Dear Glenn Beck Fans...

[john9blue]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

[chang50]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

I never thought I would read a post where indoctrination is described as 'acceptable'.
I agree with Woodruff,the source of the funding is irrelevant,governments in all countries spend tax revenues on things that we might not approve of..

[john9blue]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

I never thought I would read a post where indoctrination is described as 'acceptable'.
I agree with Woodruff,the source of the funding is irrelevant,governments in all countries spend tax revenues on things that we might not approve of..

so whose job is it to determine what qualifies as indoctrination?

if you say "the government" then i'm afraid i won't reply to your next post.

[chang50]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

I never thought I would read a post where indoctrination is described as 'acceptable'.
I agree with Woodruff,the source of the funding is irrelevant,governments in all countries spend tax revenues on things that we might not approve of..

so whose job is it to determine what qualifies as indoctrination?

if you say "the government" then i'm afraid i won't reply to your next post.

I will take a stab at answering your question if you tell me in what circumstances indoctrination is acceptable?
In a democratic society there are no clear demarcation lines in such matters,only an ongoing debate from which an imperfect consensus emerges that can be used,subject to revision,through the democratic process.

[john9blue]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

I never thought I would read a post where indoctrination is described as 'acceptable'.
I agree with Woodruff,the source of the funding is irrelevant,governments in all countries spend tax revenues on things that we might not approve of..

so whose job is it to determine what qualifies as indoctrination?

if you say "the government" then i'm afraid i won't reply to your next post.

I will take a stab at answering your question if you tell me in what circumstances indoctrination is acceptable?
In a democratic society there are no clear demarcation lines in such matters,only an ongoing debate from which an imperfect consensus emerges that can be used,subject to revision,through the democratic process.

the lines between "indoctrination", "persuasion", and "education" are hazy. education and persuasion (which is essential in debate) are key parts of a society with an open exchange of ideas. indoctrination is what happens when you educate/persuade someone poorly and they are not able to explain the reasoning behind their beliefs.

it is not my place to demand that everyone have a rational basis for their beliefs, unless we are in a mutual conversation. therefore i see nothing wrong with "indoctrination" that is agreed upon by both parties.

theoretically, yes, indoctrination is bad. but practically, there is very little we can do about it, because determining when people are indoctrinated is difficult.

[chang50]

by using public funding to fund the norwegian left-wing camp, you are forcing taxpayers to pay to indoctrinate children with an ideology that they may not believe in. glenn beck's camp, and similar organizations, do not force anybody to pay for any indoctrination unless they choose to pay. do you really not see why the former is bad and the latter (although probably not "good") is acceptable?

I never thought I would read a post where indoctrination is described as 'acceptable'.
I agree with Woodruff,the source of the funding is irrelevant,governments in all countries spend tax revenues on things that we might not approve of..

so whose job is it to determine what qualifies as indoctrination?

if you say "the government" then i'm afraid i won't reply to your next post.

I will take a stab at answering your question if you tell me in what circumstances indoctrination is acceptable?
In a democratic society there are no clear demarcation lines in such matters,only an ongoing debate from which an imperfect consensus emerges that can be used,subject to revision,through the democratic process.

the lines between "indoctrination", "persuasion", and "education" are hazy. education and persuasion (which is essential in debate) are key parts of a society with an open exchange of ideas. indoctrination is what happens when you educate/persuade someone poorly and they are not able to explain the reasoning behind their beliefs.

it is not my place to demand that everyone have a rational basis for their beliefs, unless we are in a mutual conversation. therefore i see nothing wrong with "indoctrination" that is agreed upon by both parties.

theoretically, yes, indoctrination is bad. but practically, there is very little we can do about it, because determining when people are indoctrinated is difficult.

Ok.but in reality nobody realises they are being indoctrinated,or wants it if they are sane.And what about minors,can they give an informed consent when agreeing to indoctrination?I know there are a lot of grey areas here but surely we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say nothing can be done.Beck's hypocrisy is glaringly obvious..

[General_Tao]

So you think the two groups are similar, except for the funding scheme, right?

[chang50]

So you think the two groups are similar, except for the funding scheme, right?

Well I've only seen the original link,but if anything Beck's camp seems more of a cause for concern.

[Ray Rider]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

+1 I'm amazed that Woody won't admit the conflict of interest that is created by a government-run camp teaching its own brand of politics. On the other hand (based on the short, out of context quote provided by the link in the OP), Glenn didn't specify that he was condemning government-run political camps, and therefore he deserves to be called a hypocrite...although, it's almost 2 am and I just drove 10 hours, so I may be missing something here...

