Glen Beck is a radio and TV host in The United States. He with limbaugh, hannity, levine, and others spue their lies on American Airways 24/7. This is why Americans have done some just plain out right stupid stuff in the last decade.

http://www.popcrunch.com/glen-beck-the-view-video-lying-sack-of-dog-mess/

Even if their audience hears the accusations that they lie continuously their audience is so convinced that the rest of the media has a liberal bias and lies all the time that they will first dismiss the accusation against the Rush clones as liberal lies and second say "so what the liberals lie more".

Something like Nancy( Like a Deer caught in the Headlights) Pelosi, nothing but a continuos spewing of lies.

Something like Nancy( Like a Deer caught in the Headlights) Pelosi, nothing but a continuos spewing of lies.

Well a couple of things Buffalo Roam. First, it has not been conclusively proven that she did lie. Nor has it been proven that she has been untruthful in anyway.

Two, Pelosi does not spew hate and lies on the airways 24 hours a day like these Republican mouthpieces that spew nothing but crap all the time.

Well a couple of things Buffalo Roam. First, it has not been conclusively proven that she did lie. Nor has it been proven that she has been untruthful in anyway.

Two, Pelosi does not spew hate and lies on the airways 24 hours a day like these Republican mouthpieces that spew nothing but crap all the time.

Pelosi has proven herself, that She lied, there are at least 5 different stories from her own mouth about what happened and when it happened.

She can't even keep Her stories straight with a cue card.

Pelosi has proven herself, that She lied, there are at least 5 different stories from her own mouth about what happened and when it happened.

She can't even keep Her stories straight with a cue card.

Care to share with us those instances or are you going to keep them secret?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxE33lfTi_Y

Nice link, but no lie. Again, care to share with us those five lies you mentioned?

Nice link, but no lie. Again, care to share with us those five lies you mentioned?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxE33lfTi_Y

"At that or any other briefing, and that was the only briefing that I was briefed on in that regard, we were not -- I repeat, we were not -- told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used, " Pelosi said on April 23.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: I wasn’t briefed on CIA waterboarding
May 9, 2009

This appears to contradict Pelosi's account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.

May 12, 2009

Nancy Pelosi Claims She Was Mislead by the CIA About Waterboarding
2009 May 14

You have not supported your claim. You have not proven that Pelosi lied. I suggest you revisit the defination of a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

There is no evidence that Pelosi intended to deceive anyone or misrepresent the facts. So again, where are the five lies?

If you want to say Pelosi botched a press conference by being disorganized, she is guilty as charged. But that never seemed to bother you when your idol of conservatism botched a lot of his talks:

http://www.squidoo.com/bushismsvideoshowcase

You have not supported your claim. You have not proven that Pelosi lied. I suggest you revisit the defination of a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

There is no evidence that Pelosi intended to deceive anyone or misrepresent the facts. So again, where are the five lies?

If you want to say Pelosi botched a press conference by being disorganized, she is guilty as charged. But that never seemed to bother you when your idol of conservatism botched a lot of his talks:

http://www.squidoo.com/bushismsvideoshowcase

And what is the flavor of your favorite Kool Aid?

And there is no proof that the CIA, intended to deceive anyone or misrepresent the facts.

I like it when you squirm Buffalo Roam, you do it so well. Again, where is the Pelosi lie?

Why are you a staunch defender of Nancy Pelosi?

I am a defender of the truth...not Pelosi.

That is the major problem in American politics today. There are not many who defend the truth.

I like it when you squirm Buffalo Roam, you do it so well. Again, where is the Pelosi lie?

Who is squrming? I am :roflmao:

Dont look now Buffalo Roam, but you are squirming. I have not yet seen proof of Pelosi telling a lie, despite the many claims.

Dont look now Buffalo Roam, but you are squirming. I have not yet seen proof of Pelosi telling a lie, despite the many claims.

:roflmao: yes joe anything you say, but again I am not the only one to see you for what yopu are;


original

Why are you a staunch defender of Nancy Pelosi?

joe you aren't even close to making me squirm as you have decided to accept no proof, even from Nancy ( Deer caught in the Headlight) Pelosi's own words, spoken from Her own mouth, in her own words, recorded by the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxE33lfTi_Y

After posting on these forums for 4 years, I have come to one conclusion. The US is not a great place to live, but a fun place to watch.

:roflmao: yes joe anything you say, but again I am not the only one to see you for what yopu are;

joe you aren't even close to making me squirm as you have decided to accept no proof, even from Nancy ( Deer caught in the Headlight) Pelosi's own words, spoken from Her own mouth, in her own words, recorded by the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxE33lfTi_Y

You despite numerous challenges have not shown even one case of Pelosi making a false statement. You have repeated a video of a botched Pelosi video...but that is not evidence of a false statment.

