[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Beck won't even come out and say he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. I'm not saying he did. Neither was the website he sued (and lost against), but I'm just asking the question: Why won't he say he didn't?

It's interesting he hasn't taken a simple step in regards to this matter. Why doesn't he release his legal records? I'm not saying Beck is a murdering child-rapist. I'm just wondering why people are wondering about this but we don't see the major media investigating this.

It's a fair question. His silence on this matter is odd. He hired lots of lawyers about this. I'm not accusing him of deviancy. I don't know if he's got something to hide or not, but unless we ask why, deviancy might occur.

Why can't people see?

p.s. This is why I would never vote for Glenn Beck. He goes too far here.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's interesting he hasn't taken a simple step in regards to this matter. Why doesn't he release his legal records? I'm not saying Beck is a murdering child-rapist. I'm just wondering why people are wondering about this but we don't see the major media investigating this.

It's a fair question. His silence on this matter is odd. He hired lots of lawyers about this. I'm not accusing him of deviancy. I don't know if he's got something to hide or not, but unless we ask why, deviancy might occur.

I'm not quite sure I see the joke here. This is an ironic jab back at Beck [best I can make of searches for the meme], right?

Obviously you're not actually claiming that his lack of denial of this ridiculous rumor is evidence that he has anything to hide?

Or are you? This is where the tactic of idiocy-in-kind falls apart [I need to send you some recent emails from a certain prof.].

I'm not sure I can address the point accurately enough here, especially while maintaining the privacy of certain individuals.

The fact of the matter is that when someone besmirches someone else falsely, the appropriate response isn't to do the same.

It makes a point using some nice irony, sure, but the end result is twice as much stupidity, when the goal should be half as much.

[Role Modlin]

Didn't the whole "rape and murder a girl in 1990" thing come from Gilbert Gottfried's roast of Bob Saget? I assumed that whoever started the Beck thing was just plagiarizing Gottfried's routine. He used that line (verbatim) several times when he was joking Saget.

[jthomas1600]

This may be off topic (maybe not, what is the topic?), but I think Mike Huckabee would be a fair candidate and I think he is doing the right thing now. Has anybody watched his show? He has people with seriously different views than his on, and unlike Hanity and O'Riley, he actually has conversations with these people. I'm not sure how Huckabee lines up socially/politically with a guy like Ron Paul, but I think with the right person on the ticket with him Mike Huckabee could be a viable candidate. What I like most about Huckabee is he quite socially conservative, but doesn't come across as if it is his sole purpose in life to make everyone believe the same way he does.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

Obviously you're not actually claiming that his lack of denial of this ridiculous rumor is evidence that he has anything to hide?

Have you ever watched Beck? The point is it's exactly what he does. It's what he's done over and over in the "birther" movement (that and ignoring that citizenship is well established)

The fact of the matter is that when someone besmirches someone else falsely, the appropriate response isn't to do the same.

We didn't say anything false about Glenn Beck. We haven't even said that we *thought* he did something. All we did was ask a question: why hasn't he dienied raping and murdering a young girl in 1990?

It makes a point using some nice irony, sure, but the end result is twice as much stupidity, when the goal should be half as much.

I'm not sure this can be said with a straight face. The irony is intentional. The point is to show the lunacy of the entire tactic.

What I am saying about Glenn Beck is exactly what he regularly denies. He's a "shock jock" and nothing more.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Has anybody watched his show?

Yeah. He's a likable guy and I do appreciate his advocacy for music education (and to a lesser extent that he's a bassist).

I'm not sure how Huckabee lines up socially/politically with a guy like Ron Paul

They're different in numerous ways. Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq. Huckabee opposes a pullout. Ron Paul is against the Patriot Act. Huckabee supports it. Paul is against expanding our armed forces. Huckabee is in favor of it. Paul thinks the War on Drugs is a failure. Huckabee wants more funding. Paul is against government definitions of marriage. Huckabee wants it defined as being between a man and a woman. Ron Paul opposes the death penalty. Mike Huckabee does not. And so on, &c.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Have you ever watched Beck? The point is it's exactly what he does. It's what he's done over and over in the "birther" movement (that and ignoring that citizenship is well established)

We didn't say anything false about Glenn Beck. We haven't even said that we *thought* he did something. All we did was ask a question: why hasn't he denied raping and murdering a young girl in 1990?

Yeah, I figured it out... I just don't get it, I guess.

I'm not sure this can be said with a straight face. The irony is intentional. The point is to show the lunacy of the entire tactic.

What I am saying about Glenn Beck is exactly what he regularly denies. He's a "shock jock" and nothing more.

I'm just not sure irony is an effective tool for this.

Why not just come right out and say "You're an asshat, Glenn Beck"?

Frankly, I think that's a more "straight face" approach than the irony.

Using irony to point out lunacy doesn't convince me, and I love irony.

Or maybe I just don't like returning bile for bile.

[Ax]

Glenn Beck is an actor.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Nate

Obviously you're not actually claiming that his lack of denial of this ridiculous rumor is evidence that he has anything to hide?

Nowhere in my post did I say that Beck actually did that to a girl. I didn't even insinuate it. I only asked why he hasn't spoken about it?

The fact of the matter is that when someone besmirches someone else falsely, the appropriate response isn't to do the same.

