Boston: Glenn Beck and the Saudi National

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Glenn Beck claims to know something about a Saudi National involved in the Boston Bombing investigation, and wants the President to come clean about it before Beck releases the info on monday.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/19...have-learned-this-week-im-a-changed-person-”/

Why was the President meeting with somebody unscheduled earlier this week? A Saudi official. Who is this Saudi man who was in the hospital, given a new international cell phone and apologized to according to him in Saudi press? Who is he, I wonder? Why would anyone linked to the bombings be deported? If he’s involved wouldn’t he be prosecuted? If he’s a witness why wouldn’t you want him to testify? Why would you allow someone who was standing by the bomb be deported? Why would he leave? And why hasn’t anyone in the media taken an interest in finding out why? Why are they silent?“The Blaze” is interested. And TheBlaze will not comply. We will not sit down. We will not shut up. We will not be intimidated. We look hard into looking who he is. Who he’s connected to, and why he seems to be offered a ticket to freedom even though he’s been linked to bombing. Don’t believe me? Don’t believe me. Six Congressmen have verified.
One of our brave sources asked me to do something very specific and when I was told to do it I said ‘That’s crazy talk. What does the hell does that mean?’ They told me what it meant. I can’t at this time tell you what it means. But I want to do it one more time.
On Monday I reveal everything we know. So let me just say this to those at the highest echelons of government. No the tagging system. They know about events. Not files, events.
Let me send this message very clear: We know who this Saudi national is. It is in your best interest of the integrity of the people of United States of America. It’s best coming from you, not from a news organization. It’s best coming from you. You have until Monday. We have information on who this man is. And listen to me carefully. In your little “event” world, we know he is a very bad, bad, bad man. I know that doesn’t make any sense to you right now. But on Monday it will.
It makes sense to somebody in Washington.
I don’t bluff. I make promises. The truth matters. I’ve had enough of what you’ve done to our country.
I thought I had heard and seen it all. I thought I didn’t trust my government. Oh no, no, no, no.
There is no depth that these people will not stoop to. They have until Monday and then TheBlaze will expose it.
Content from External Source
The Saudi man seems to be Abdulrahman Al-Harbi (or Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi) , who was injured in the bombing

http://www.arabnews.com/news/448780

Saudi student Abdulrahman Al-Harbi, who was injured in the second explosion at the Boston Marathon bombings, said US authorities’ questioning at the hospital took no more than two hours.

Al-Harbi said he did not run after he was injured and was not arrested. “No one stopped me. When I was injured I asked a police officer where to go. I was the first injured person to arrive in hospital,” he told a local Arabic daily.

“The police asked to search my apartment as a precaution because I was the first to arrive in the hospital and I consented.” Al-Harbi, 20, is studying engineering in the United States on a scholarship.

Al-Harbi was watching the Boston Marathon on April 16 when two bombs placed on the sidewalk exploded. He sustained injuries in the body.

Another Saudi, identified as Noura Al-Ajaji, was said to have sustained a slight injury and was declared out of danger.

Some US media outlets claimed Al-Harbi tried to flee the bombing scene and that police arrested him, which he denied, saying that he had not been guarded at the hospital because he was not a suspect. He said the second explosion took place behind him and his injury was minor.

Al-Harbi thought the questioning was normal since every injured person in the hospital was interrogated. He said there was an increased security presence at the hospital but he was not guarded individually.

“Two investigators questioned me about what I saw and where I was and other information that may be of use,” Al-Harbi said. “Then they asked for my permission to search my apartment and I agreed.” Al-Harbi said that the erroneous media reports made him decide to change his apartment because they included his address and even photographs of his place “which is a violation of privacy.” Al-Harbi’s father said his son was just one of more than a hundred people of various nationalities questioned by investigators looking into the blasts that killed three people and injured 175 others.

On Wednesday, Al-Harbi posted on his Twitter account his photos, one of them showing him with the Saudi consul general in New York, Azzam Al-Gain, during the official’s visit to Al-Harbi’s hospital room.

