Posted on 09/29/2009 4:38:33 AM PDT by steve-b
When Glenn Beck made his Fox debut, some shrewd conservatives responded with a wink. Maybe the show was paranoid and hysterical. Maybe Beck was none too scrupulous about facts and truth. But why be squeamish? The other side did as bad, or nearly. And see how usefully he mobilized the base!
Those shrewd conservatives assumed Beck was working for them. Big mistake. Beck is working for himself – and he chooses his targets according to his own scheme of priorities....
Glenn Beck is not the first to make a pleasant living for himself by reckless defamation. We have seen his kind before in American journalism and American politics, and the good news is that their careers never last long. But the bad news is that while their careers do last, such people do terrible damage.....
(Excerpt) Read more at newmajority.com ...
Two anti-Beck screeds posted in the past half hour by the good ole GOP stalwarts. He’s got to be doing something right.
This can in no way be characterized as a lie and it is outrageous for anyone to attempt it, especially with the, "Well, it's not my opinion, but ..." caveat. A lie, by definition, is deliberate. What you describe is someone reaching a conclusion based on factors digested who is corrected in his misapprehension, misunderstanding. "Proven by evidence" ?? What do you mean by this, a guest corrects Glenn on the fact of the matter? Or a guest suggests a different conclusion based on his understanding??
People are throwing the words lie and lying at Glenn all over the place, Frum just the latest in the sour grapes bunch; it is unfair. It is not a lie to be mistaken. It is a lie to claim this has occurred when patently it has not.
I’m on your side. Really, I am.
Didn’t have to see the byline to know who wrote this piece of trash. It has the stench of Frum clinging to it.
What a big, steaming pile......good Lord.......
This from the author of the "Unpatriotic Conservatives" smear!
what, couldn’t wait for your posse? Have to actually do something yourself?
Your question is a non-sequitor, as it would be absurd to contemplate a URL being a “lie”. A URL is a link to a page, and so far as I can tell all the pages that you link to actually exist; and if one didn’t we wouldn’t call the URL a lie, we would call it a broken link.
If you want an answer to a question, ask a rational question. The lie is what you say, not what you link (although there are certainly incorrect items within the body of the things you linked to as well, but they were hashed out in other threads).
And...
...we show up!
If I get what you are saying; it takes a LIST of URL's to rise to the level of a lie?
But the CLAIM that there are lies there was made in THIS thread.
If you do not wish to point them out after you have made a claim; then prudence would suggest that you not make the claim to begin with.
At no point was McCain up +8 over Obama in the poll averages. According to the RCP website, only ONE poll ever had McCain up that much, USA Today/Gallup 09/05 - 09/07 823 LV 4.0 44 54 McCain +10
But that was almost 2 weeks before your 9/18 "date", and other than that, McCain was only barely over the margin of error in a couple of polls for a day or so, a typical convention bounce no doubt helped tremendously by Obama's stupid convention speech and conservative excitement over Palin.
The last poll to have McCain up (+4) was 9/11, which was a WEEK before your 9/18 date. Rasmussen already had Obama back up +1 by 9/9.
However, I apologize for using the term "lie", You were wrong, but maybe you really believed what you were saying.
BTW, USA Today/Gallup had McCain up +5 in July, and Reuters had McCain up by +5 in August, before he picked Palin. They were obviously outliers.
Usually you are quicker, so diogenes doesn’t actually have to make substantive comments. :-)
No, I am saying that it is silly to think a URL could be a “lie”, so the question “which URL is a lie” has no meaning.
I remember when Sunstein was on Clinton’s short list for the Supreme Court, but he ended up picking ex-Kennedy chief of staff, Steven Breyer.
Frum?
He is an idiot, Defamation is actionable, so far no court case.
The left is squirming because beck is able to expose them and do the job CNN and their ilk refuse to do.
Frum does too much anal gazing.
How’s this!!
Sunstein’s views on animal rights generated controversy when his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama was blocked by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.
I have the quote from the book up in another comment.
I don’t really like using civil lawsuits for punishment purposes.
But if you did support the idea of civil liability as a way to keep people from doing bad things, the idea of making a legal way for people to sue for beating a dog isn’t really a radical agenda.
I’m sure there were more than a few people here who would have liked to have had a chance to sue Michael Vick for his animal cruelty.
The problem as I see it is that even if you supported such a move for “common sense” application, like if your neighbor poisoned your cat (note you might be able to sue for loss of affection in that case, but not for the actual harm to your cat), once you have given standing for suits for animal cruelty, there will be suits for all sorts of things that aren’t considered “cruel” by mainstream standards, and even if the suits lose the ability to bring them will bankrupt people.
Still, calling Sunstein’s idea wrong-headed (an accurate assessment) is a long way from proclaiming that he WANTS the adverse outcomes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.