Those who throw stones must be careful.

[Guest]

There are a number of folks, one in particular, questioning with absolutely no validity the truthfulness of Beck and others. Still waiting for ONE post of substance on that subject, but thought would bring home to all of you who feel that the ONE in the WH can do no wrong...

"Either way, for a president whose approach to exaggerated critiques of his administration is to “call ‘em out” and who has made an issue of forcing corporate America to expose the fine print, one wonders whether his use of “unprecedented” would pass his own litmus test."

"The Obama White House is addicted to the “unprecedented.”

Perhaps it was a sign when President Barack Obama sat down in January to record his first weekly address and announced: “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action."

What has followed is declaration after declaration of “unprecedented” milestones. Some of them are legitimate firsts, like the president’s online town hall at the White House in May.

But others the president wins merely on a technicality, and several clearly already have precedents.

The White House’s announcement of its unprecedented — “a first by an American president visiting China” — town hall meeting with students in Beijing, for instance, drew a collective eye roll in certain circles back home, namely among former aides to President George W. Bush, who had already been grumbling about Obama’s carefree application of “unprecedented.”

“I think I attended a town hall with President Bush in China,” former Bush adviser Karen Hughes quipped with a laugh, recalling a 2002 Bush speech in Beijing at which he took questions from the audience. “I thought: Were they asleep? Or were they dreaming? I remember standing and watching President Bush engage in a town hall that I believe was televised.”

"President Bill Clinton also took questions from Chinese students at an event during a trip to the country in 1998, then did a radio call-in show in Shanghai the next day.

The White House’s characterization of Obama’s Beijing town hall mirrored the description staff gave Obama’s address to students on the first day of school, which the Education Department called “historic.” Yet President George H.W. Bush delivered an address to students, as did President Ronald Reagan. Maybe it was the streaming online video of Obama’s speech to students that was unprecedented? "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091125/pl_politico/29896

Point is.....if you want to call out folks for untruths, you gotta be careful as yours may be pointed out ! Disagreeing with someones outlook and opinion is one thing.....calling or implying a lie is something entirely different !

[Guest]

You wanted some examples of Glenn Beck not telling the truth?

He said no other President had been sworn in without a Bible - and claimed he fact-checked it. John Quincy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't "swear" (he 'affirmed'). Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible.

He said that $1.4 million of stimulus momey was used to repair a door at Dyess AFB.
What he didn't say was that the doors repaired were aircraft hangar doors and the cost was not $1.4 million. The cost was $246K out of $1.4 million in repairs funding.

But let me give you one even more outrageous.

"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.'" -- Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program

Now for the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

You wonder why I dismiss Glenn Beck?

[Guest]

I think you are mixing words. There is a difference between having a bible there and being sworn in with a hand on the bible. As you can see in all cases they were very christian people who attached themselves to the bible and put great faith in the Constitution. Now if we can just get Obama to put great faith in the Constitution and adhere to it what a great country this could be. I believe you quotes Beck as saying "no other President had been sworn in without a bible." Oops there were bibles and you, I know you did not mean to, mislead the readers..
If the technically of hand on the bible vs constitution is the best you can find on Beck then what a great man he continues to be.


John Quincy Adams:
There's an interesting thing about John Adams and John Quincy Adams -- they were both very religious men, and John Quincy Adams were so religious that he is one of probably only one or two American presidents who did not take the Oath of Allegiance on a Bible. Now, it's kind of ironic that John Quincy Adams, being such a religious man, would not have used the Bible, but he said that he thought the Bible should be reserved for strictly religious purposes. So he took the Oath of Office on a book of laws, the Constitution and American laws. That's really what he was swearing allegiance to was the Constitution, so he didn't use the Bible.

Teddy Roosevelt:
Because T. Roosevelt wanted to show that Church and State should be separated. Although he was a devout Christian and Bible fanatic, he remembered that the US Constitution is very clear on that principle
.
Franklin Pierce:
The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[Guest]

You wanted some examples of Glenn Beck not telling the truth?

He said no other President had been sworn in without a Bible - and claimed he fact-checked it. John Quincy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't "swear" (he 'affirmed'). Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible.

He said that $1.4 million of stimulus momey was used to repair a door at Dyess AFB.
What he didn't say was that the doors repaired were aircraft hangar doors and the cost was not $1.4 million. The cost was $246K out of $1.4 million in repairs funding.

But let me give you one even more outrageous.

"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.'" -- Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program

Now for the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

You wonder why I dismiss Glenn Beck?


I want to concentrate on the John Holdren item.

Let me first explain my inital post....my point was if you are going to call someone a liar, or even imply it, then you should be prepared to hear when those you support have supposed lies or overeggarations exposed. I never defended Beck as I do not know all of what he has said. Thus your attempt to show a lie strikes me as counter productive.