And as I pointed out to you, if you want botched interview see any of George II's publiic appearances (see my video post). George II has got a library of botched public events. Pelosi has one botched public event. But the truth is that you are as blind as a bat. And were it not for uncle limbaugh guiding you would not even be able to find the restroom.

You are doing the ditto head squirm in the finest traditions of uncle limbaugh. As for your ability to see, I not in the least bit worried. You cannot see past the point of your ditto head nose. If you could see, you would see the truth and the fallacies upon which you live your life.

You despite numerous challenges have not shown even one case of Pelosi making a false statement. You have repeated a video of a botched Pelosi video...but that is not evidence of a false statment.

And as I pointed out to you, if you want botched interview see any of George II's publiic appearances (see my video post). George II has got a library of botched public events. Pelosi has one botched public event.

You are doing the ditto head squirm in the finest traditions of uncle limbaugh.

I can't help it that you have your hands over your ears and your eyes firmly squeezed shut, singing La-La-La-La-La-La-La- I can't hear you, I see nothing, I hear nothing,

who is squirming?

Not me joe, I have Pelsoi in her own words multiple different versions, duely reported by the News Media even your own liberal press.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/14/HP/R/18582/Hse+Spkr+Pelosi+claims+CIA+mislead+her+about+Tortu re+Methods.aspx

As I said you showed a botched public appearance...not a lie. For the record, a botched public appearance, stumbling over words does not equal a lie. And the reason you have not posted a Pelosi lie is because you cannot because you have no proof. Gee so what else is not new?

As I said you showed a botched public appearance...not a lie. For the record, a botched public appearance, stumbling over words does not equal a lie. And the reason you have not posted a Pelosi lie is because you cannot because you have no proof. Gee so what else is not new?

Really? It is called keeping your story straight, ( and one of the prime indicators of lying is you can't keep your story straight) and if you aren't lying you don't have to keep your story straight.

She can't even get Her story straight with prepared notes and statements.

Yes joe, why are you defending Nancy( Deer Caught in the Headlights) Pelosi so vehemently? your partisanship is in sublime rampant manifestation for all to see.

Well if fumbling in a public appearance is dishonesty, they George II is really guilty. Pelosi was disorganized nothing more nothing less.

Well if fumbling in a public appearance is dishonesty, they George II is really guilty. Pelosi was disorganized nothing more nothing less.

Yes, really.

Hse. Spkr. Pelosi claims CIA misled her about Torture Methods
Thursday, May 14, 2009

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/14/HP/R/18582/Hse+Spkr+Pelosi+claims+CIA+mislead+her+about+Tortu re+Methods.aspx

Today, Hse. Spkr. Pelosi (D-CA) said that in 2002 the CIA "misled" her about torture techniques used by the U.S. military. She stated that she learned of the military's use of waterboarding in 2003. Also, GOP members responded to her statements about her meetings with the CIA.
Washington, DC

Yes, She even admits that She knew about Waterboarding in 2003, so what took Her so long to get her dander up?

6 years later and She is now saying the CIA lied to Her, and from C-Span a reliable source, and her words don't match Her actions.

Nancy claims cover for Her lack of action on her respect for Her oath of Secrecy as a member of the Select Intelligence Committee, now isn't that something like the Nazis claiming that they were only following orders?
and their oaths of service?

She knew as early as 2003 by her own admission, and did nothing, so now Nancy says She was mislead?

You still have not shown she lied. You have two parties saying different things. That does not mean one is fibbing. It could be an honest mistake, a misunderstanding. And how do you know Pelosi is the one in error? Do you have ESP?

And it is a fact, she was sworn to secrecy. She was told by the administration that those proceedures were also legal. Pelosi is not a great student of the law or consitution. So how is she supposed to know the veracity of administrations legal opinion on these enhanced techniques?

What Pelosi got to do with republican propagandists?

Pelosi is not a great student of the law or consitution. So how is she supposed to know the veracity of administrations legal opinion on these enhanced techniques?

As speaker of the house she had better know a lot about the constitution!

As speaker of the house she had better know a lot about the constitution!

She obviously has a working knowledge of the Consitution, but she is not a Consitutional scholar as is the President. She has been a politician all of her life, not a lawyer.

And there is no Consitutional requirement that she as Speaker of the House be a lawyer or a Consitutional scholar.

Are you implying that President Obama is a Constitutional scholar? That's comedy gold!

Are you implying that President Obama is a Constitutional scholar? That's comedy gold!

???

Yes he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

He was a professor? He still is!

He was a professor? He still is!

How is that relevant? This is about the alleged lies Pelosi is being credited with making. So far a lot of accusations from Republican Party hacks, but no proof.

Yes he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Not according to the Univirsity of Chicago;

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


Now just because you teach a class does not make you a Constitutional Expert, so according to your's and Obama's reasoning, any law professor would be a Constitutional expert because our laws are based in our Constitution.