[Symmetry]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

+1 I'm amazed that Woody won't admit the conflict of interest that is created by a government-run camp teaching its own brand of politics. On the other hand (based on the short, out of context quote provided by the link in the OP), Glenn didn't specify that he was condemning government-run political camps, and therefore he deserves to be called a hypocrite...although, it's almost 2 am and I just drove 10 hours, so I may be missing something here...

Yup- we're missing the part where John9Blue, Patches, and Phatscotty actually show that the Norwegian camp was funded publicly. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for their 4 page long outrage. It kind of looks like BS, to be honest, but it's pretty key to their arguments, so they must have gotten it from somewhere.

[Woodruff]

Government funded indoctrination is what Beck said the Youth Camp in Norway is. Is that true or not?

No, Glenn Beck made no mention of it being government funded. His complaint was that it was a politically-oriented summer camp. Like his.

[Woodruff]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

Wow john9blue, please tell me you're going to actually discuss the issue instead of standing on the sidelines and make snarky one-liners at the funny liberals ideas again.

[Woodruff]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

+1 I'm amazed that Woody won't admit the conflict of interest that is created by a government-run camp teaching its own brand of politics.

I do recognize it, it's simply irrelevant to the point that is being made (as I've had to state far too many times in this thread).

On the other hand (based on the short, out of context quote provided by the link in the OP), Glenn didn't specify that he was condemning government-run political camps, and therefore he deserves to be called a hypocrite...although, it's almost 2 am and I just drove 10 hours, so I may be missing something here...

No, you have not.

[Nobunaga]

... I don't care if the camp was attended by baby-killing communists. They were kids. The purpose of the camp is completely irrelevant beyond the motive of the insane bastard who killed those kids.

...

[chang50]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

+1 I'm amazed that Woody won't admit the conflict of interest that is created by a government-run camp teaching its own brand of politics. On the other hand (based on the short, out of context quote provided by the link in the OP), Glenn didn't specify that he was condemning government-run political camps, and therefore he deserves to be called a hypocrite...although, it's almost 2 am and I just drove 10 hours, so I may be missing something here...

Yup- we're missing the part where John9Blue, Patches, and Phatscotty actually show that the Norwegian camp was funded publicly. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for their 4 page long outrage. It kind of looks like BS, to be honest, but it's pretty key to their arguments, so they must have gotten it from somewhere.

Done some digging around and the only mention I could see refers to the camp being funded by the ruling political party,indicating that it was not directly publicly funded,if anyone has contradictory evidence I stand corrected.

[patches70]

i just read the whole thread. wow, woodruff. please, please tell me you are just trolling patches70.

+1 I'm amazed that Woody won't admit the conflict of interest that is created by a government-run camp teaching its own brand of politics. On the other hand (based on the short, out of context quote provided by the link in the OP), Glenn didn't specify that he was condemning government-run political camps, and therefore he deserves to be called a hypocrite...although, it's almost 2 am and I just drove 10 hours, so I may be missing something here...

Yup- we're missing the part where John9Blue, Patches, and Phatscotty actually show that the Norwegian camp was funded publicly. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for their 4 page long outrage. It kind of looks like BS, to be honest, but it's pretty key to their arguments, so they must have gotten it from somewhere.

You think the AUF wasn't receiving public funds?

http://tux1.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/d28635.htm

Back in 1996 it broke that the AUF was inflating membership numbers for the purpose of receiving more government funds. Four leaders of the AUF were convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail time.

The more people they can get to join their organization formally the more government funds they receive.


This type of thing may be acceptable in Europe, but to Americans such business is looked upon with mistrust. We just don't trust government spending public money on such things. That's why the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, The Young Republicans, the Ku Klux Klan, or any other types of private and or political organizations don't receive public money.

Individuals running for office can go the public route to pay for their current campaign, like Obama promised (and then went back on) during his campaign, McCain did use the public option.

Indoctrination happens to everyone all the time. Parents indoctrinate their children into their own belief system. Churches indoctrinate new parish members to the ways of their church. Teachers indoctrinate their students (in many cases in the face of public outrage). College fraternities indoctrinate new pledges. Drug dealers and addicts indoctrinate new people into the drug culture. Pimp indoctrinate new women into their stable of whores. The military indoctrinates new recruits, the Marines being the most overt example Ohhh-Raahhh! The list just goes on and on.

As bad as that is, it is even worse with State sponsorship in such efforts and to Americans it is strange and unacceptable. Hence, Beck's comments comparing the Youth Camp to the Nazi Youth.

Done some digging around and the only mention I could see refers to the camp being funded by the ruling political party,indicating that it was not directly publicly funded,if anyone has contradictory evidence I stand corrected.