Al-Harbi had been a hot topic in the US media, with one article published by The New Yorker questioning whether he was the victim of racial profiling
Content from External Source
There are also claims that he is being deported on national security grounds. But nothing really to back it up.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This reporting of the rumors by Todd Starnes seems to have been removed:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html
Cached version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html

Saudi National Questioned in Boston was on Terror Watch List

Apr 22, 2013 - Todd Starnes

The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.

A source close to the investigation revealed that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi had been deemed inadmissible under the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which declares ineligible for a visa – any alien who is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry – in terrorist activity.

At least two additional sources have confirmed to me that Ali Alharbi is set to be deported as early as this week, contrary to statements made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The House Homeland Security Committee is now requesting a classified briefing with Napolitano to get to the bottom of the issue, according to an exclusive report from The Blaze.

Napolitano denied anyone was being deported in a heated exchange Thursday with Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) during a House hearing.

“I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston,” she said. “I don’t know where that rumor came from.”

The Homeland Security chief said the Saudi national was not “technically a person of interest or a suspect, that was a wash.”

But Duncan questioned the wisdom of deporting someone who was at the scene of a terrorist attack.

“Wouldn’t you agree with me that it is negligent for us, as an American administration, to deport someone who was reportedly at the scene of the bombing, and we are going to deport him, not to be able to question him anymore, is that not negligent,” Duncan asked.

Napolitano refused to answer the question.

“It is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions, that it is just not worthy of any answer,” she replied. “There has been so much reported on this that has been wrong. I can’t even begin to tell you, congressman.”

Last week Steven Emerson, of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that Alharbi had been set to be deported “on national security grounds.”

“You don’t arrest their citizens – you deport them,” Emerson said regarding the Saudis.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official told me that it was a case a “Saudi being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The official, with knowledge of the case, said Alharbi’s status has changed – but as it now stands – he will be sent back home.

“They don’t like the negative press,” the official said of the Saudis. “The guess is he will probably be allowed to leave without a lot of hype in order to avoid political sensitivities with the Saudis.”

ICE sources told The Blaze that a separate Saudi national was in custody — and that individual was in no way affiliated with the Boston attacks.
Content from External Source
Again, seems like a load of unsubstantiated speculation and rumor.
 
J

Joe

Guest
This reporting of the rumors by Todd Starnes seems to have been removed:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html
Cached version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html

Saudi National Questioned in Boston was on Terror Watch List

Apr 22, 2013 - Todd Starnes

The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.

A source close to the investigation revealed that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi had been deemed inadmissible under the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which declares ineligible for a visa – any alien who is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry – in terrorist activity.

At least two additional sources have confirmed to me that Ali Alharbi is set to be deported as early as this week, contrary to statements made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The House Homeland Security Committee is now requesting a classified briefing with Napolitano to get to the bottom of the issue, according to an exclusive report from The Blaze.

Napolitano denied anyone was being deported in a heated exchange Thursday with Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) during a House hearing.

“I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston,” she said. “I don’t know where that rumor came from.”

The Homeland Security chief said the Saudi national was not “technically a person of interest or a suspect, that was a wash.”

But Duncan questioned the wisdom of deporting someone who was at the scene of a terrorist attack.

“Wouldn’t you agree with me that it is negligent for us, as an American administration, to deport someone who was reportedly at the scene of the bombing, and we are going to deport him, not to be able to question him anymore, is that not negligent,” Duncan asked.

Napolitano refused to answer the question.

“It is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions, that it is just not worthy of any answer,” she replied. “There has been so much reported on this that has been wrong. I can’t even begin to tell you, congressman.”

Last week Steven Emerson, of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that Alharbi had been set to be deported “on national security grounds.”

“You don’t arrest their citizens – you deport them,” Emerson said regarding the Saudis.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official told me that it was a case a “Saudi being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The official, with knowledge of the case, said Alharbi’s status has changed – but as it now stands – he will be sent back home.