You have got to be kidding Buffalo Roam!

Not according to the Univirsity of Chicago;

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Now just because you teach a class does not make you a Constitutional Expert, so according to your's and Obama's reasoning, any law professor would be a Constitutional expert because our laws are based in our Constitution.

You cannot be serious Buffalo Roam!

He was a professor? He still is!

He is just PhD now, your a professor only if your employed as one.

He is just PhD now, your a professor only if your employed as one.

These are the definitions I was working with:


Profess (verb):
- to declare in words or appearances only; pretend, claim
- to practice or claim to be versed in (a calling or profession); to teach as a professor

Professor (noun):
- one that professes, avows, or declares

You have got to be kidding Buffalo Roam!

No actually your the one who is kidding, and Obama, it's called stretching your resume.

Show any where that Obama has been touted as a Constitutional Expert, except by Obama sycophant, and Obama himself, if such is the fact, then my High School Government teacher, Dr. Opsal, is a Constitutional Expert because He taught classes on The Constitutiona and is impact on the Law.

No actually your the one who is kidding, and Obama, it's called stretching your resume.

Show any where that Obama has been touted as a Constitutional Expert, except by Obama sycophant, and Obama himself, if such is the fact, then my High School Government teacher, Dr. Opsal, is a Constitutional Expert because He taught classes on The Constitutiona and is impact on the Law.

The only person I see making any claims of Obama being a Constitutional expert is you. The claim was he was a Constitutional Scholar.

No actually your the one who is kidding, and Obama, it's called stretching your resume.

Show any where that Obama has been touted as a Constitutional Expert, except by Obama sycophant, and Obama himself, if such is the fact, then my High School Government teacher, Dr. Opsal, is a Constitutional Expert because He taught classes on The Constitutiona and is impact on the Law.

Buffalo Roam, in the event you have not noticed, there is a huge difference between a high school governement class and a college level graduate class in law.

Universities such as the University of Chicago do not hire people who know little about a subject to teach it. Additionally Obama has a law degree from one of the finest insitutions of higher learning in the country...Harvard Law. If you really cannot see the difference, I suggest laying off the koolaid.

The only person I see making any claims of Obama being a Constitutional expert is you. The claim was he was a Constitutional Scholar.

So you agree that Obama is not a constitutional expert, glad to hear that.

Buffalo Roam, in the event you have not noticed, there is a huge difference between a high school governement class and a college level graduate class in law.

Universities such as the University of Chicago do not hire people who know little about a subject to teach it. Additionally Obama has a law degree from one of the finest insitutions of higher learning in the country...Harvard Law. If you really cannot see the difference, I suggest laying off the koolaid.


Really, and what about the fact that Dr. Opsal has a Doctorate in Constitutional History, seems that he trumps Obama as a expert.

So what does a law degree have to do with expertise in Constitutional Law, what are Obama actual degree's in?

Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.

Harvard - Juris Doctor

Nothing about any degree in Constitutional Law, so again do we have a case of padding the resume by Obama and his sycophants.

Obama has no educational foundation as a expert in Constitutional Law.

Really, and what about the fact that Dr. Opsal has a Doctorate in Constitutional History, seems that he trumps Obama as a expert.

So what does a law degree have to do with expertise in Constitutional Law, what are Obama actual degree's in?

Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.

Harvard - Juris Doctor

Nothing about any degree in Constitutional Law, so again do we have a case of padding the resume by Obama and his sycophants.

Obama has no educational foundation as a expert in Constitutional Law.
Um You have to show knowledge in a topic to teach it.

Um You have to show knowledge in a topic to teach it.

And what knowledge was demonstrated by Obama?

Again, what are His degree's in? not Constitutional Law.

In fact is their any proof that Obama ever taught a class in Constitutional Law?

I find it interesting that the U of C makes such a precise announcement;

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

No where do they indicate that Obama ever taught Constitutional Law, the only thing they conferm is that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and was so for 12 years, and nothing more.

This seems like it has little to do with Glen Beck, who admitted on national television that he does not check his sources. What kind of reporter entertainment or otherwise doesn't cross check their facts? I mean you want to make sure you're commenting on something that actually happened, right? Even comedians do that. But even if you don't check your sources and just say stuff, why would you admit it on one of the most watched daytime talk shows in the nation?

Because Glen Beck is pretty dense and his listeners are really not interested in facts. Facts and rational thought are not their friends. None of these "conservative" talk show hosts bother with checking facts as they are just not important to their listeners and supporters.

And what knowledge was demonstrated by Obama?

Again, what are His degree's in? not Constitutional Law.

In fact is their any proof that Obama ever taught a class in Constitutional Law?