I haven't besmirched him. I'm not wondering if he raped and killed a girl. That would go too far. I'm just wondering why he hasn't commented on this?

It makes a point using some nice irony, sure, but the end result is twice as much stupidity, when the goal should be half as much.

Glenn Beck tried to connect Ron Paul to terrorism.

Beck allowed a guest to say that Mises Institute libertarians are tied to Islamo-fascism. That's one of the most insulting things a guest could say in regards to the discussion at hand, yet Beck doesn't challenge it.

Glenn Beck is a liar, a fearmonger, and a manipulator.

Originally Posted by Nate

I'm just not sure irony is an effective tool for this.

Why not just come right out and say "You're an asshat, Glenn Beck"?

Because that lacks any subtlety and won't get the attention of Glenn Beck supporters? Meanwhile, this old meme has caused some folks I know who loved Beck to realize that he's a well-poisoner and a manipulator.

Frankly, I think that's a more "straight face" approach than the irony.

Using irony to point out lunacy doesn't convince me, and I love irony.

I wouldn't call this irony. I'd call this satirical. I'd compare this (it wasn't my idea, so I'm not comparing myself) to Ambrose Beirce, Mark Twain, etc.

Or maybe I just don't like returning bile for bile.

Were you mad when Christ called the Pharisees a brood of vipers instead of having tea with them?

Or when Paul said that the Judaizers should castrate themselves?

Or when Isaiah used the king of Babylon's own religious tradition to ironically compare him in a time of defeat to Baal, Gilgamesh, etc.?

[Jeffrey]

If the satire bothers people, I'll be forthright:

No Christian should support Glenn Beck. He's a liar, fearmonger, manipulator, well-poisoner, and an illogical thinker. He supports unjust actions overseas, as well.

Palin is a manipulator who wastes money and ought as a Christian woman be concerned about the turmoil in her household. She lost all credibility with me when she associated with an adulterer and liar like John McCain.

Beck is a Mormon, but I don't have a problem per se with a Mormon being elected. If he's going to go after Muslims, however (as in a clip I linked to previously), one might ask if his loyalty is to the elders in Utah or to the United States?

As he is a Mormon, I feel like asking him if he can prove he's not pro-polygamy, much as he asked an elected official who is Muslim that he wants to ask him to prove he's not involved with terrorism.

If there was a Beck/Palin ticket, I would not only be against it, I'd be concerned for any self-proclaimed conservatives, libertarians, and possibly even Christians who supported it.

No satire, no jokes. Just being blunt.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

This may be off topic (maybe not, what is the topic?), but I think Mike Huckabee would be a fair candidate and I think he is doing the right thing now. Has anybody watched his show? He has people with seriously different views than his on, and unlike Hanity and O'Riley, he actually has conversations with these people. I'm not sure how Huckabee lines up socially/politically with a guy like Ron Paul, but I think with the right person on the ticket with him Mike Huckabee could be a viable candidate. What I like most about Huckabee is he quite socially conservative, but doesn't come across as if it is his sole purpose in life to make everyone believe the same way he does.

As Slap Jay noted, Huckabee is a nice guy. His show is fun to watch.

His views are too far from traditionally conservative for me to support him. I'm tired of non-conservatives using the times. Since it's intellectually dishonest, it makes me worried about a trickle-down effect on their policies.

Let alone that I think Huckabee is wrong on the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, marriage, etc.

[jthomas1600]

Could someone who's using the term, give me a brief description of "traditional conservative"? What do you mean by "traditional"?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Could someone who's using the term, give me a brief description of "traditional conservative"? What do you mean by "traditional"?

Small government
Fiscally responsible
Socially conservative

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

His views are too far from traditionally conservative for me to support him. I'm tired of non-conservatives using the times. Since it's intellectually dishonest, it makes me worried about a trickle-down effect on their policies.

I think it'd probably a bit more fair to describe Huckabee as traditionally Republican rather than 'conservative.' The Republican Party's gone between centrist to center right and back again over the course of time. I'd say Huckabee's a Republican in the same mold as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and the not-campaigning Reagan (you know, the ones that won elections) rather than Goldwater and Palin (you know, the ones that lose elections). He's definately on the culture-warrior side of traditional Republicanism, though.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Leboman

Small government
[...]
Socially conservative

I think, speaking from the perspecitve of political action, these two are not compatable.

Well. Depending on the definition of "socially conservative". If we are discussing a lack of social programs (like medicare) then yes, they are compatable. I suppose my first throught was of the fact that Texas outlawed vibrators, or that the right is fighting to introduce a constitutional ammendment to prevent states from marrying homosexuals, or blue laws... all of these are "big government".

While I might not consider a true conservitive government (think libratarian) my ideal (I like social services), I'd very much consider the current government moving in that direction a good thing. My problem is where they seem to cut first: keep spending on, say, buying more F-22s that the Pentagon doesn't want, but oppose health-care reform (to the extent of opposing things that save money, like allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices).

If I recall Huckabee correctly: while he opposed homosexual marriage personally, he said that the government has no business being involved at all. Am I remembering correctly?

I have an idea. Maybe we can form a consensus on what the most useful spending is and have a moderate candidate? A true conservative might oppose public schools on ideology, but would still aknowledge that they are a lesser evil to subsidies for companies to offshore their workforce, or the war in Iraq.