You stand corrected. The AUF youth camp is publicly funded. As is any other political parties youth camps in Norway are funded publicly as well.

Looking into the 9-12 organizations they are more of a religious indoctrination rather than political. It stinks of Mormonism, not that Mormons are any worse than anyone else. I would not be a party to having public funds going to support it. However, if private individuals are to freely chose to donate and help fund the group, then more power to them. It is not the place of myself or government to deny that. Just as it is not the place of government to fund them (from the American point of view).

Beck's 9-12 thing did not endorse either political party in the United States. Not in the slightest. The AUF youth camp however, endeavors to turn attendees into card carrying labor party members. As I'm sure their opposition parties are doing the same. For in Norway, the more people you can suck into your organization the more tax dollars you can claim.

This might be standard practice in Europe, but it is not SOP in the United States.

Was the killer justified in murdering all those young people? Of course not. It was a heinous crime, that much is obvious.

As to Glenn Beck and the railings against him, I am only pointing out the differing views American's tend to have on such matters as publicly funded indoctrination organizations. Even the DNC and RNC PAC's are privately funded. They receive no government funding at all. The only exception being the public campaign fund which has strict limitations and serves to allow anyone who wishes to run for office the funding needed to run a campaign without being beholden to special interests through political donations. It allows those with humble means to actually run for office and maybe do some actual good for the country. But if an individual accepted such funds and tried to use them to open up a political camp would find himself fast in trouble with the law as such activities would be illegal with the public campaign fund.

And look, Glenn Beck speaks words that inflame people and now he is the talk of the town for a short while. For or against him it matters not, it only serves to bring him into the limelight. Free publicity. The best thing people who hate him can do is to ignore him.

[chang50]

Government funding of political parties is not uncommon in Europe,but that is not direct funding of these camps as I stated.You may not approve of such systems but I would say that you are on shaky ground to hold up practice in the us as a model for other developed countries.

[muy_thaiguy]

So, can we agree that Beck was ALSO running an indoctrination camp for children? All in favor, say "Aye!"
All who disagree, your point is null and void, and I'll go on a mini tirade on national TV about how you are anti-American.


See what I did there?

[Phatscotty]

not a state funded camp, LIKE THE NAZI CAMPS!!!!!!!

What does that have to do with the statement of "Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing."? Absolutely nothing...so did you have anything relevant to add, or is this just another of your dash-in, dash-out schemes?

No. Its a response to the OP. It shows Glenn Beck is correct in comparing the Norway political tax funded camp to the Nazi political tax funded camp.

It shows the reasons for your thread to exist does not exist.

The Glenn is right on this one. Woody jumping to conclusions.

[Phatscotty]

Where was Glenn Beck Camp? Are we just taking someone word for it here?

Tampa Bay apparently- an off-shoot of his 9-12 project:

The group's website is here.

Organizers:
Karen Jaroch, Col (Ret) Michael Zahorsky, Jr., Kim Irvine, Marianna Musotto, Michael Capria, Rita Holt, Shelly R., shirley wood, Tim Curtis

How is this "Glenn Beck's Camp"? Does The Glenn go there? Does The Glenn make money off it?

[Woodruff]

not a state funded camp, LIKE THE NAZI CAMPS!!!!!!!

What does that have to do with the statement of "Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing."? Absolutely nothing...so did you have anything relevant to add, or is this just another of your dash-in, dash-out schemes?

No. Its a response to the OP. It shows Glenn Beck is correct in comparing the Norway political tax funded camp to the Nazi political tax funded camp.

It shows the reasons for your thread to exist does not exist.

The Glenn is right on this one. Woody jumping to conclusions.

The only conclusion I jumped to was that Glenn Beck is a hypocrite. Similar to you. Which isn't much of a jump, actually...more like a bunny-hop.

[Phatscotty]

original post

Can you explain this? I can't (though I'm certainly no fan):
http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-be ... tler-youth

the comparison to Nazi Camps is valid and has been explained. Thread disappear now

[spurgistan]

I think that the really insulting thing here isn't that Glenn Beck called the Labor Youth camps like the Hitler Youth. It's that somebody killed 68 children, and Glenn Beck implied that the victims had something to do with it. Who will be the Joseph Welch to Glenn Beck's Joe McCarthy?

[Woodruff]

original post

Can you explain this? I can't (though I'm certainly no fan):
http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-be ... tler-youth

the comparison to Nazi Camps is valid and has been explained. Thread disappear now

I know you like to try to make uncomfortable truths go away, but Glenn Beck is a hypocrite whether you want to admit it or not.

[Phatscotty]

comparison is valid. Which actually make this thread misguided.