Jim, I agree, the article IS slanted, as was the one I originally saw that prompted my first report on this. But, the "quote", if accurate (and it was the same in both sources I saw), is pretty clear. And, with a statement like his, if this quote is verbatim, I would find it hard to find fault with any conclusions the article draws.

I don't take your comment wrong at all, Jim. I appreciate your opinion and willingness to sign your name.

I think my gripe with Mr. Beck started when I clicked on a link where he described how the Government was invading your privacy back in the days of "Cash for Clunkers". He started with a VERY brief statement that this only applied to PC apps that were on dealership computers (and that were really there to keep them from cheating on the program - but he didn't say that), but then spent 10+ minutes trying to convince us all that somehow, this was invading OUR privacy, even though we could not use this app to find out what the value of our "clunker" was worth (from home).

At the time, I was somewhat overwhelmed by the "GB" logos all over the wall behind him.

I decided right then, that anyone who loves himself that much, should be spending his life looking in a mirror.

- Jack

 

Thanks Jack, I'm glad we're good.

Jim

 

Yep. What is sickening is how the media twisted what Beck. The media compared the kids to Hitler youth, not Beck.

 

Frank, I know you never let facts get in the way of what you believe, but you can listen to what Mr. Beck said in the radio link here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...16-503544.html

The media did not have to "twist" anything. Mr. Beck said EXACTLY what was quoted in my earlier post.

I do apologize if it sounds like I'm badmouthing your media darling, but sometimes the truth makes it hard to do otherwise.

- Jack

 

Glenn Beck criticized for comparing Norway victims to "Hitler Youth"

Jack, the title of that article alone creates spin spin, because he didn't even compare the victims to the Hitler youth.

Beck (I don't care for him) says things regular people won't say, and most people wouldn't say such a thing. But twisting what he said is worse, be it the by media or a regular Joe Shmoe. That is even more disturbing.

If you can't speak your mind in this country then we are all headed down the wrong path. Flat out lying about what a person says then spreading it like a cancer is pathetic. Too many get away with it and it's a shame.

 

Agreed, and by your logic I can speak my mind on what Mr. Beck said. Which I did. I simply pointed out that what he said seemed an inappropriate thing to say in the wake of the killings. This is especially the case since the camp was founded by the people (admittedly Socialist) who were in the resistance against Hitler during the war. But then, Norway has a Socialist government, I think, so what's the problem?

It's also a bit artless and hypocritical of him to slur the youth camp in Norway when he has donated and raised money (I would assume a significant amount) to far right-wing youth camps here in the States. Why is it "disturbing" that a politically inspired camp is formed in Norway, but not disturbing to have politically inspired camps here? By the way, I do NOT care for the fact that the link below calls HIS camps "Hitler Youth", but I could not find a different link to the same show. I certainly do not see these camps in that light. The majority of scholars though, would view Naziism as being "extremely far-right", even though the name means "National Socialism".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA432...yer_detailpage

Anyway, I don't think there were really any lies about what he said, and I don't find the "spin", as you put it, that far off the mark. It was certainly not libelous.

But this is just my opinion, and I'm allowed to express it.

- Jack

 

We know.

 

Obviously it is ok for Jack to throw insults. Every word spoken.

 

And this is one reason why many thinking people have problems with the 'majority of scholars'.

How a guy with so many policies that were not right wing can be labelled as 'extreme right wing' is pretty curious.

Any chance the scholar's leftist agenda is to distance themselves from Hitler, while painting Hitler as some sort of right winger?

The reality is **** Germany had many, many socialist (i.e. left) practices. Government sponsored enterprises and government favoritism for preferred companies were widespread in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. These may not be 'pure socialism', but they are not right wing.

Basically, it was no accident that they included Socialism in the **** name.

Sure, the **** blend of Facism/Socialism was different than Soviet style Socialism or a shcolar's view of pure Socialism or Communism, but it is a lie to say the ***** were extremely right wing.

My guess is the 'majority of scholars' are quite content to perpetuate this lie, as it suits their purposes quite nicely.

Seems to me the **** government was in the middle of the far right and far left in many ways, and certainly not 'extreme right wing'.

IMO, the fact that the ***** were genocidal racists is what scholars use to facilitate the 'right wing' argument. Racist = Bad. And in scholar's minds, Right Wing = Bad. Therefore Racist (Hitler) = Right Wing. That may make sense to the scholars, but it ignores the fact that Hitler and the ***** were left in many ways.

 

The majority of "scholars" are liberals. And that is why they claim that fascists are far-right.

Fascism is a far-left ideology. Government control of almost all aspects of life. Nazism is/was a form of fascism.

Far-left liberals want life micromanaged by gov't. Far-right conservatives/libertarians do not.

It's not difficult to discern which side leans towards fasicst/statist/socialist beliefs.

 

Good grief, it's been quite a while since I read such utter nonsense. Your entire post is made up of lies, I don't even know where to begin,and I'm guessing no matter how bad I pwned you, it wouldn't matter anyway.

If you really believe what you wrote, you need to go back to school and demand a refund, seriously, they took your money and pretended to sell you an education.

 

It was satirical. I figured you would have caught that from the wording but I guess not.

 

I knew it was, but then I know you better than Habs does. Sometimes, one can be too subtle.

- Jack

 

Habs has out subtled both of you.

I didn't take his response seriously at all.

 

I was clearing things up because he didn't leave any definitive clues in his sentence structure. I haven't been spending enough time here to recognize his subtleties.