Glenn Beck is losing sponsors (his life blood) at a rate that threatens his future as a TV/Radio ranter.
33 and counting.
I think the whole thing is stupid. I have never associated advertisements with the show I was watching.
Bech has seemed to changed since making the switch to Fox News.
Could not of happen soon enough for me. His voice is like fingernails on a chalk board. If you are going to dance around, screaming at the camera all the time, it might be better to do so in a deeper voice. He is so annoying. To me, that is.
Hooray!!! Perhaps in time there will be one less person on the air waves that once pushed conservative fear and hate for others. I will count that as a good thing.
LOL. No, actually, I'm an equal opportunity hate and fear kinda guy.
Smart-alec-ing aside, I agree that certain liberals and conservatives engage in a kind of hate and fear campaign as if they were preachers from the New Religion. It's all smoke to me. Don't like it no matter where it comes from.
no doubt, but he still has valid points to make even if it is all going to his head, pride comes before the fall after all...lol
Is there a particular reason why he's losing sponsors. I thought he had a bestselling book and was very popular.
Stirring up the rubes is a double edged sword. You sell books (written at a 4th grade level of course) and get TV ratings, but you chase away sponsors. Sponsors do not like to be associated with muck rakers.
His latest blunder was to label Obama a racist. I don't think he recovers from this one.
I guess when he called the cops stupid that arrested Gates he showed his true color - pun intended.
Faorest Gump - Stupid is as stupid does.
Written at a 4th grade level?? And you came to this conclusion how? The truth of the matter is that many sponsors are willing to have their products/services advertised on FOX network, because OF COURSE they want us FOX viewers to buy their products/services. 33 is the SMALLEST FRACTION of sponsors out there, and the only reason those pulled out of the beck show is that they are ultra liberal, and don't like him. To suggest that Beck is finished just shows your own "4th grade level". Go get yourself an education Tinkerbell.
He made a statement about Obama being a racist and it ignited a letter writing campaign from a group called "colorforchange". Normally, the republicans don't approve of insulting the president, nationally and internationally, but I guess if it is a democrat president, it's okay.
He called Obama racist. People are overreacting as if he made a racial slur which he did not. He simply feels the president is racist.
ya and he is in titled to his opinion, it's not like he out right made an attack. He just said what he has observed in his point of view.
Beck is contraversial , but the sponsors who pay him had guidelines ,and beck ignored them. Hes not untouchable ,imagine that!
Think his problem is he thought he had more rights than he really did.
Oh my, I missed the whole Obama as a racist thing. Was it around the Gates arrest?
Obamas not a racist? So I guess he sat in a church where the preacher was racist and what, didn't agree? For twenty years? Obama didn't say his Grandmother was a typical white person? What is a typical white person? Yeah, Obama is a racist! The really funny thing about this forum is the title, exactly what is sinking like a stone? http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=80426
I never liked the ahem-blowhard-ahem anyhoo, so it matters little to me. What a nasty, negative attitude he has! How about Rush? Are his ratings going down since comparing Obama to Hitler? What a dolt! A drug-addled little fat man with bitterness practically oozing out of his pores. Poor guy, he must have been hurt a lot in his life.
I don't like his ways either, but I think he has a point...very deep inside
I think people miss the point on both Glenn and Rush. I don't think even they believe all of the ridiculous stuff that comes out of their mouths. It's all about money and both are getting rich(er) with all their bizarre theories and nastiness. The more bizarre their theories, the bigger their bank accounts get. Just another form of the greed that has taken over and is ruining our country.
If by people you mean their followers then I agree with you. I think the vast majority of the population understands that even these guys don't believe their own P T Barnum act. They of course can rant about whatever they want, but it's scary that some people, especially heavily armed loners, take it seriously.
How do you become the top talk radio personality without believing in what you are saying? Answer, You don't. It doesn't matter what you people believe, you don't listen to him or have any real understanding of what it is he is saying. You are stuck in your narrow world and opposition to it confuses you, but I don't care what you believe live it, love it, ultimately conservatism wins out over reckless spending every time. Sad thing is Obama had the chance to make a difference but his flawed Ideology won out, too bad for him, great for us.
By stunts like these. Can you honestly say that a rational person could believe this crap? Do Beckofiles give most of their paychecks to the TV evangelists who use the same tactics?Watch the Beck Montage
I didn't watch the montage, so I don't know whats there. I have seen Beck enough to know that the questions he asks are reasonable, I haven't heard anything from him that was too far out there,I dont have time for the link provided. I know nothing of televangelists or anyone who funds them so I don't know what those people do. Do Obamabots ever ask questions of Obama, are they all mindless sheep hanging breathlessly for him to solve all their problems?