“They don’t like the negative press,” the official said of the Saudis. “The guess is he will probably be allowed to leave without a lot of hype in order to avoid political sensitivities with the Saudis.”

ICE sources told The Blaze that a separate Saudi national was in custody — and that individual was in no way affiliated with the Boston attacks.
Content from External Source
Again, seems like a load of unsubstantiated speculation and rumor.
He said more will be coming he just wants to check all his info first . [h=1]Saudi National Questioned in Boston Attack was on Terror Watch List so should we just let him go home ?[/h]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He said more will be coming he just wants to check all his info first . Saudi National Questioned in Boston Attack was on Terror Watch List so should we just let him go home ?

He's probably realized it's a non-story.

Has ANY of it been verified? Is he being deported? Is he on any watch list?

The problem is that even if it turns out to be entirely bogus, the story is going to become accepted fact in the conspiracy community.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
He's probably realized it's a non-story.

Has ANY of it been verified? Is he being deported? Is he on any watch list?

The problem is that even if it turns out to be entirely bogus, the story is going to become accepted fact in the conspiracy community.

And I heard that the one first questioned and the one to be deported are two different people.

I'm willing to wait but I'm not expecting much. Beck and Hannity both tend to go off the deep end.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I heard that the one first questioned and the one to be deported are two different people.

I'm willing to wait but I'm not expecting much. Beck and Hannity both tend to go off the deep end.

I'm sure that "questions" will remain, to save face.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The latest from Beck:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/22...lated-grounds-have-files-in-their-possession/

Monday on radio, Glenn Beck revealed further details about the Saudi national who was the first suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. Despite denials from Janet Napolitano and officials from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs (ICE) that a Saudi national was taken into custody in connection to the Boston marathon bombing, several sources have confirmed that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was set to be deported for proven terrorist activity.According to two FBI sources, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was taken “into custody” Monday April 15th at a Boston after he was injured in the blast.
A source within the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) told TheBlaze that on Monday night Al-Harbi’s Revere, Massachusetts apartment was searched and property was taken out.
At 4:00pm ET on Tuesday April 16th, The NCTC Field Watch Commander created an “event file” calling for Al-Harbi’s deportation using Section 212 3b, which is proven terrorist activity. According to TheBlaze’s sources, tagging someone as 3b requires solid evidence.
Fox News reporter Todd Starnes has also reported, “The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.”
Starnes report no longer appears on the Fox News website, but can be found on Townhall.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has told TheBlaze that he has detailed information on the Saudi national and confirmed that Al-Harbi was to be deported under Section 212 3b of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alongside three other Congressmen, Rep. Duncan has requested a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order.

Even though sources within Congress have confirmed that the Saudi national was set to be deported under Section 212 3B, several figures in the United States government have denied or refused to answer questions on Al-Harbi. First, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill. Then on Thursday, a senior law enforcement official with ICE told TheBlaze that reports claiming the department was deporting Al-Harbi under section 212 3B and had opened an “event” on the Saudi Arabian national following the Boston attacks is “categorically false.”
The senior law enforcement official also told TheBlaze that Al-Harbi was never in custody nor ever considered for deportation by ICE, but that the department does have a different Saudi national in custody being held on grounds unrelated to the Boston bombings.
Glenn told the radio audience that there were several meetings last week between members of the Obama administration and key Saudi officials.
Content from External Source
Interesting he notes that Starnes' report has been removed.

Seems like Jeff Duncan is the person who is keeping the story alive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OT, but this is in the middle of the above linked story:


Content from External Source

That is literally "shilling". The link leads to a multi-level-marketing scam.
 
Last edited:

F4Jock

Senior Member.
OT, but this is in the middle of the above linked story:


Content from External Source

That is literally "shilling". The link leads to a multi-level-marketing scam.

What? No ad for gold? Glenn been doing this for ages. Not surprised. Kinda put this in the same category with people expounding on their latest CT and then saying "Buy my book...."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drew

Active Member
Interesting he notes that Starnes' report has been removed.

Seems like Jeff Duncan is the person who is keeping the story alive.