I find it interesting that the U of C makes such a precise announcement;

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

No where do they indicate that Obama ever taught Constitutional Law, the only thing they conferm is that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and was so for 12 years, and nothing more.

You really must put a lot of effort into being dense...cause I cannot believe anyone can really be that dense Buffalo Roam.

News Alert, the Consititution is the basis for all US Law. It is the foundation of a Juris Doctrate. Obama certianly has more education on the law and the Consititution than you and your fellow ditto heads do...and that includes your leadership (beck, limbaugh, hannity, levine, etc).

As to your accusation that he did not teach Consititutional law, can you prove it? No you cannot, so what else is new...just more unfounded claims from the ditto heads faction.

Because Glen Beck is pretty dense and his listeners are really not interested in facts. Facts and rational thought are not their friends. None of these "conservative" talk show hosts bother with checking facts as they are just not important to their listeners and supporters.

Dense talking heads;

http://www.keitholbermann.org/Gallery/contrib/phpBB2/D_1_td13obrmn_170837_1013.jpeg

http://images.forbes.com/media/2009/01/22/liberals_19.jpg

Talking heads yes, but there is a big difference between Oberman and company and the ditto heads. Oberman and company at least bother with fact checking.

Dense talking heads;

http://www.keitholbermann.org/Gallery/contrib/phpBB2/D_1_td13obrmn_170837_1013.jpeg

http://images.forbes.com/media/2009/01/22/liberals_19.jpg

Democrats have a lower rate of listening to talking heads (like these democrat ones) because we have better critical reasoning skills and can tell when we are being peddled even when we like the sound of it... when I say we though I mean me I don't watch these fuckwards anymore then I would republican ones, all i can do is suspect that other democrats don't listen do to these guys much lower rating then republican ones.


Talking heads yes, but there is a big difference between Oberman and company and the ditto heads. Oberman and company at least bother with fact checking.

Even with fact checking (thank god they at least know they aren't completely wrong and talking straight out of their ass like Limbaugh) they still twist words, make emotional speechs about nothing and omit or belittle facts that would make their arguments less persuasive or clear.

Glen Beck is a radio and TV host in The United States. He with limbaugh, hannity, levine, and others spue their lies on American Airways 24/7. This is why Americans have done some just plain out right stupid stuff in the last decade.

http://www.popcrunch.com/glen-beck-the-view-video-lying-sack-of-dog-mess/
So he lied about whether he came up to her or she came up to him? Or are you saying he was lying about the seats being reserved? Seriously? This is your big lie? This explains why "Americans have done some down right stupid stuff.."? A disagreement about who was sitting where and whether the seat was reserved?:yawn:

So he lied about whether he came up to her or she came up to him? Or are you saying he was lying about the seats being reserved? Seriously? This is your big lie? This explains why "Americans have done some down right stupid stuff.."? A disagreement about who was sitting where and whether the seat was reserved?:yawn:

How about citing non-existing reports (in short out of their ass), does that count in your book as an offensive lie?

How about citing non-existing reports (in short out of their ass), does that count in your book as an offensive lie?
Well, I didn't see him citing any non-existent reports in the video linked to in the OP. I saw an idiotic discusion of who sat where and whether or not the seats were reserved. What are you refering to?

Here a gross example:

LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

REALITY: Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the '60s and '70s, had "absolutely no recollection" of such a study, according to Tufts' communications office. "I surely would have remembered that!" he exclaimed. Limbaugh's staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database--while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study--did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males.

Well, I didn't see him citing any non-existent reports in the video linked to in the OP. I saw an idiotic discusion of who sat where and whether or not the seats were reserved. What are you refering to?

I suggest you listen again. He lied in order to make certian individuals look bad on his show and to his viewers. He invented an entire senario that never happened, including non existent policemen clearing the way. Now that is imagination at work.

Talking heads yes, but there is a big difference between Oberman and company and the ditto heads. Oberman and company at least bother with fact checking.

:roflmao:

They are nothing more than entertainers like Limbaugh, much of the Rush show is exposing absurdity by using the absurd.

Democrats have a lower rate of listening to talking heads (like these democrat ones) because we have better critical reasoning skills and can tell when we are being peddled even when we like the sound of it... when I say we though I mean me I don't watch these fuckwards anymore then I would republican ones, all i can do is suspect that other democrats don't listen do to these guys much lower rating then republican ones.

:roflmao: yes really? what a farce,


because we have better critical reasoning skills and can tell when we are being peddled even when we like the sound of it
:roflmao:


Even with fact checking (thank god they at least know they aren't completely wrong and talking straight out of their ass like Limbaugh) they still twist words, make emotional speechs about nothing and omit or belittle facts that would make their arguments less persuasive or clear.

Again, I know you don't listen to Limbaugh, if you did, you would know that first off He calls himself a entertainer, second off, Rush exposes the absurd by using the absurd, many of the skits and stories are nothing but absuridity on display to show the absuridity of the left, such as the;

LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

I would like to see the total context of that statement, and what Rush was paroding with a absurde story like that.