I don't think it's really affecting his show. That advertisiers on that list that was compiled by the Color of Change didn't all advertise with Beck in fact what happened was that the advertisers that did just switched to another program within the Fox network so they haven't lost any money. In fact now there is a counter boycott and Glenn Beck has focused a segment of his show on the founder of Color of Change who happens to be one of Obama's czars.
Is it just me, or do the Dems seem to be spending an awful lot of time running slur campaigns against people? Look at the fiasco over Palin supposedly divorcing her husband. That got outed pretty quick. Now they're trying to get Glen Beck. Look at the whole "Report people to the White House if they oppose universal health care" thing. Isn't anyone worried about these sort of tactics. Say what you want about Bush, but at least he didn't do that sort of thing to Americans, he did it to foreigners.
It's shockingly similar to what Hitler did in his campaign against the Catholic Church in the 1930's. Of course, he was smart enough to let it drop when he realized that most Germans were Christian and he was alienating the same people he would need to fight his war. I'm not sure Obama or the Dems in general are that smart.
Yikes! Yes, all Democrats are dumb. That explains everything.
Bush did infringe deeply upon the rights of American citizens during his tenure. Because he did it under the guise of "rooting out terrorists" these transgressions have been all but forgotten by some.
Dumb never made an appearance in my response. What I said was: "Isn't it strange how the Dems seem to be spending an awful lot of time running slur campaigns against people". Of course it could be you think that slur campaigns are dumb, which I agree with wholeheartedly. It's funny how you try to change the debate away from salient points with words like dumb. That sort of behavior used to be restricted to the schoolyard.
you're encouraging me to say what i want about bush? i'm quite certain hub pages will not allow it.
You can say whatever you like, we still have free speech. Now whether or not your accusations are accurate or not, is a different thing entirely, but that depends on how intellectually honest you are. But that's not in the really concerns me, only you know how truly honest person you really are.
He did it too foreigners... so thats ok I hope jay Leno stops you on the street and asks you a question someday and you say just that
its silly crap like that makes internationals ,ooops foreigners ( who by the way have relations in America,oops immigrants) shake their heads in amazement!
I always enjoy reading your remarks, you are very insightful and I always agree with you and your examples,..HOOAH
It turns out many of those terror alerts were actually heightened to make people vote for Bush during the 2004 campaign.
Sweetie, with all the ridicule that Homeland Security's insane color coded system has had over the years, I doubt only the most impressionable or naive people took that into consideration. Why do you think that system was recently scrapped? Nobody paid any attention to it.
Well some people did actually. There have been several studies that show people vote for the people in power when they are afraid, which shows how the Bush administration manipulated the minds of many during the election. Actually there were quite a few people that did pay attention because I always heard people talking about it, especially when they were getting ready to fly, etc.
Anyway, this is just an example of how the Democrats are not the only ones using falsehoods. Glen Beck did make a ridiculous remark, and he should get his show on a network where pushing the envelope is allowed. The right wing threw a fit over Maher's comments after 911 just like they did with Glen Beck. The Democrats are not the only ones you see.
Many Republican backed corporations are also running smear campaigns about the health care bill, which I know you do not agree with. However, much of what some of the conservative commentators say about Obama is pretty vitriol.
Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher and others from both sides are not newspeople--they are more like contenders in the political version of World Federation Wrestling. The whole point of these shows is to stir people up and say outrageous things as entertainment, but sadly many Americans are not smart enough to know the difference between 'infotainment' and serious journalism so it's all taken totally to heart and people choose up sides and act badly. It's in the interest of corporate America to keep us all at each others throats, and our politicians (both parties) mostly work for corporations, not for us.
I'm really tired of these kinds of shows. I think they are harmful and encourage bad behavior and poor critical thinking, but people keep watching them so they aren't going away. I wouldn't cry too hard for Glen Beck. I think he makes a decent living, and that's what he's about, the money, nothing more.
And you aren't about the money?
Who's to blame, them for putting on their shows or us for demanding that sort of thing?
Absolutely agreed. I have a hard time even watching CNN anymore. They only on occasion put forth decent commentary. Otherwise, its 5-6 versions of spin for whatever constituency they are aiming at. It's insulting to watch, and a bastardization of the original ideas in New Journalism, geared completely towards ratings.
Glen Beck in my book is just a shock jock, as Ron says, "stirring up the rubes." At least seeing some of his 'commentary' exposed here, lol, we know where much of the verbiage being belched about on Hubpages is coming from...concerning certain Hubbers. Well, Rush has his 'Ditto Heads,' what name shall we coin for the Glenn Beck ape-ers?
