• 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!

Glenn Beck launches online University

LimeLight said:
It's funny how someone who follows the master of accusation, generalization, and conspiracy demand any sort of "intellectually sound, logically valid argument" from anybody.

Especially when you make the wild accusation (which is totally demanding an "intellectually sound, logically valid argument") that anybody who might happen to dislike or not agree with Beck are "Leftists trying to pawn themselves off as Moderate, Centrist, Main-stream independents."

You should seek to educate yourselves on other points of view other then yourself. You clearly lack that knowledge.
Click to expand...

Fascinatin'... And once AGAIN, the Progressives come to lament their anti-American position, DEMANDING that disagreeing with American principle can in NO WAY disqualify them for the title...

But the odds require that SOONER OR LATER... they'll eventually produce an argument wherein they demonstrate that rejecting American principle can potentially provide the bearer with the means to ADHERE TO THE CORRELATING TITLE.

And yes... this is a backhanded challenge to simply state where you've the means to disagree with Beck, by showing where he was inaccurate and has wrongly represented the facts, providing for a valid means to disagree... and NOT be recognized as a Progressive anti-American.

It's not a particularly complex equation ...
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Fascinatin'... And once AGAIN, the Progressives come to lament their anti-American position, DEMANDING that disagreeing with American principle can in NO WAY disqualify them for the title...

But the odds require that SOONER OR LATER... they'll eventually produce an argument wherein they demonstrate that rejecting American principle can potentially provide the bearer with the means to ADHERE TO THE CORRELATING TITLE.

And yes... this is a backhanded challenge to simply state where you've the means to disagree with Beck, by showing where he was inaccurate and has wrongly represented the facts, providing for a valid means to disagree... and NOT be recognized as a Progressive anti-American.

It's not a particularly complex equation ...
Click to expand...

Because if you capitalize whole words, your point is better...
 
soccerboy22 said:
That was by far his greatest and funniest episode yet. Sadly for him Colbert beat him at it.
Click to expand...

ROFLMNAO! Serious political analysis founded upon the heady intellectual perch of "Comedy Central".

The best part is they're PROUD AS HELL of it... But hey, that's the nature of Populism... it's empty and meaningless... PRIME for the imparting of deceit and fraud.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
ROFLMNAO! Serious political analysis founded upon the heady intellectual perch of "Comedy Central".

The best part is they're PROUD AS HELL of it... But hey, that's the nature of Populism... it's empty and meaningless... PRIME for the imparting of deceit and fraud.
Click to expand...

Are you related to TheProf or something, because you typing styles are very similar, except you don't use the enter key as much.
 
Redress said:
Because if you capitalize whole words, your point is better...
Click to expand...

Great idea... when you've no means to engage the debate: CHANGE THE SUBJECT! I think we can all agree that anyone pushing your position would do the same thing.

Thus the question becomes given that you're not being forced to push this position: 'Why would someone willingly push a position for which they're unable to find a plausible defense?'
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Are you related to TheProf or something, because you typing styles are very similar, except you don't use the enter key as much.
Click to expand...

Nope... (But I LOVE the obscurance, classic Progressive tactic; Himmler would have been SO proud.)
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Nope... (But I LOVE the obscurance, classic Progressive tactic; Himmler would have been SO proud.)
Click to expand...

Ok. Just checking.

Also, WTF are you going on about?
 
Last edited:
soccerboy22 said:
The point that I am not a leftist?
Click to expand...

Hey, it's you're illusion... I don't care what label ya pin on yourself. I've only read a few of your posts, however, and thus far, if you're not, you're laying down very little evidence by which you might argue otherwise.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Fascinatin'... And once AGAIN, the Progressives come to lament their anti-American position, DEMANDING that disagreeing with American principle can in NO WAY disqualify them for the title...
Click to expand...
Again you should seek to educate yourselves on other points of view other then yourself. Earlier you labeled a libertarian as a "leftie". You have absolutely no idea what your talking about and you really need to educate yourself. I worry about people like you.

But the odds require that SOONER OR LATER... they'll eventually produce an argument wherein they demonstrate that rejecting American principle can potentially provide the bearer with the means to ADHERE TO THE CORRELATING TITLE.

And yes... this is a backhanded challenge to simply state where you've the means to disagree with Beck, by showing where he was inaccurate and has wrongly represented the facts, providing for a valid means to disagree... and NOT be recognized as a Progressive anti-American.

It's not a particularly complex equation ..
Click to expand...

Also i never stated that he was wrong or supported inaccurate facts. I believe that was someone else. So i have never engaged in a debate with you. I was simply pointing out you were wrong in your claim of "Leftists trying to pawn themselves off as Moderate, Centrist, Main-stream independents." Also if you believe those that disagree with Beck are Progressive Anti-American, I once again urge you to educate yourself.
 
Moderator's Warning:
So anyway, about Glenn Beck U...
 
Mellie said:
And who is taking this obvious joke as real, praytell? Glenn watchers and listeners are very aware of his sense of humor.
Click to expand...