It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds) came out of the whole Benghazi controversy, and would be delighted to write a similar storyline here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds) came out of the whole Benghazi controversy, and would be delighted to write a similar storyline here.

It's just pandering to their base though. Is it going to win elections?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
It's just pandering to their base though. Is it going to win elections?

No but it pisses off those of us who think that we might have tried something to relieve them. I find it hard to believe we couldn't have had some assets in the air before the end.

Ah, here's a CT for you Mick. Why did we withdraw our carrier battle group from the Med before Benghazi? Was it a government conspiracy or just a sinister governmental plot? Perhaps Alex and Glenn can present the REAL facts....,,
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So does Beck's scoop depend on confusing the injured Saudi with the one in custody, or has he addressed this?
 
J

Joe

Guest
It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds) came out of the whole Benghazi controversy, and would be delighted to write a similar storyline here.
Benghazi controversy? Really ? Or Fast And furious ?Thats right in both cases they were illegally running guns . Yet we still have no answers and because Bozo is in the whitehouse the media wont ask ? If that other bozo (Bush ) theyde be all over it .
It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds)
and what the hell is that supposed to mean ?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Are those my options? :)

Obviously! It was either a conspiracy or a plot!

Here's a fun read about conspiracies.

Complexity

"Osama Bin Ladin, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, could never have pulled off something of this complexity."What complexity? You put 19 guys on four airliners on the same day armed with box cutters, after first giving a few of them enough flight training to allow them to perform some rudimentary maneuvers. Any travel agent who couldn't book 19 people on four separate flights on the same day needs a new job. The complex part would have been gaining and keeping control of the passengers and crew once the hijacks were in progress.If Bin Ladin had known what would happen, he would certainly have had the hijackers hit the buildings lower. That would have trapped far more people while increasing the load on the heated steel, resulting in faster collapse. So if it wasn't Bin Ladin, why didn't the alleged conspirators do it? More outrage, more backing for the War on Terror. Why did they miss such an obvious opportunity?

Suppose It Was A Conspiracy


What was the intent? If it was to bring down the Towers, why demolish from the top down? That's not how any other controlled demolitions are done. Why not strike low, maximizing the number of casualties and more fully galvanizing the country for war?If the intent was to collapse only part of the Towers, keeping casualties limited but providing a pretext for war, then the total collapse was unanticipated. Or maybe the intent was simply to crash planes into the Towers and produce casualties but not cause building collapse at all. In either case, if the building collapses were unexpected, they happened through structural weakening and gravitational collapse and all the alleged "evidence" for sequential explosive charges and so on becomes worthless.Why use planes at all? Why not simply stage a bigger and better remake of the 1993 attack? Why not claim the terrorists detonated a large truck load of explosives at the central core of the building, or smuggled explosives into the core? Instead of passenger planes, why not have the terrorists steal a FedEx or UPS cargo plane and fill it with explosives?Why have a time gap between the plane crashes and building collapse, and why did the South Tower, which was hit later, fall first? That makes perfect sense in the conventional scenario, because the South Tower was hit lower and thus the load on the damaged structural members was greater. It makes no sense at all from the standpoint of a conspiracy.Like all conspiracy theories, the 9-11 conspiracy idea suffers from the fatal flaw of having the conspirators engage in a complicated Rube Goldberg process to do something a rational person could do more effectively in a much simpler way.