The fact remains here that calling the sitting president of the United States of America a racist is an incendiary and stupid comment for a public figure to make--in any reasonable person's book. Advertisers know that, big business interested in their bottom line know that, decent conservatives know that. There is no way around saying it clearly. This kind of speech has no place in any serious person's message and should be condemned. How right and proper that the marketplace is doing so.
And people should make no mistake--this is the rube Rightists--what is known as the 'base,' applicable in so many ways, that word, and their unexamined Us vs. Them mentality which is stirring up vitriol and hate speech. The same 'base' of Palin supporters that used Obama's middle name in an attempted connection to say he, "pal-ed around with terrorists," (somewhat ameliorated by McCain's inept...but at least honorable comment to dispel the scary association being promulgated, "No, ma'am, he's a decent family man."). The same base who likened Obama to Hitler.
I want to say: I cannot tell you how unimpressed I am with you, and your 'opinions,' if you want to call them that. This IS muck...and no, I'm not interested in being there with you. This is not about discussion, it is not about an exchange of ideas, it is not about free speech. Our forefathers, and the political philosophers they took cue from did NOT intend for this kind of vitriol to be the result of their considered thought on the political right (and responsibility) of free speech.
The true leaders of the conservatives and the Republican party need to stand up now and reign these people in, if there are any reasonable people left among them.
Yes, control their thoughts and make them more obedient! That's the democratic way!
You are the furthest thing from a leader that I could imagine, TK. Therefore, I will take this statement as I should take it.
That may be true of Glen Beck, but I actually think the opposite of Bill Maher. He does push the envelope too, and I do not agree with all he says, but unlike Beck and company he invites a variety of informed people from a range of groups to discuss issues. Maher is very anti-corporate America, so that is why I enjoy him. Personally I do not mind people having different political opinions because that is what makes the world go round, and we are never all going to think similarly. However, when I want to read the real news I will stick with the BBC.
It's true. I remember he had Andrew Sullivan on his show, who decimated all of Maher's points for his documentary on religion (what was it called again?), and basically made him look kind a dumb. However, he wasn't afraid to invite him.
Maher actually invites journalists on his show, such as the man who wrote the book about black water contractors that fight in Iraq along side our troops. I am interested to read this man's book, but the other mainstream journalist seemed upset about the Black Water book. I will have to look it up to remember the author's name. Maher laments the loss of real journalism and admits he is just a comedian, unlike Beck who thinks he really is one.
Are you a member of the Maher fan club or something? You bring him up with unusual regularity. (and no, I don't want to know what you think about any other unrelated person)
If you find the name of the book, pass along, I'd like to read too. One thing to keep in mind about Blackwater is the fact that they recruited heavily from American ex-serviceman. Other mainstream journalists are probably upset about the book because they hate Blackwater with every fiber of their being. Bad enough that we have a military, in their eyes, these guys are no better than hired thugs. I'm pretty sure that's why they got shafted so bad after that incident in Iraq were they shot up that intersection. Personally, I don't think you can pass judgment on anybody unless you yourself were there. Combat straight up socks and you have a split second to make a decision like that. Sooner or later, you make the wrong one and that's what I think happened there. The official ever hear any journalists have anybody any slack for that sort of thing, maybe if they found themselves in combat they'd understand things a little bit better.
Yeah. Sullivan is editor of The Atlantic.
And who knows who Beck thinks he is...unless he is a complete idiot, he hopefully knows what he is and what he is stoking for the $$.
I need to read the Atlantic more often. There was an article on health care that looked informative. I read an article last week at work, but then we got busy so I had to put it aside. I have not really read the magazine like I should, but I definitely will now that you mentioned it.
Pgrundy, your post makes me almost feel religious for a second.
You are the source on this, correct? Ashcroft's book doesn't make that assertion.
@ledefensetech:Sheesh! I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I was referring to the part of your statement where you said that you question whether Obama or "Dems in general are that smart." I apologize for misquoting you, but I wasn't trying to quote. I thought that was the gist of what you were saying.
I did not mean for this to be nasty, and it seems to be heading that way.
SO, I'll just say that I know highly intelligent folks on both sides of the aisle and in between. There are also ignorant, foolish, misinformed, less than brilliant folks in those groups as well.
I was just making a comment on your mean-spirited generalization which IMHO helps us to solve nothing and does not make for healthy debate or discussion.
I come in peace!!
That is part of the problem, wouldn't you say? We've become so divisive over the years about things that it seems like we can't have a civil conversation anymore. I think, in a way, the Internet has shown us how uncivil we've become over the last few decades.
I'm a bit of an amateur historian and I've read about many of the plans that our leaders are attempting today. They've all failed. That's why I have little patience for people who think we can spend our way out of a depression. It is intensely frustrating how many people use their emotions to base their decisions on rather than reason. At any rate, I apologize if my rebuttal came across a bit strong.
But back to my main point. Would you disagree that the Dems are spending a lot of time running slur campaigns against people and organizations that oppose them? If so, why do you think they are doing that. If not, why do you think they are doing that. Things like reporting people for disagreements with what the government is doing runs very closely to the mass hysteria that accompanied McCarthyism. Would you agree or disagree?
Thanks, no worries. I'm a firm believer that the powers-that-be benefit greatly off of a divided public and so each 'side' fuels the fires that keep us so uncivil toward eachother.
I do agree that both sides spend time attacking others when there are surely more important issues to focus on. I would also consider my self to be a (VERY) amateur historian, and am fascinated with all the angles any one event can be told from.
What you describe is reminiscent of the whole "red scare" era, which is exactly what Bush's Patriot Act ("call us if you think your neighbor might be a terrorist") seemed like to me.
I agree that the bailouts are asinine. However, I wholeheartedly feel that McCains "freeze everything and think about it for awhile" strategy would have proven terribly detrimental for the economy. Sadly, no matter which party has the white house, it seems that big business lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings.
You may have guessed, but I affiliate myself w/ neither party as I think that leads to decisions based on group-mentality, propaganda, and other hollow reasoning.
Thanks, as I truly do appreciate civil debate.
I really don't fault Bush for the excesses of his Presidency. It was mostly a section of his party, along with a coalition of certain people "from the other side" that did it. Likewise, I've read many books critical of Lincoln and the choices he made during his Presidency, but I rather think it was the party, not the man that holds most of the blame. Likewise I don't hold Papa Obama responsible for some of the excesses of his Presidency. Of course all of these guys share some responsibility for what happens under their watch, but we can't just demonize them, we need to hold the political class as a whole responsible.
As for economics, I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist. Free markets are the only way all of us can live the good life. This cross between national socialist and pure socialist economies is what is killing us today. You might be interested in the following article: http://mises.org/story/3634
I'm hopeful that being something of an amateur historian yourself, you'll grasp the significance.
@Flightkeeper, Yes you're right, but I'll never forgive Bush for opening the door Obama and his cronies kicked in. He spoke the works of a free market believer, but his actions were anything but.
Yes, I agree with you, I do think the democrats and their hired ilk have been putting on slur campaigns. There were so many people outraged when Bush tapped the phones and you don't hear a peep now about the things Obama and the Democrats are doing. The Obama administration's urging to report people who disagreed with their health care proposal when he hasn't read the thing himself. Calling on the SEIU during Town Hall meetings to shout people down and even attack one person. Calling people who disagree with the proposal as racists. These are all attempts to quiet opposition. Today, we have found out that the projected 10-year deficit is going to be 2 trillion dollars higher and Obama did this when he only spent 6 months as President. I'm afraid of what he's going to do in the next 3 1/2 years.
They don't want people to report those who disagree with the health care proposal...they want people to tell them what stories are being spread about so they can address them.
There is no need for slur campaigns...Palin and others do a good enough job on their own...
That's a bit naïve don't you think? If they really wanted to know what people are disagreeing about concerning healthcare, all they have to do is read a newspaper. It's out there for everybody to see that's one of the wonderful things about having freedom of speech. What they really want to know is who is saying what, which is something entirely different. I know for a fact the White House employs a press cutting company, so they get articles from all over the United States about things that concern them. They have the information. What they want to know is who.
Well I guess that's one of the consequences of not teaching history in school anymore. Every dictatorship around the world and that has ever existed throughout history has used similar tactics in order to control the people. The fact that presidential supporters don't seem to understand this seems like a willful ignorance. The only way to truly judge a person is by what they do, by those lights our president isn't looking very good.
They are not telling people to name names, just let them know what is being said. Not everything appears in the press. Not many people pay attention to some of the crackpot rumours on the Internet and might not have heard some of the more ridiculous claims.
I am not naive, I know my history. I just don't run around like Chicken-Little screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling every time the government does something I disagree with like some people.
So you say, but you don't seem to understand the parallels between the government collecting data on people and how it caters to use that sort of thing in the past. FDR himself did much the same thing. Charles Lindberg disagreed with him concerning America's entry into the Second World War, so he had that poor man audited and hounded by the IRS.