As I stated, it reinforced certain preconceived notions. Its like making a nigger joke, sure its a joke, but it still reinforces racism.
 
Mellie said:
We've been over this forever.

Congress KNEW Aitken wanted to publish it for the use in schools. Congress APPROVED the publishing of the Bible and also approved of whatever Aitken wanted to do with it. And yes, the Bible was used in schools, dear.
Click to expand...
All the Continental Congress did was say it that the Bible was accurate and allowed Aitkin to publish this approval in his Bible. They did this to promote the printing busines - that's all. They didn't fund printing of it, so Aitkin lost money on the venture. Without the government funding the venture, how does the Bibles get into the schools? It didn't.

Note, when Barton reads from the Congressional record he doesn't explain the "for our schools" is from Aitkin and not the Congress.

Barton has been widely accused by both conservatives and liberals of practicing historical revisionism, and described as being a pseudohistorian.
Click to expand...
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
ROFLMNAO! Serious political analysis founded upon the heady intellectual perch of "Comedy Central".

The best part is they're PROUD AS HELL of it... But hey, that's the nature of Populism... it's empty and meaningless... PRIME for the imparting of deceit and fraud.
Click to expand...

I never once said that Colbert's version of the Doom Bunker was serious political analysis. And of course they are proud of it. Did YOU see Beck's original show. There was nothing serious about it either. It was a hypothetical attempt by Beck to try and say that the Democrats are going to cause the country to explode. There was about as much serious political analysis in Colbert's version than there was in Beck's.
 
pbrauer said:
All the Continental Congress did was say it that the Bible was accurate and allowed Aitkin to publish this approval in his Bible. They did this to promote the printing busines - that's all. They didn't fund printing of it, so Aitkin lost money on the venture. Without the government funding the venture, how does the Bibles get into the schools? It didn't.

Note, when Barton reads from the Congressional record he doesn't explain the "for our schools" is from Aitkin and not the Congress.


David Barton (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Are you just being contrary for the fun of it?

Aitken told Congress he wanted it published FOR THE USE IN SCHOOLS. If Congress was AGAINST it being used in schools, they wouldn't have approved of the printing, silly! Sheesh!
 
soccerboy22 said:
I never once said that Colbert's version of the Doom Bunker was serious political analysis. And of course they are proud of it. Did YOU see Beck's original show. There was nothing serious about it either. It was a hypothetical attempt by Beck to try and say that the Democrats are going to cause the country to explode. There was about as much serious political analysis in Colbert's version than there was in Beck's.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the point. It wasn't SERIOUS.
 
I wonder how much one would have to pay in order to attend Beck University. I mean I pay 40,000 here and BU and I would like to start saving some money.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
There's no evidence of beck being disengenuous in that video. He's faking crying for a photo-shoot... And Beck has NEVER misrepresented anything that the BOY-King has said and I challenge you here and now to post the evidence on which your assertion SPECIFICALLY STANDS or forever accept that you've exposed yourself as a lying fool for having suggested as much.
Click to expand...
I will start a new thread later today that shows where Beck miss represents President Obama's view on the Constitution. I don't have the time now.

disengenuous s/b disingenuous :mrgreen:
 
Mellie said:
Exactly. That's the point. It wasn't SERIOUS.
Click to expand...

Then he had no business doing an entire show on how Democrats were going to destroy the U.S. And that is people don't like him. He does a show on how bad Democrats or the President is and then in the last 5 minutes he goes well it isn't real so don't worry.
 
pbrauer said:
I will start a new thread later today that shows where Beck miss represents President Obama's view on the Constitution. I don't have the time now.

disengenuous s/b disingenuous :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Misrepresents*
 
Mellie said:
Are you just being contrary for the fun of it?

Aitken told Congress he wanted it published FOR THE USE IN SCHOOLS. If Congress was AGAINST it being used in schools, they wouldn't have approved of the printing, silly! Sheesh!
Click to expand...
He also wanted money, he didn't get it. If the Bible was for the government schools, then they should have paid for them. They didn't.
 
Mellie said:
Exactly. That's the point. It wasn't SERIOUS.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Beck is quite serious, but he just presents his stuff in a way that make it easy for him to avoid criticism, such as saying "its a joke"
 
soccerboy22 said:
Then he had no business doing an entire show on how Democrats were going to destroy the U.S. And that is people don't like him. He does a show on how bad Democrats or the President is and then in the last 5 minutes he goes well it isn't real so don't worry.
Click to expand...

I've never heard him say Democrats are going to destroy the U.S. He HAS said that progressives will destroy the U.S. as we know it (Democrats AND Republicans). Saying that he actually seriously thinks they will make the Earth explode is just silly. It's hyperbole used for humor. You see?
 
soccerboy22 said:
Then he had no business doing an entire show on how Democrats were going to destroy the U.S. And that is people don't like him. He does a show on how bad Democrats or the President is and then in the last 5 minutes he goes well it isn't real so don't worry.
Click to expand...

I think these guys sometimes envy Jon Stewart and Colbert. I know i would if i hosted a show on a News network. Why so serious all the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom