I may only be watching via Colbert and Jon Stewart but the clips being paid show Glen Beck sounding very eerily like Hitler did from the british movie "Rise of Evil" the speeches are similar albeit lacking the anti semetism.
The man's scary.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I'd suggest you actually watch Beck's show a few times for the complete context. Stewart and Colbert exist only to mock.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've listened to Beck. He's atrocious, usually.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm assuming this is not the LDS Relief Society President?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm assuming this is not the LDS Relief Society President?
Don't think so. Beck is LDS (I think), but he's a political commentator/host who was one of the few conservatives on CNN, and now he's on Fox.
Famous recently for crying while talking about how the democrats were destroying his country. To me, it looks like he was fake crying, but I may be biased.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: I'd suggest you actually watch Beck's show a few times for the complete context. Stewart and Colbert exist only to mock.
That's rather uncharitable, and doesn't exactly leave me with the feeling that you're providing objective information. Stewart and Colbert exist for many reasons other than mockery.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was kidding - President Beck is female.
---
Ornicoro: Uncharitable towards Stewart and Colbert? Calling them comedians? You're kidding, right?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Magson: I'd suggest you actually watch Beck's show a few times for the complete context. Stewart and Colbert exist only to mock.
That's rather uncharitable, and doesn't exactly leave me with the feeling that you're providing objective information. Stewart and Colbert exist for many reasons other than mockery.
But their PRIMARY reason for existing is to mock, by a considerable margin. Just ask them. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
They don't exist "only to mock-" I find that to be a poor way of characterizing their jobs. Simple mocking is empty and pointless, which is not how I see them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They do quite a bit more, they're probably a much more reliable source of news then most mainstream sources.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Beck seems like an alright guy but I disagree with him on a lot of things, and I feel he takes himself and the issues he discusses too seriously. I think he gets too upset over the perceived results of the things he disagrees with. He honestly gets that emotionally involved.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: They do quite a bit more, they're probably a much more reliable source of news then most mainstream sources.
Not to double post but Blayne I bet both Stephen and Jon would disagree that they do much more than present news in a humorous context. The fact you catch subtext in what they are saying does not make them actual newsmen. Jon Stewart himself says over and over that the usual rules of journalistic integrity don't apply to him because he is running a comedy show.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's only if you think mocking is empty and pointless.
Mocking private individuals? Yes. But there is a place for the mocking of icons and politicians. It isn't shameful to be a satirist, but that is what they are.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And yet, he somehow manages to have that integrity when the networks who claim to have it don't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, successful satire depends on it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They don't exist "only to mock-" I find that to be a poor way of characterizing their jobs. Simple mocking is empty and pointless, which is not how I see them.
Only because we tend to think of mockery as a bad thing. It isn't. In many cases, it is a vital civil service.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, successful satire depends on it.
Amen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Glenn
quote:So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it!
And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.
Beck
quote:Somebody asked me this morning, they said, you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future. And I said, if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country, which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower.
Is
quote:GLENN: Stu, stop the music. This is important stuff. Is it possible, do you know, is Wally starting this weekend?
STU: I believe it is starting this weekend.
GLENN: Oh, I can't wait to teach my kids how we've destroyed the Earth.
STU: Well, it's not you teaching as much as a robot.
GLENN: Yeah, I know, as much as, you know, Pixar is teaching. I can't wait. Just, this is great. You know if your kid has ever come home and said, "Dad, how come we use so much styrofoam," oh, this is the movie for you. I love that. "Dad, how come we don't recycle as much as we should?" "We do recycle." "Well, teacher says we don't recycle enough." "Oh, really? Is that what teacher is saying? What's the teacher's phone number?" I'm becoming one of those people, I really am. I am this close, and I haven't said anything on the air. I've said it in other states during the stage show, what's been going on in my life under the surface, all kept quiet, bottled up inside since January, but I'm coming this -- I'm about to spill the beans. You know, within three weeks if there isn't something changed, oh, I'm going to become one of those people.
quote:"Would you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure."
An
quote:"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax.…You need to have fear. You needed to have the fear of starvation. You needed to have the fear of the whole place going to hell in a handbasket. Which--do we have that fear now with global warming?…Then you have to discredit the scientists that say 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]."
Outhouse
quote:You pinhead. You think we would actually be sitting here and saying "well, look at the way she was dressed?" If she were Joan McCain, stop it. You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We're not on LSD anymore -- we need to start making sense.
Rat
quote:The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be "What the hell you mean we're out of missiles?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously if you like Glenn Beck you are a toolbag, sorry.
quote:"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."
