Every time I use “quotes” they turn up as /slashes/…oh well. Regarding the offset, I was referring to when you offset your Beck style argument about puppies that began:
I’m not saying that GWT supports the killing of puppies.

You boxed it and offset it…I was just wondering how you did that. I understand that your posts are offset compared to commentators.

Thanks! Yes, about Bush I am on the fence as well. I just like to point out the logical fallacy in simply calling people liars just because a statement they made turned out to be false. You have to look at the context of the earlier statement and you have to see if they knew what they are saying was false. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Hmm, I’m not sure why quotes wouldn’t be showing up. I just use the regular quotes “like this”. And this seems to work. As far as off-setting, do you mean how my posts show up offset from the right? I think that is a feature of the Wordpress theme that I am using. It distinguishes the author of the post from people who are commenting.

You say: Two pieces of irrefutable video evidence came out recently that showed polar opposites relative to Obama’s knowledge of ACORN. The first Obama clip was directly after the ACORN scandal started to take shape; in this clip he indicated that he didn’t really know that much about what ACRON was doing and that he had only limited contact with them in the distant past. The second clip was recorded during his presidential election bid; in this video Obama was praising ACORN for what the organization had done for him and other democrats in past elections, and that he would seek out counsel and help from ACRON members, solicited or unsolicited, in future endeavors. The only logical conclusion is that Obama is a liar… How can you dispute such evidence?

Please provide links or information about the specific show that showed these two clips. Can you find the entire statements in context? If so, will you provide them? And just because Beck is able to catch Obama in a lie does not make Beck honest any more than me showing Bush’s lies makes Obama honest. It would be a good example for you, to show that 100% of Beck’s shows are not lies….but no one here ever claimed that.

You are welcome. I get the impression that you do not need the “Being Logical’ book. You obviously have good critical thinking skills and it is a very basic book. However, the Political Ideologies book is very informative for anyone wanting to learn more about them.

Have you used Politifact before? If not, it is a pretty good site to begin research on some issues. Especially the ones that continue as media propagated rumors. I like Factcheck.org as well. Both sites give info for the primary source, so one can check the facts themselves.

I am on the fence about Bush and the WMDs. I hope your opinion is right, but I am not sure. There seems to be ample evidence to suggest that there was no good reason to believe there was WMDs, and some evidence to suggest there was not WMDs. Based on that, one would have to wonder why Bush would so strongly believed that there were infact WMDs. And why act against so many intelligence sources who were claiming otherwise. Why create a special White House intelligence office to gather or “cook” up evidence that was not satisfying what you wanted to hear?

Hey, why can’t I type quotes without them turning into slashes when I submit my post? And, how do you offset your quotes, like you did in your recent post to GWT?

As usual, it this has been fun and interesting.

As Vivin said, Glenn Beck takes videos out of context, just like Hannity does quite often. The ‘no uncertain terms\ of the \individuals various positions\ is quite different when the story, clip, document, and or other relevant information is viewed and or read in is entirety.

How can I \not believe when (I am) hearing the evidence from the (very) mouths of those he exposes?\ I can withhold belief because I do not believe everything I see or hear without getting more information. I go to the source. If Beck shows a clip of a speech that I find to be damning, I will find the entire speech and watch it with an open mind in order to get the context and full meaning. when Beck quotes a paper, a document, a show, etc. I will find it and check it. He misleads regularly. What we see and hear can be very misleading even when used with good intentions and innocent portrayals. . It is not that difficult to create false impressions with video and quotes.

If Beck quotes Thomas Paine, familiarize yourself with all of Thomas Paine and see if the character Beck promotes is in line with your understanding of the whole reading. Check out the facts for yourself, no matter who is showing the clips. Ask yourself questions about what is being asserted. Does it make sense? Look for other explanations and see which one is more convincing. Beck may in fact show clips that are honest….that does not mean that all of his clips are honest.

It may certainly be true that you can find examples where Beck more or less shows an honest depiction. However, there are many where he does not. He uses propaganda tactics constantly and fallacious arguments regularly. We will probably continue to disagree if we simply continue to state our perspective opinions, so maybe some sort of evidence is in order. What do you have in mind to demonstrate that our claims about Glenn Beck are wrong?