Much of what you and your pretentious condescending friend from the left scream about is because you take it from context, and then fail to have a sense of humor to apreacieat the absuridity and irony of what was the point of the story.

Well, I didn't see him citing any non-existent reports in the video linked to in the OP. I saw an idiotic discusion of who sat where and whether or not the seats were reserved. What are you refering to?

After they finally calmed down they asked him about checking his sources and he said he never did. While all of these guys from Limbaugh all the way to Jon Stewart are entertainers. Why wouldn't you check your facts? Stuff is usually funny or satirical because it based on a truth. I don't have the attention span for the more fact based shows on CNN and CSPAN that my grandmother watches, so in order to keep pace with her in conversation about politics I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. I know they're comedians, but they base their jokes on things that have actually happened. Otherwise my grandmother would call me on it. I'm hoping that maybe he meant that he personally doesn't check facts, but someone else on his staff did.

Buffalo Roam,

So your saying no one takes him seriously and that he spews not lies but jokes that everyone knows are not to be taken seriously and no truth to his claims should be assumed or are assumed?

Buffalo Roam,

So your saying no one takes him seriously and that he spews not lies but jokes that everyone knows are not to be taken seriously and no truth to his claims should be assumed or are assumed?

Then why does the left take Rush so seriously?

Jokes? What I said, was Rush uses the absurd to highlight the absurd, parody
and humor.

And the brouhaha from the left over Rush is a prime example, He has got you chasing your tails.

The left has elevated Rush to the Status of a major political player with all the attention focused on Him, and is looking absolutely absurd.

After they finally calmed down they asked him about checking his sources and he said he never did. While all of these guys from Limbaugh all the way to Jon Stewart are entertainers. Why wouldn't you check your facts? Stuff is usually funny or satirical because it based on a truth. I don't have the attention span for the more fact based shows on CNN and CSPAN that my grandmother watches, so in order to keep pace with her in conversation about politics I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. I know they're comedians, but they base their jokes on things that have actually happened. Otherwise my grandmother would call me on it. I'm hoping that maybe he meant that he personally doesn't check facts, but someone else on his staff did.I don't watch the View (other than the clip in the OP), so I didn't see the bit you're talking about. But, I have watched Beck's show and he often will mention some story he's working on but will not present the story until it has been vetted 100%. As to The View brouhaha, I doubt he researched the story as he was just relating something that happened on the train.

Here a gross example:

LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

REALITY: Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the '60s and '70s, had "absolutely no recollection" of such a study, according to Tufts' communications office. "I surely would have remembered that!" he exclaimed. Limbaugh's staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database--while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study--did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males.I also would like to see the context of that quote, because it sounds like a joke. And if Limbaugh is such a dishonest blowhard, why did you have to go all the way back to 1994 to find an example? The guys on 3 hours per day 5 days a week for Pete's sake!

I also would like to see the context of that quote, because it sounds like a joke. And if Limbaugh is such a dishonest blowhard, why did you have to go all the way back to 1994 to find an example? The guys on 3 hours per day 5 days a week for Pete's sake!

I was quoting one I could remember off hand, do you want a more recent one, I would have to search through huge list of his lies to find the ones with imaginary sources.

I was quoting one I could remember off hand, do you want a more recent one, I would have to search through huge list of his lies to find the ones with imaginary sources.

Get cracking, and remember in context.

Get cracking, and remember in context.

Do you know what a burden of proof fallacy is (a standards one not a positional one)?

I give an example, but you want more, with "context" and they should be new, even if I was to shove that bottle up my ass whats to stop you from asking even higher standards? In short I'm going to bed, maybe I'll get on it tomorrow some time late.

Do you know what a burden of proof fallacy is (a standards one not a positional one)?

I give an example, but you want more, with "context" and they should be new, even if I was to shove that bottle up my ass whats to stop you from asking even higher standards? In short I'm going to bed, maybe I'll get on it tomorrow some time late.

Because you can't..if the quotes are in context, that absurdity become obvious, and that it is being used to point out the absurdity of the Liberals.

Yes, the absurd, parody, whit and humor, and the left elevates Rush to National Political Prominence.

Then why does the left take Rush so seriously?

Jokes? What I said, was Rush uses the absurd to highlight the absurd, parody
and humor.

And the brouhaha from the left over Rush is a prime example, He has got you chasing your tails.

The left has elevated Rush to the Status of a major political player with all the attention focused on Him, and is looking absolutely absurd.

The better question is why does the Republican Party take limbaugh so seriously? Why are they very careful not to offend the limbaugh? Why do they go groveling before him begging his forgiveness should they say something that offends the limbaugh? Then I think you will find the answer to your question.