Thanks Glenn.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So NASA, I urge you to heed Congressman Fattah's call for democracy in orbit," Colbert said. "Either name that node after me, or I too will reject democracy and seize power as space's evil tyrant overlord. Ball's in your court."
I was thinkin' that naming an artificial moon after a cheese would be cool. But now*... "Appeasement never works. Look at what happened when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler at Munich."
* Actually it's cuz Emperor Colbert, Evil Tyrant Overlord of Space, would be HAWT. Note how he's already used his powers to manipulate the Senate** toward the DarkSide. Invoking Galactic Law, StephenColbert is the next SithLord.
** Admittedly ya'd hafta be pret far along the path of the DarkSide to become a suit in the first place.
[ April 02, 2009, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know, of those links you posted to prove how "crazy" he is, they don't make your point. I can see how people might disagree with him on a few of them, but he isn't nuts in them, he is working from a different set of principles. That isn't the same thing.
I think calling someone "crazy" is an easy and lazy way of dismissing someone you disagree with.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: They do quite a bit more, they're probably a much more reliable source of news then most mainstream sources.
Not to double post but Blayne I bet both Stephen and Jon would disagree that they do much more than present news in a humorous context. The fact you catch subtext in what they are saying does not make them actual newsmen. Jon Stewart himself says over and over that the usual rules of journalistic integrity don't apply to him because he is running a comedy show.
I agree with this, except for the Cramer interview. The Cramer interview wasn't funny, and wasn't intended to be funny. Stewart spent half an hour asking exactly the kinds of questions that the mainstream media should have been asking one or two years ago, only they were too busy falling over themselves to sing Wall Street's praises.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
katharina, is "terrifying" a better word?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, definitely better.
However, I still think it's a dismissal tactic and not a serious argument. Beck is terrified of Obama's policies, you're terrified by Beck's terror of Obama's policies...I think in both cases, it's a way of trying to attach a negative emotion to a proposal or argument rather than substantively taking it on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think calling someone "crazy" is an easy and lazy way of dismissing someone you disagree with.
Too bad. I think he's actually a reprehensible person who says terrible things and I have ample reason to believe that he's a little bit crazy, and you can call this as lazy as you want.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They don't exist "only to mock-" I find that to be a poor way of characterizing their jobs. Simple mocking is empty and pointless, which is not how I see them.
Only because we tend to think of mockery as a bad thing. It isn't. In many cases, it is a vital civil service.
Honestly, I really don't think "they exist only to mock" is true, either. I think both Colbert and Stewart say as much, but it's a hedge- in part because the current flavor of much of journalism is to present information or public statements without follow-through, or to offer flat-Earth believers equal time with Nobel Prize physicists in the name of "unbiased" reporting.
As humorists- which they both certainly are, and I think they're rather good at it- they have an ability to put headlines into context in ways that "real" journalists often shy away from.
Stewart in particular has had a consistent message. The short version is, "Look closer." The longer version is "We shouldn't be taking what politicians, PR people, or the media tell us at face value. And the news media has a sacred duty to help the public to make truly informed decisions, and they're failing in that duty." Being "comedians" may be the only real way to drive that message home; by means of self-mockery, they make it clear that they include themselves in the list of those who shouldn't be taken at face value. No other reporter of serious news dares to take shots at themselves in such a fashion.
[ April 02, 2009, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's only if you think mocking is empty and pointless.
Mocking private individuals? Yes. But there is a place for the mocking of icons and politicians. It isn't shameful to be a satirist, but that is what they are.
Yes, that's fair. But they don't "only" mock, and they don't exist for the express purpose of mocking people. They do also do insightful interviews and explanations of various political and social phenomena that are interesting and useful. Mocking is very reactionary, and it relies on the foolishness of others; they are often more independently creative. If you watch the shows regularly, you'll see what I'm talking about- but suffice to say that their interviews are not always or even often satirical (Colbert embeds satire, but also does a fair amount of honest interviewing), and some of their respective segments are not at all mocking (I once saw Colbert give a three minute explanation of oil speculation that was the best and most concise explanation I had yet to hear).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think in both cases, it's a way of trying to attach a negative emotion to a proposal or argument rather than substantively taking it on.
That's fair.
I don't particularly find him terrifying, but I do at times find him a little scary. Same with Limbaugh, Pelosi, Coulter, and others.
I think it's the fact that if they were standing on a street corner babbling at passers-by I wouldn't have a problem... but the fact that they have a national podium and people listen to them, that's more scary.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)