Not Guilty........

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
One is serious and the other just a performer making lots of money.

Which one's which?

I still don't see a difference...... and many of those who take Beck seriously and follow him like some wise leader obviously don't see a difference either.

One does it for religious reasons and the other does it for money..... which in the US...... money is a religion all on its own.

Zero difference, same end result.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
He is the one along with Eric holder who made the decision to have a civil trial instead of a military tribunal..where the rules of evidence are slightly different.......a fact that everyone seems to be dancing around.
And the problem is what? Not an assured fixed guilty verdict? Oh, the horror.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Those who compare Beck to that terrorist, obviously never watched a single episode of the Glen Beck program.

Beck condemns those he condemns by their own words. And he repeatedly he encourages his listeners/viewers NOT to believe what he says, but check it out for themselves.

Would anyone who just spews hate without facts on his side do that? Would any liberal (pardon the redundancy) ever do that?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''Those who compare Beck to that terrorist, obviously never watched a single episode of the Glen Beck program.''

Beck has stated ON THE RECORD that his political tutor is Skousen who called Eisenhower a communist and who was branded a 'whacko' by CONSERVATIVES in the Cook Report and National Review. Obviously, you do not know how extreme and mentally unbalanced Beck is.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Those who compare Beck to that terrorist, obviously never watched a single episode of the Glen Beck program.

Sure I have.... both spew propaganda..... both spew crap.... both spew ignorance..... both spew hatred..... both do it for their own personal causes...... religion...... and money which is a form of religion to some.

And when "Terrorists" act on the crap the Muslim guy spews, everybody links it directly to that guy and guys like him who spew BS...... but when someone in the US acts on the crap Beck and guys like him spew...... suddenly they acted all on their own, they were mentally unstable and these clowns they listened to had nothing to do with what they did.

Beck condemns those he condemns by their own words.

So does the other guy..... many of the tapes and videos sent out from Al'Q/Taliban heads/leaders point to a lot of contradictions and words used by their enemies to show they're not trust worthy.

And he repeatedly he encourages his listeners/viewers NOT to believe what he says, but check it out for themselves.

And we all know his viewers are too lazy to do that, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering with watching his show to begin with.

Would anyone who just spews hate without facts on his side do that? Would any liberal (pardon the redundancy) ever do that?

Possibly, but I'm talking about the guys that get the most attention that the other side probably sees the most as the representative of their specific group..... ie: Muslims vs. Americans.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
"It's your fault you idiot!" "You should know better than to allow me talk you into letting me drive."
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
"It's your fault you idiot!" "You should know better than to allow me talk you into letting me drive."
Famous words of the guy....when his passenger told him "Hey buddy...you're driving on the wrong side of the road......
"Oopsy... I thought you were <hic> driving.";-)
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States

Just an example of what happens when civilians are left in charge.


The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday said it was committed to a policy of taking some terrorism suspects before civilian courts, although several critics - Republicans and one high-ranking Democrat - said the verdict in the civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani showed that military commissions were needed to try terrorism detainees.
The commander of the USS Cole when it was attacked by al Qaeda terrorists in 2000 said the verdict against Ghailani - found guilty on only one of 285 counts - represented "a mockery of justice and is further proof that civilian trials for enemy combatants is a foolish and misguided strategy."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/18/verdict-raises-hackles-over-trying-terror-suspects/
 

Skatchie

Time Out
Sep 24, 2010
312
0
16
42
Assiniboia
It's stupid all around. Civilian trials for this stuff is stupid. Obama is an idiot and he's being thrown under the bus now. They are setting him up for a downfall.