beth, you can do better than this.
ReplyDeleteThis was trite, juvenile and predictable, despite that I'd be willing to bet the only real, live socialist you've ever come in any kind of contact with in your entire life is me.
You can so do better than this.
Lighten up, I was joking, you aren't the only one who can make a joke here.
ReplyDeleteYou'd better read Z-man's commentary above about how libs are not happy people.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanna know if someone's happy, why not ask them, instead of laying out blanket generalisations about a group of people you don't even consider yourself part of?
ReplyDeleteI'm happy.
You can be happy if you want.
Chant and be happy, Beth: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/Hare Rama, Hare Rama, hare Hare.
Did you actually click on any of those links, which all came from Politifact.org?
ReplyDeleteYou want to question Politifact? They make their living fact-checking everyone, left, right and center, and they tell the truth about everyone, right, left and center.
Go look for yourself. Don't be stupid.. if I'm going to point out that Beck is a liar and document myself on it, I'm damn well going to make sure I document it with a reputable source.
Saty everyone and I mean everyone has a bias,
ReplyDelete