For someone who didn't know today was the anniversary of MLK's speech, he sure brings up MLK a lot.

[Fuzz]

Strange that.

[proud patriot]

1. indeed

[tabatha]

2. I am sure all the people who came

did not expect this.

[Fuzz]

3. Now he's even playing an excerpt of MLK's speech.

Horrifying.

[golddigger]

4. Everyone there should hang their head in shame

and walk home.

Freakin disgusting pieces of shits.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. My Mother, a white woman took me to that speech

as a child, Little did I know what I witnessed it took
the speed of that decade to shortly understand..

I'm sadnned by what my 60's and further decades of protests
have now become a media show for some fool

[stubtoe]

6. He knew. He lied.

"Beck has repeatedly said that he was dumbstruck when he realized that he had requested his rally permit for the anniversary of King's 1963 speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

It must have been "divine providence" that he unwittingly settled on that day, he told his radio audience. He later said he was out to "reclaim" the civil rights movement.

Baloney, says Alexander Zaitchik, author of the recent book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, who acknowledges that he takes a cynical view of the talk show host's motivations.

Zaitchik recalls listening to Beck last November talk about the difficulty in securing a permit for the Aug. 28 date because of its historic significance. (em. mine)

"He only later claimed it was divine providence," Zaitchik says. "He has certainly tried to jump on the 'coincidence' and claim the civil rights legacy for himself."


Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129449408

[librechik]

7. This is the most difficult part of the script--the part where he pretends to worship MLK then steals

his agenda , twisting it and ising it AGAINST the common man. If he can pull this off, he will get a huge bonus from Fox and the Koch brothers

[mike r]

8. It was all a coincidence

like other Republican coincidences.

[global1]

9. Either Beck Has Pulled A Fast One On His Followers Or On Us......

he just gave a tribute to MLK and now I'm thinking that a daughter or a niece of MLK is speaking now. When he was introducing her he said something about her father and her uncle. At first I thought he was going to introduce Caroline Kennedy.

I'm thinking that a large portion of those that came out to D.C. for this rally are starting to have second thoughts. I'm wondering if any are leaving now before this ends.

Another thought I've had listening to this on C-SPAN - if any of you have ever visited Temple Square in Salt Lake City - it is the seat of the Mormon religion - the way Beck is presenting this today and what he is saying has the tone of all the recorded messages one hears when they are touring the exhibits at Temple Square.

I'm a little bit perplexed by what I've seen and listened to so far of this rally. It has a very religious revival feeling in its make-up.

I'm also wondering if he is handling out apple pie in the crowd. He's had a couple of mother's (including Palin) and a baseball player speak. What do they say about Mom, Baseball and Apple Pie.

Just some observations so far.

[Mythbuster]

10. Purely coincidence...

...that he got MLK's anti-choice niece to speak at his rally too.

[Igel]

11. It might be.

It's possible he knew and is lying about it. I didn't know. Don't know why the standard white conservative, much less one rather on the right edge of the right side of the political spectrum, would.

It's also true that for somebody who didn't know how to read I sure read a lot of books. In other words, you can either assume I was never illiterate (i.e., I was already able to read in utero) or that I'm illiterate now. Or you can notice that English has tenses, the two verbs are in different tenses, and assume some sort of implied change of state. When I was 4, I couldn't read; I'm now 51 and I can read; at some point I went from being illiterate to literate. If we assume that I really was illiterate and really am literature, the implication isn't a problem.

Same for Beck. If he's not lying (and it's irrelevant if he is or isn't), all you can infer is that he didn't know, at some point became aware that the date was also the anniversary, and took advantage of the date. If I want to deny the implication, then all I'm doing is saying he's lying but I'm not adducing any actual evidence. I'm just assuming the conclusion.