Secondly....the only reason I am replying is when I saw your source for the John Holdren story, of which I really was not even aware, I had to respond at least to tell you that POLITIFACT is an EXTREMELY left wing group.....it started in St Pete and I personally am aware of some of the folks who began it and how far left they lean.
BUT...it got my attention enough to read a bit about it. It appears that these commments DID exist in a text book with multiple authors. So he did say it but he didnt :)
This digging through writing from way back can be something cant it ? Imagine with all those fact checking Palin's book and calling her a liar, and it appears the only thing they have come up with....all those fact checkers...imagine 11 AP reporters fact checking a womans book while all other stories are ignored....anyway I guess they found only that she did in fact spend some money on ritzy hotels which she didnt deny....suppose the quote about not doing it much was not sufficient.

Now that is not meant as a defense of Palin or Beck nor a condemnation of Mr. Holdren. Just means we can get into a long big circle by igoring or making up our definition of context.

Again.....I get a bit upset when anyone is called a liar with no facts to back it...that was the intent of the thread.....politicians and pundits of both sides of the aisle are guilty of doing this and trying to make a case about one person is sort of a tireless act.

I would never have mentioned the critique of Obama except I happened to read this article the same day a few posters were insisting with no substance that Beck tells lies.

If we are to start threads calling out liars, this will be a laborious task since context is ignored and every single official in Washington will be mentioned even the ONE !!!

[Guest]

Regarding the statement: ""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.'" -- Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program" and the point that this was a lie by Beck.

Please read the book "Ecoscience" co authored by Holdren, and Paul and Anne Ehritich, published in 1977.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

This may sound so bizzare as to not be believable that someone could have written it in 1977. The proof is in the pudding..Read the book.

[Guest]

This is really mind-boggling.

Read the quote. Beck says that they guy PROPOSED DOING THIS. They didn't say he referenced a book where these things MIGHT HAPPEN.

So, a Christian says they use the Bible for guidance, does that mean they are proposing nuking cities (Sodom and Gomorrah), poisoning water supplies (Nile turning to blood), killing every firstborn son and ending the earth (Revelations)?

I thought you had more intelligence than that. Beck was putting words in someone's mouth for the purpose of making himself look like the Great Investigative Journalist who could Save Us All - and hike his ratings.

He LIED. He MISREPRESENTED. He does what it takes to get rating because he is an ENTERTAINER. People at NBC were FIRED for making stuff up about pickup explosions but Beck still has his job. *IF* he were a journalist he would have been fired for something like that. It's called "character assassination".

And people are making excuses for him?

Again, read the references. The book stated that things COULD happen. they were not ADVOCATED as SOLUTIONS.

[Guest]

Why are we debating whether Beck tells the truth or not? Shouldn't we be taking about our current President and Congress telling the truth?

Look, I'll start.

"95% of Americans won't see their taxes increased one dime." That was a promise he made over and over.

[Guest]

dklassen..I agree and your right it should be a debate about the current Preident..BUT I could not overlook the bizzare attempt to compare Obama to John Quincy Adams and Teddy Roosevelt in any way. Or the comparison of the Bible to someone so disgraceful and terrible (Holdren) to allow himself to even be mentioned in a book or being a coauthor that talks of
"• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Either a person actually belives this which would be terrible or it is an attempt at being entertained in debate which is even as bad.

[Guest]

Why are we debating whether Beck tells the truth or not? Shouldn't we be taking about our current President and Congress telling the truth?

Look, I'll start.

"95% of Americans won't see their taxes increased one dime." That was a promise he made over and over.

If they can keep us discussing if Beck is lying or not, they figure they can keep us from looking into the information that Beck has provided.

(An old liberal trick)

Yoda

[Guest]

This is really mind-boggling.

Read the quote. Beck says that they guy PROPOSED DOING THIS. They didn't say he referenced a book where these things MIGHT HAPPEN.

So, a Christian says they use the Bible for guidance, does that mean they are proposing nuking cities (Sodom and Gomorrah), poisoning water supplies (Nile turning to blood), killing every firstborn son and ending the earth (Revelations)?

I thought you had more intelligence than that. Beck was putting words in someone's mouth for the purpose of making himself look like the Great Investigative Journalist who could Save Us All - and hike his ratings.

He LIED. He MISREPRESENTED. He does what it takes to get rating because he is an ENTERTAINER. People at NBC were FIRED for making stuff up about pickup explosions but Beck still has his job. *IF* he were a journalist he would have been fired for something like that. It's called "character assassination".

And people are making excuses for him?

Again, read the references. The book stated that things COULD happen. they were not ADVOCATED as SOLUTIONS.


Your fascination with Beck actually FASCINATES me !!! WHY ?

Would you even entertain a discussion about the squat that Olbermann and Maddow put out over the airways ? I doubt it but you will go on and on about Beck and call him a liar, YET for years I have heard Olbermann and Maddow take Bush to the woodshed for any error in statement or fact at all and call him really rotten personal names.

What in fact is the fascination with Beck, Limbaugh and Palin...NONE OF WHICH are elected official and have NO power whatsoever and overlook the actions and lies of congress for example ?