Liberals (anyone not a limbaugh republican) are not chasing their tails. Have you not noticed they are now sitting in the catbird's seat? Have you not noticed that they (liberals, left, etc) now control the Senate and the Presidency? Have you not noticed that the Republican Party has shrunk in size?

The left has not elevated the limbaugh. The ditto heads have done that all on their own.

Oh by the way, you want an example of the limbaugh making things up:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

These things are not hard to find. Just listen to him on his radio show on any given day.

The other day while listening to the limbaugh on the car radio, he was misrepresenting evolution claiming that according to evolution humans are decendants of monkeys. He also classifed the lemur as a monkey. The guy is either stupid or just a liar. I tend to think the latter of him.

And let's not forget this lie:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/09/limbaugh-media-shameless/

And let's not forget the Universal Healthcare lies:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/doctors_orders.html

Have you not noticed they are now sitting in the catbird's seat? Have you not noticed that they (liberals, left, etc) now control the Senate and the Presidency? Have you not noticed that the Republican Party has shrunk in size? You might as well brag about a sand castle you built on the beach, or a fancy snowman you made. The political tides change like the seasons. Let's just hope that Obama and the Democrats don't dig us such a deep hole we can never get out of it when the seasons change again.

You might as well brag about a sand castle you built on the beach, or a fancy snowman you made. The political tides change like the seasons. Let's just hope that Obama and the Democrats don't dig us such a deep hole we can never get out of it when the seasons change again.


Sorry, what we're witnessing isn't a normal cyclical change in the political climate. The Country is changing, conservatism isn't being embraced by any of the of rising political constituencies.

This thing that we call conservatism is not like any conservatism I have ever known. It is more like a pestulance, reminds me in many ways of national socialism and that band of facists that took over Germany and Italy...just replace Jews with liberal, and you have a match.

Because you can't..if the quotes are in context, that absurdity become obvious, and that it is being used to point out the absurdity of the Liberals.

Well if that true find it in context and prove your right! I've placed evidence already you have to prove its wrong.


Then why does the left take Rush so seriously?


No, no, you misinterpret: So your telling me the right does not take Rush seriously? Because the Left would not take Rush seriously if it was not because they are scared shitless that the Right seems to.



Jokes? What I said, was Rush uses the absurd to highlight the absurd, parody
and humor.

Oh do give an example, keep in mind your under the premise that the "absurd" is A) factually inaccurate (as we can prove) and B) known by the audience as factually inaccurate, because if not he is a liar. In short your claiming Rush is in fact Stephan Colbert.


This thing that we call conservatism is not like any conservatism I have ever known. It is more like a pestulance, reminds me in many ways of national socialism and that band of facists that took over Germany and Italy...just replace Jews with liberal, and you have a match.

Yes indeed what happen to the fiscally conservative "tax less, spend less" and "get government away from our rights" people, the present conservative had no problem spending like crazy as long as it was paid in debt, something that could harm us even worse then if it was paid in taxes now, and these people have no problem with government oppressing the rights of women and homosexuals and with government enforcing their interpretation of the bible, and had no problem with increasing the power of the federal government to observe and arrest people with less evidence and reason! These aren't conservatives, true conservatives are libertarians, these are fascists.

Well if that true find it in context and prove your right! I've placed evidence already you have to prove its wrong.

Nice try on shifting the proof, your the one who used the quote, so yorut the one to prove it's context.


No, no, you misinterpret: So your telling me the right does not take Rush seriously? Because the Left would not take Rush seriously if it was not because they are scared shitless that the Right seems to.

In the 50 we used to have a exercise in case of a attack, it was called Duck and Cover, you have just given a outstanding demonstration of Duck and Cover.

The Left are the ones who keep Rush in the Lime Light,




Oh do give an example, keep in mind your under the premise that the "absurd" is A) factually inaccurate (as we can prove) and B) known by the audience as factually inaccurate, because if not he is a liar. In short your claiming Rush is in fact Stephan Colbert.

LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

Nice try on shifting the proof, your the one who used the quote, so yorut the one to prove it's context.

Don't need to, I proved he lied your the one the claims context will make the lie acceptable, you need to prove it.




In the 50 we used to have a exercise in case of a attack, it was called Duck and Cover, you have just given a outstanding demonstration of Duck and Cover.

The Left are the ones who keep Rush in the Lime Light,

Aah but lime light was not my argument, my argument was he was a liar, your the one making the straw man not I.



LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

So are you saying he is Stephan Colbert or not?

Don't need to, I proved he lied your the one the claims context will make the lie acceptable, you need to prove it.




Aah but lime light was not my argument, my argument was he was a liar, your the one making the straw man not I.



So are you saying he is Stephan Colbert or not?

You have proven no such thing, you have provided no context, and are now running for the cover of shifting the burden to me, you opened this cans of worms so now eat it.