Since a lot of people have begun to catch on to conspiracy theories, 9-11 theorists have begun putting their own spin on the term. Just like creationists have begun using the word "pseudoscience" to brand evolution and blur the distinction between their own ideas and those of science, 9-11 conspiracy theorists have begun using the term "conspiracy theory" to label the conventional view of 9-11. So you get 19 guys, give some of them rudimentary flight training, they board airliners, hijack them, and fly them into buildings. Yup, that's a conspiracy all right. So the term "conspiracy theory" is entirely accurate.On the other hand, government operatives spent days planting explosive charges in the towers, then crashed the airliners or flew them to a secret location, brainwashed, imprisoned, or killed the passengers and crew, and that's not a conspiracy theory? Or the videos of the airliner crashes are all fake and some exotic particle beam or energy weapon disintegrated the towers into dust and that's not a conspiracy theory, either?Well, they're both conspiracy theories, so they're both on the same plane, so you get to pick whichever one you like. This is the classic relativism of the pseudoscientist.Fortunately, there's a way to sort through the conflicting claims. Which of the two is more consistent with well known facts? Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? Check. There's absolutely nothing in the standard picture of 9-11 that conflicts with these facts. Number of previous cases where U.S. government operatives have hijacked airliners? None known. Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? None known (apart from artillery or bombing in war). Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? None known. So one conspiracy theory has a host of historical precedents, and the other has none at all.Fascinating, isn't it, that the fact that no steel frame skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire is touted as ironclad proof that planes couldn't have brought down the World Trade Center, but the total absence of historical precedent for the government doing it counts for nothing?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds) came out of the whole Benghazi controversy, and would be delighted to write a similar storyline here.

and what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Benghazi was a vastly overblown story, a simplification and false focus on a few aspects of a very complex story, but because the people who watch Fox News are inclined to believe the anti-Obama spin, then it was quite effective in stirring up the right-wing base. Beck seems to be doing something similar here, but with even less to go by.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Benghazi was a vastly overblown story, a simplification and false focus on a few aspects of a very complex story, but because the people who watch Fox News are inclined to believe the anti-Obama spin, then it was quite effective in stirring up the right-wing base. Beck seems to be doing something similar here, but with even less to go by.
Wow Mick Really 4 dead and blaming a video which was clearly a diversion till after the election was Overblown ? It was the way they handled it . We still dont know the truth of why he was there in the first place ? They were IMO moving arms to Syria . No its the main stream media is not doing their job . No I want the truth as I did with the last idiot Bush .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow Mick Really 4 dead and blaming a video which was clearly a diversion till after the election was Overblown ? It was the way they handled it . We still dont know the truth of why he was there in the first place ? They were IMO moving arms to Syria . No its the main stream media is not doing their job . No I want the truth as I did with the last idiot Bush .

Overblown does not mean nothing, there was plenty of quite valid criticism.

Even people who work at Fox think it was overblown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
On November 26, 2012, journalist Tom Ricks went on Fox News' Happening Now with Jon Scott to discuss the attack. While being interviewed on Fox News by Jon Scott, Ricks accused Fox News of being "extremely political" in its coverage of the attack and said that "Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party." Ricks accused the network of covering the story more than it needed to be. The interview was cut short and Ricks and the interview was not mentioned or covered by Fox News again. Fox News was subsequently criticized for cutting the interview short.[200][201] Jon Scott was also criticized by Media Matters for America for making no mention of the interview on Fox News Watch, a media analysis program he hosts.[202][203] In an interview with the Associated Press, Fox News' White House correspondent Ed Henry suggested that he thought Benghazi was being covered too much by the network. Henry said, “We’ve had the proper emphasis, but I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”[204][205
Content from External Source
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Benghazi was a vastly overblown story, a simplification and false focus on a few aspects of a very complex story, but because the people who watch Fox News are inclined to believe the anti-Obama spin, then it was quite effective in stirring up the right-wing base. Beck seems to be doing something similar here, but with even less to go by.

Just focusing on that night, the sixth fleet might have sent assets or Helis fom Rota might have been used for support and / or exfiltration. A little known fact is that a seven-man team actually flew into Benghazi from Tripoli but due to a most amazing bit of beaureaucratc bs they took much longer to get to the scene than they should have. By that time the Ambassador was dead but had they even moved out from Bengahzi earlier they might have saved at least two others. Complex? Maybe. Overblown? Four people died. Somehow I don't call that overblown.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just focusing on that night, the sixth fleet might have sent assets or Helis fom Rota might have been used for support and / or exfiltration. A little known fact is that a seven-man team actually flew into Benghazi from Tripoli but due to a most amazing bit of beaureaucratc bs they took much longer to get to the scene than they should have. By that time the Ambassador was dead but had they even moved out from Bengahzi earlier they might have saved at least two others. Complex? Maybe. Overblown? Four people died. Somehow I don't call that overblown.