PLEASE explain what it is....I dont get it ! I started this thread simply to try and show the lunacy of calling anyone a liar and it progressed to this.

What about this man causes the blood to stir but excuses galore for Olberman, Maddow and their ilk. I just dont get it !

Gotta tell you...your posts and those of those who are on here spouting about this guy with REAL STRETCHES to try and prove lying intrigue me. I dont watch Beck...have caught little snippets of his show but intend to watch now simply as a result of you folks ranting on like this !

[Guest]

I went online to try to find a copy so I could read it for myself. Unfortunately, it is out of print and used copies start at $304, too rich for my blood. Does anyone here actually have a copy and, if so, may I borrow it? I don't mind doing the research and finding out what was actually written. Because of the controversy surrounding this, I distrust any and all second-hand sources.

[Guest]

Your fascination with Beck actually FASCINATES me !!! WHY ?

Would you even entertain a discussion about the squat that Olbermann and Maddow put out over the airways ?!

Let me quote the original post:


There are a number of folks, one in particular, questioning with absolutely no validity the truthfulness of Beck and others. Still waiting for ONE post of substance on that subject


It mentioned Beck by name. The post says that the poster IS WAITING FOR a post on the subject. So I provided one.

Now, a fair question from you might be "Why Beck?" Simple answer - he's the subject of a lot of conversation. He's gotten a lot of press. Right, wrong or indifferent, his name IS out there a LOT.

To be honest, I'd barely even HEARD of Glenn Beck until Obama got elected. Olberman and Maddow? Don't know too much about them because I don't go to news channels looking for opinion - so when the opinion talk shows start, I'm tuned somewhere else.

Recently I've tried watching the news channels again. Over the past several years, I've taken to getting most of my news on the internet from a variety of wire sources and newspaper websites that are liberal (Boston Globe, NY Times), more middle-of-the-road (USA Today, depending on the section), and VERY right-wing (Boston Herald, Manchester Union-Leader). Newspapers still have the room to print NEWS as opposed to TV stations that only have a couple of moments to scare you into watching ("Is your kitchen pantry poisoning you - we'll tell you at 11!") Seeing the parodies of "news" that CNN, Fox and their ilk have become is indeed depressing. Heck, I can't get a good 24/7 news channel on radio I *PAY* for (XM) with the possible exception of POTUS, which was a channel dedicated to campaign coverage every election cycle.

I used to be a Democrat until I started working.

I used to be a Republican until they abandoned their principles (especially things like the Patriot Act)

I used to be Catholic until (among other things) we discovered that, although I was supposedly going to hell for eating a hot dog on Friday, priests conveniently missed the memo on not raping little boys.

There are a lot of things in life I "used to be" but experience has had me move away from them. I like to think that is part of the definition of an open mind.

I'm 47. I'm sure than when I'm 57 I'll have had some opinions changed. Same holds true for 67 if I make it that far.

[Guest]

Let me quote the original post:



It mentioned Beck by name. The post says that the poster IS WAITING FOR a post on the subject. So I provided one.

Now, a fair question from you might be "Why Beck?" Simple answer - he's the subject of a lot of conversation. He's gotten a lot of press. Right, wrong or indifferent, his name IS out there a LOT.

To be honest, I'd barely even HEARD of Glenn Beck until Obama got elected. Olberman and Maddow? Don't know too much about them because I don't go to news channels looking for opinion - so when the opinion talk shows start, I'm tuned somewhere else.

Recently I've tried watching the news channels again. Over the past several years, I've taken to getting most of my news on the internet from a variety of wire sources and newspaper websites that are liberal (Boston Globe, NY Times), more middle-of-the-road (USA Today, depending on the section), and VERY right-wing (Boston Herald, Manchester Union-Leader). Newspapers still have the room to print NEWS as opposed to TV stations that only have a couple of moments to scare you into watching ("Is your kitchen pantry poisoning you - we'll tell you at 11!") Seeing the parodies of "news" that CNN, Fox and their ilk have become is indeed depressing. Heck, I can't get a good 24/7 news channel on radio I *PAY* for (XM) with the possible exception of POTUS, which was a channel dedicated to campaign coverage every election cycle.

I used to be a Democrat until I started working.

I used to be a Republican until they abandoned their principles (especially things like the Patriot Act)

I used to be Catholic until (among other things) we discovered that, although I was supposedly going to hell for eating a hot dog on Friday, priests conveniently missed the memo on not raping little boys.

There are a lot of things in life I "used to be" but experience has had me move away from them. I like to think that is part of the definition of an open mind.

I'm 47. I'm sure than when I'm 57 I'll have had some opinions changed. Same holds true for 67 if I make it that far.


Fair response on the Beck thing ! I will say that if that is it...that is all their is to be used, then it is certainly quite a stretch for anyone to say that he stretches the truth, as the example you had to dig up is vague at best !

But ok...you feel Beck lies...I dont agree based on what you presented and we will just have to disagree.

I mentioned the others because I am struck by the absence of thier names (those two I mentioned on MSNBC) when using that word LIE !!!