Here is a very short list of lies spouted by Glenn Beck, on Politifact. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously, you can dispute whether or not Politifact is biased, but it is a starting point for getting to the primary source of the information, which politifact usually provides.

As an example, I recommend beginning with Beck’s claim that John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, \has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.\ This is an excellent example of Beck being willing to exaggerate and take out of context individual’s positions.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

There are countless examples of Beck bringing up slanderous arguments as fact, only then to suggest that what he has asserted are just questions. Questions, that \if true\ are very worrisome. This is a classic technique of planting unfounded seeds that never actually pan out as true. However, by planting the seeds, or thoughts, the intended damage is done. That way, his innuendo, misleading quotes, etc. continue to thrive in the minds of his viewers as facts and continue to do damage.

There are examples of Beck’s hypocrisy as well. He will disparage the health care system one year, and then spout its virtues the next. He will take out of context quotes made about Mao by Anita Dunn, intentionally leaving out the parts that are most relevant. Dunn makes use of Mao as a philosopher to make clear a very particular point. Something Beck has done in the past regarding Hitler and other \bad\ people himself, as well as have many other conservatives. However, Beck demonizes Dunn for doing what he himself has done in the past by cropping her comments and distorting the context. http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190052

Beck’s analogies are often so far stretched as to be flat out lies….not just \simple facts.\
He compares Obama’s talk about expanding the Americorps and the PeaceCorps to Hitler and the SS. This is ridiculous. It is absurd.

Organizing children??? Please explain.

You said: \In reference to his commentary on framers of the constitution, I don’t believe you could point to a single falsehood in what was said given the empirical evidence of documentation on these fine people and their intentions.\

\Fine people and their intentions.\? Some of them without a doubt…all of them…maybe, maybe not…

But the point is, has Beck misrepresented them, or what we know about them? Yes, Beck has at times demonstrated that he knows much about the founders. At times, he is willing to show as much and say things that are truthful, in order to counter criticisms against him. For example, on one show he admitted that Paine was an atheist. However, he did not admit to Paine’s very leftist tendencies. Because Beck often invokes Paine as a conservative, this remains very misleading. (Read Paine’s Agrarian Justice and Rights of Man)

In the same show that Beck tried to demonstrate his knowledge of the founders in order to debunk the criticism about him, he claimed John Adams was one of the \most christian of our founding fathers…\ Well, if Adams was one of the most christian, what does that say about the rest of our founding fathers. Obviously, many of our founders were christian, many were not. However, Adams was a Unitarian, and rejected many of the fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity. This is hardly the most Christian of the founders. This is very obvious to any one who has read Adams, especially his correspondence with Jefferson, and is about as \simple\ of a fact as one can get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PftNbx9UOs&feature=related

I do not have time to offer more specific examples of Beck’s lies. If you have any specific claims made by Beck that you want to discuss, please let me know. I recommend familiarizing yourself with propaganda tools and applying what you learn to Beck.

Good luck

Saying someone is lying isn’t that clear cut. For example a lot of people say that Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq. I do not believe this is so. To show that someone lied, the burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the alleged liar had knowledge contrary to his statement and thus willfully stated the opposite. So to say that Bush lied about WMD’s you need to show that he knew there wasn’t any. In my opinion, I think he personally believed that there were WMD’s in Iraq. But that turned out not to be the case, so we can say that he was misguided but not a liar.

In the case of Obama, the burden is on Beck to show that Obama knew what ACORN was up to. Let’s say that you have an acquaintance and a friend and you praise him publicly for the support that he has given you. It then later comes out that this acquaintance or friend was involved in a serious embezzling scam and tax-evasion scheme. Would it make sense then, to call you a liar because you praised him publicly? You may have had no knowledge of his actions. There is no logical flow from your acquaintance or friend’s actions, your not knowing about his actions, and calling you a liar. To prove that you are a liar, one has to first prove that you had prior knowledge of your acquaintance or friend’s actions.

Beck pulls this stunt all the time and it is a very poor and illogical argument.