See above. I know there are valid criticisms of what went on. But I'm talking specifically about the Fox News coverage (and the alternative media to the right of Fox News), where they basically tried to make it into Pearl Harbor combined with Watergate.
 
J

Joe

Guest
See above. I know there are valid criticisms of what went on. But I'm talking specifically about the Fox News coverage (and the alternative media to the right of Fox News), where they basically tried to make it into Pearl Harbor combined with Watergate.
That funny because I dont watch Fox news ? What did MSNBC do ? They protected the Obama administration from criticism . They shilled for Obama and Hillary . But as Hilary said "What difference does it make "? Was never a movie that was a big fat lie and Obama knew it .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
See above. I know there are valid criticisms of what went on. But I'm talking specifically about the Fox News coverage (and the alternative media to the right of Fox News), where they basically tried to make it into Pearl Harbor combined with Watergate.
Well you have to admit that the circumstances leading up to the actual battle as well as what went on during and the reaction and inaction of State and the Executive Branch are open to question. As well what else would you expect from any news organization whose political leanings are "validated" in such a dramatic way? At least Ed Henry had the presence of mind to question it on air.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Would you say though that you watch/listen to the alternative media to the right of Fox? Like Glenn Beck?
Yes I would say that , and other alternative media . I dont trust Msnbc at all they are the worse . apparently by their ratings none else does either . Its funny however that Fox news has the highest ratings ? doesnt mean i always agree with them . You get your news from a Comedian as well dont you ? :)
 

lotek

Active Member
highest ratings simply because restaurant, bars and bushiness owners keep it rolling for god knows why on all their screens in the background. ive never understood why that shits always on.


My comedians know and openly say they are comedians. something yours do not.
 
J

Joe

Guest
highest ratings simply because restaurant, bars and bushiness owners keep it rolling for god knows why on all their screens in the background. ive never understood why that shits always on.


My comedians know and openly say they are comedians. something yours do not.
He calls himself a rodeo clown ? sounds like a comedian ? Id rather a little humor with my bad news :) I dont really know where they get their ratings from . Bill O is the highest rated and I think he sucks .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
highest ratings simply because restaurant, bars and bushiness owners keep it rolling for god knows why on all their screens in the background. ive never understood why that shits always on.


My comedians know and openly say they are comedians. something yours do not.

Stuart I like. Colbert is a schnook. Problem is, I wonder how many of their audience realize they are comedians even though they say it openly.

Frankly I like Imus and Fox Buisness. Humor, news and finances all in one. Could use more legs though.....
 

lotek

Active Member
i find tv a bad format for the communication of any news and donot use it as a source for such, ever.

radio, yes, only if it is approached in an indepth and exhaustive manner in the ways normally held to by members of PRI and related groups.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes I would say that , and other alternative media . I dont trust Msnbc at all they are the worse . apparently by their ratings none else does either . Its funny however that Fox news has the highest ratings ? doesnt mean i always agree with them . You get your news from a Comedian as well dont you ? :)

I get my news from the internet: basically CNN, NBC News (formerly MSNBC), and Fox News, occasionally BBC News, and then whatever links I happen to see.

I watch John Steward a day or two after on the DVR, not really for news, but he's great at exposing hypocrisy.

I don't think ratings equals trust. It equals entertainment.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Stuart I like. Colbert is a schnook. Problem is, I wonder how many of their audience realize they are comedians even though they say it openly.

Frankly I like Imus and Fox Buisness. Humor, news and finances all in one. Could use more legs though.....

Colbert purposely plays a conservative idiot, who wants to do good, but sees things in a 1-D world.