Yes, a expert duck and cover.

You have proven no such thing, you have provided no context, and are now running for the cover of shifting the burden to me, you opened this cans of worms so now eat it.

Your claiming context will fix the matter, its your counter argument you need to prove it.


Yes, a expert duck and cover.

yes you are you won't answer me.

Yes indeed what happen to the fiscally conservative "tax less, spend less" and "get government away from our rights" people, the present conservative had no problem spending like crazy as long as it was paid in debt, something that could harm us even worse then if it was paid in taxes now, and these people have no problem with government oppressing the rights of women and homosexuals and with government enforcing their interpretation of the bible, and had no problem with increasing the power of the federal government to observe and arrest people with less evidence and reason! These aren't conservatives, true conservatives are libertarians, these are fascists.

And don't forget torture...they are fond of advocating torture as a means of extracting information from terrorists and other criminals...sound neo Nazi to me.

Your claiming context will fix the matter, its your counter argument you need to prove it.

yes you are you won't answer me.


Well, guess what? I am not the only one who asked for context, are you going to answer Mad A's request?


I don't watch the View (other than the clip in the OP), so I didn't see the bit you're talking about. But, I have watched Beck's show and he often will mention some story he's working on but will not present the story until it has been vetted 100%. As to The View brouhaha, I doubt he researched the story as he was just relating something that happened on the train.

I also would like to see the context of that quote, because it sounds like a joke. And if Limbaugh is such a dishonest blowhard, why did you have to go all the way back to 1994 to find an example? The guys on 3 hours per day 5 days a week for Pete's sake!

Again a nice try to change the focus, but you are the one to claim the lie, so now prove it beyond just your word and bias.

Yes, one claimed incident in 1994, and you have provided nothing else, and your the one who claimed that;


I was quoting one I could remember off hand, do you want a more recent one, I would have to search through huge list of his lies to find the ones with imaginary sources.

Yes, you remembered some thing from 1994, off hand, 15 years ago? now who is lying, Hmmmmmm?

Well, guess what? I am not the only one who asked for context, are you going to answer Mad A's request?

So? he has to prove context is valid as well.



Again a nice try to change the focus, but you are the one to claim the lie, so now prove it beyond just your word and bias.

A quoted example is a little more then my "word and bias"



Yes, one claimed incident in 1994, and you have provided nothing else, and your the one who claimed that;

oh I could provide many more, in fact I think I left a link to tons of them somewhere back there, but you will complain that they "out of context" and that they arn't new without any proof that time and context are relevant.



Yes, you remembered some thing from 1994, off hand, 15 years ago? now who is lying, Hmmmmmm?

I read the quote months ago, then remember it for this thread. If I'm a liar it still does not make it right for others to be a liar, certainly not for a propagandist like Rush.

So? he has to prove context is valid as well.

A quoted example is a little more then my "word and bias"

oh I could provide many more, in fact I think I left a link to tons of them somewhere back there, but you will complain that they "out of context" and that they arn't new without any proof that time and context are relevant.[QUOTE]

Then get cracking, remember context, and you keep bragging about,

" I could provide many more, in fact I think I left a link to tons of them somewhere back there "

So where are they?

[QUOTE=ElectricFetus;2267061]I read the quote months ago, then remember it for this thread. If I'm a liar it still does not make it right for others to be a liar, certainly not for a propagandist like Rush.

You have lost, and now want a way out, you have proved nothing.


I read the quote months ago, then remember it for this thread. If I'm a liar it still does not make it right for others to be a liar, certainly not for a propagandist like Rush.

The logic of a person caught in His own lie, because I am a liar, it still isn't right that other lie, Hmmmmmmmmm, typical liberal logic.

So again can you prove that Limbaugh Lied? No, a out of context quote isn't proof of any thing, it isn't admissible in any Debate, or Court.

So where are they?


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895



You have lost, and now want a way out, you have proved nothing.

You have not put down a single piece of evidence, your the one who is losing.



The logic of a person caught in His own lie, because I am a liar, it still isn't right that other lie, Hmmmmmmmmm, typical liberal logic.

Its called an ad hominem tu que, its a noted concept of logic and argument fallacies, but again perhaps it is typical liberal logic since we have grasp of critical reasoning. By the way Rush as been an excellent teaching aid on logic fallacies:

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~dtomkins/Critique.html#Fallacies

http://books.google.com/books?id=hY1WUHlailAC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Rush+Limbaugh+Logic+fallacies+examples&source=bl&ots=YHrC2klGl-&sig=BGuKW-j8GZFz4en_n7sFwxHFGrs&hl=en&ei=9nMfSpDQIZ-ltgeK77C8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1



So again can you prove that Limbaugh Lied? No, a out of context quote isn't proof of any thing, it isn't admissible in any Debate, or Court.