Stewart is still a comedian, but lately he's actually been becoming a nightly critic of the media and the government (on both sides, although the Republicans seem to give him more material). His guest list is impressive, though - he's had Obama (twice), Biden, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Vicente Fox, King Abdullah II, Bob Dole, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John McCain, Bob Dole, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, etc...I could go on. I know it's a comedy show, but the number of influential guests he's had on the show lately has been telling about the show's path.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I get my news from a variety of sources, I do watch ABC news, news shows on other reg channels, PBS (don't always agree with some of their documentaries---Politico's involvement always makes me nervous about a very liberal bias---I may watch but I will double check their sources and conclusions before I accept any of them). NPR and the BBC are 2 other of my sources. The rest are various internet sources, from conservative to the Huffington Post (it is another source that has to be verified). My local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News--it is not a chain newspaper. (It is owned by the Belo family and it is moderate conservative). And I read--a LOT, everything from science to history and nature and politics to business and novels including SF/fantasy/ mysteries and in my equivalent of junk food, romance novels, especially those with cowboys in them.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
CapnPegleg Muslim victim of Boston Marathon bombing sues Glenn Beck for defamation and slander Boston Marathon Bombings 3
C Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view Conspiracy Theories 47
ColtCabana United States v. Tsarnaev Evidence Boston Marathon Bombings 3
CapnPegleg Tsarnaev's Lawyer: "It was him." Boston Marathon Bombings 27
B Claim: Video shows SH victim Rachel Davino alive at boston marathon Sandy Hook 4
ColtCabana Unexplained Wheelchair rides? Boston Marathon Bombings 26
Soulfly Guilty Verdict in First Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Boston Marathon Bombings 6
Vindog Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston] Contrails and Chemtrails 561
Tobes Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red Boston Marathon Bombings 137
A Boston Bombing Boston Marathon Bombings 9
Tobes Debunked: Anatomical impossibility of Jeff Bauman photos Boston Marathon Bombings 94
Soulfly National Geographic - Inside the hunt for the Boston Bombers Boston Marathon Bombings 5
UNdebunkable Debunked: Boston Marathon Bombing: James Costello Ripped Clothes Boston Marathon Bombings 10
UNdebunkable Debunked: Boston Marathon Bombing: Karen Brassards "Lack of injuries" Boston Marathon Bombings 72
Alchemist Footage of Boston Suspects/Cops Fire FIght Boston Marathon Bombings 9
Soulfly Boston bombing suspect's friend Ibragim Todashev shot and killed by FBI Boston Marathon Bombings 21
Oxymoron Debunked: Dawn Hochsprung's photo used for witness of Boston Bombing [Hoax] Boston Marathon Bombings 2
Mick West Boston: Three more detained Boston Marathon Bombings 8
Drew Rachel Maddow addresses Boston CT proponents Boston Marathon Bombings 8
Mick West BBC Report: Body of student falsely accused of Boston attacks possibly found Boston Marathon Bombings 7
blargo Wow One of the alleged Boston Bombers followed infowars.com Boston Marathon Bombings 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
Mick West Boston: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev criminal complaint full text Boston Marathon Bombings 14
dizzle Boston: Navy Seals Boston Marathon Bombings 28
Mick West Boston: Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conspiracy theories Boston Marathon Bombings 134
Clock Boston Marathon Bombing: Man On The Roof Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West Debunked: Boston Bombing - "just a drill" (Ali Stevenson) Boston Marathon Bombings 33
Mick West Debunked: Boston Marathon victims: "crisis actors" Boston Marathon Bombings 74
HappyMonday MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory Boston Marathon Bombings 2
Mick West Debunked: Boston Marathon Family Guy Prediction Boston Marathon Bombings 29
Mick West Debunked: Boston Bombing: Man on the Roof Boston Marathon Bombings 7
F4Jock Boston Bombing - Initial reactions Boston Marathon Bombings 104
Mick West Debunking: Conspiracy Theories - Boston Marathon Bombings Boston Marathon Bombings 8
Mick West Debunked: Natural News - Boston controlled explosion exercise Boston Marathon Bombings 99
Mick West Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory About People Calling him a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theories 155
Related Articles



































Related Articles

Top