Can you prove that?

Sorry, what we're witnessing isn't a normal cyclical change in the political climate. The Country is changing, conservatism isn't being embraced by any of the of rising political constituencies.Yeah, yeah, the Dems will be in charge forever. Just like Bush had big plans for the permanent Republican majority.

The Democrats are not going to control everything eternally. They eventually will loose their way. But hopefully that will be a very long time from now. As long as the ditto head faction of the Republican Party is calling the shots, and as long as the ditto head drama queens are running the Republican shop....Republicans are doomed to be a minority party and rightly so.

Some of the Dems are already falling victim to the call of corruption. Some Democratic Senators are trying to pass legislation that gives the wealthiest of our families special tax breaks as the Republicans with them and before them have tried before...along with George II.

The Dems need to not fall victim to corruption as the Republicans before them did. They need to stand up for all Americans and not the few who pad their fortunes.

http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2009/04/senators-murray-and-cantwell-vote-for.html

It restores my faith in the American people to see the Republicans take such a well deserved thrashing in the last election. But the Dems are no angels either. You already have a few Dems trying to push through special legislation for the Walmart family and other wealthy families...just like the the Republican majority and George II tried to do in the last administration.

really the only issue is that you are relying on other people you put people in power.

as if another being has any real say as to what you do.

honestly do laws ever stand in the way of someone being shot or robbed?

has the president never stolen?

would a law stop you from murdering your mother

you feed off these "officials" criticising them as if you played no role in their mistakes applauding them as if you had been there for them all along?

then spouting your opinions like they mean something

really the only issue is that you are relying on other people you put people in power.

as if another being has any real say as to what you do.

honestly do laws ever stand in the way of someone being shot or robbed?

has the president never stolen?

would a law stop you from murdering your mother

you feed off these "officials" criticising them as if you played no role in their mistakes applauding them as if you had been there for them all along?

then spouting your opinions like they mean something

With all due respect space child, I think someone is waiting for you out there.

you have full faith in your government then?

No I do not, but it is all that we have. So we have to work with it. We cannot leave it alone else it will screw us as sure as we having this little conversation.

Glen Beck is a radio and TV host in The United States. He with limbaugh, hannity, levine, and others spue their lies on American Airways 24/7. This is why Americans have done some just plain out right stupid stuff in the last decade.

http://www.popcrunch.com/glen-beck-the-view-video-lying-sack-of-dog-mess/
Here is a report from Breitbart TV (which is the same group that produced the link that pissed Whoopee off) that debunks your entire story.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=352443

I listened, and heard no redeeming evidence in favor of glen beck. I did find a conservative blogger trying to restore some of beck's credibility. I heard several excuses for beck, including he was feeling ill the day of the appearance on The View. I heard beck get coached by others...beck's producer, much to beck's suprise, told beck he did not lie.

beck is an experienced guy, he knows how to handle himself. I heard a huge effort to down play the event as trival and not relevant by a conservative blogger. In order to believe that beck was not caught in several lies, you have to believe several facts not in evidence and contrary to the way beck described the situation when he was not "ill" and before coaching.

According to the Beck story, Walters initated contact. On the view, beck admitted to approaching Walters. In order to believe beck's original story, you have to believe that Walters (an older woman) iniated a long distance conversation with beck...not very likely. Why else would beck physically change locations and move closer to Walters before engaging on conversation?

And most importantly, the issue is not the specifics of what happened on the train that night which this blohhrt guy totally missed; it was the constant misrepresentation that folks like beck engage in each and every day. You heard in beck's own words, he does not check his facts. beck delibrately misrepresented this encounter to make Walters look bad for his audience and got called on the rug for it and he apologized for it on The View.

Finally, the whole case for beck rests solely on the word of a conservative blogger. Where is the statement from Amtrack? There is none, all you have is the word of a conservative blogger trying to save a fellow fear monger. The blogger himself admits that he has no proof, only the word of a conservative blogger who has a long history of embelishing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart

Here is a report from Breitbart TV (which is the same group that produced the link that pissed Whoopee off) that debunks your entire story.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=352443

Seems you have just gutted joe's rant totally, and completely, so now who is caught in the lie?

Woopie and the Baba, it would seem.

Seems you have just gutted joe's rant totally, and completely, so now who is caught in the lie?

Woopie and the Baba, it would seem.

Only you could make such a deluded statement. I suggest you read my response before running off at the fingers.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2272042&postcount=91

Only you could make such a deluded statement...too much koolaid again. I suggest you read my response before running off at the fingers...not that you have a chance in hell of understanding it. But try it any way.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2272042&postcount=91

No, joe if anyone was running off at the fingers it was you when you posted this thread.

Mad A gutted your assertions, and as far as the view.....:roflmao:

In your perpetual dream Buffalo.