You also don't seem very conversant on how the government has been restricting our liberties for well over a century now. You may trust the people in power, but I do not. I've seen far too many examples for our history where people have thought one thing and something entirely different has been the truth. Let's be honest. I imagine you support Obama and his policies because you're due to get something from it. That's how it works in this day and age. They bribe you to get in office, and you continue to vote for them. Meanwhile anyone else is screwed. The United States is not supposed to be like that. We are either all equal under the law or we are not.
Actually, I'm not even American. Maybe you have to be an outsider to see it clearly.
I actually believe that Obama is a good guy trying to do the right thing. I don't believe he is perfect but I also don't believe he is some cross between Machiavelli and Hitler either.
Now, say that is naive if you wish.
I don't support leaders because I want something for myself. I support leaders who I believe will improve my country and the lives of those of us who live in it. I, and many, many others from other countries, see Obama as a good thing for America and the world.
Than you really are naïve. No leader is interested in making things better, at last all they are concerned about is making a place for themselves in the history books, at worst they plunder the majority of people to give to the minority that support them. Only individuals by their actions can make things better or worse. Most types of associations, especially involuntary ones tend to do very much more harm than they do good. The government, by its very nature is an involuntary association. You're born into it and you die within it, there's no escaping.
You really are naïve if you think Obama cares anything about anyone except for the people who vote for him. Don't get me wrong, he talks a good game, but when it comes to actions, his actions are deplorable and the consequences of his actions will be felt for decades. That may not mean much to you, as you've said, you're not even an American. I, however, am and his actions do affect my life.
much like the consequences of the previous eight years' actions are being felt today, not just here for the pompous "american" but across the entire globe.
Blue dog, are you going to harp on the last eight years forever, when were facing all of the problems that we are today? Come on man let it go, he's out of the office, he's retired, let him be. Jesus, they stopped hounding Nixon after he got kicked out of office and he was 1000 times worse than Bush. The last eight years doesn't excuse was going on today.
I could care less about the rest of the world I don't live there, they're free to do whatever they want their freedom it however they want to live. If anything, Americans needed that example to understand just how dangerous it is to throw our weight around like we did. if you're so concerned about what we did around the world the last eight years, why aren't you concerned about what we've done around the world in the last 50 years? Because quite honestly we did worse things back in the 60s than Bush ever did during his term.
Yikes didnt take you for a Nationalist Led, you dont care about the rest of the world?
Well Im glad Obama does
One who credits for BHO for caring about the world is borderline deluded. He cares about his legacy and his socialist agenda. Nothing more.
How can you speak for what Obama wants for America? Maybe you are describing your own feelings and not his I think it is self evident that Obama is trying to clean up the mess, and although I see fault with much of what is being done to fix it, wouldn't it be more constructive to get behind the incumbency and support reform?
What are you doing that would help anything then?
By being critical of things that are not going right instead of goose-stepping down the street in my 'I love the Obama-Messiah' T-shirt, by voting against those who are doing a shit job - you know, generally being a responsible citizen.
Earnest you da man
Geeze Im just trying to be open-minded ,but when I hear Americans close up shop, like no -one else is supposed to care , makes my blood boil..sweetly so
Eaglekiwi, the world is taking care of itself since forever without the United States, and they'll do just fine without us intervening in every little problem that crops up now. It is not our job to act as the world's policeman, it's not our job to get involved in every little thing that occurs around the world. Just like people who are foreign to the United States have no Brill say about our politics, neither do we have really anything to say about other people's politics. It's not about being a nationalist, it's about respecting the right of people to make their own decisions and not interfering with those decisions.
Most of the problems that the United States has is that since the end of the second world war, we're the ones that everybody turns to when something happens. I mean if you really want to get technical about it the entire mess in the Middle East is due to the French and the British. Yet who do the Palestinians hate? America. Look at Vietnam. That was another mess we tried to clean up left by... The French. Quite frankly I'd like to see us return to our stance in the 19th century, let the world go its own way they'll do so anyway. The good news is when people screw up, like they did at Versailles, they will then have to take responsibility for it and deal with the consequences on their own.
George Washington had a point when he told us not to get involved in "the broils of Europe".
i thought "...the entire mess in the middle east..." was due to a natural resource, you know, the same natural resource that america consumes more of than any other country on the planet. no?
No the entire mess is due to guys like Churchill. We're only interested in the place because of oil. Without that, we'd let Israel get back to securing their borders.
You involved in local conservative politics in MO, there, LDT, ?
Just a question!
Libertarian, dear, libertarian. I'd go so far as to say that many "conservatives" are really libertarians, but that's really a discussion for another time.
So, you voted libertarian the last three presidential elections?
Oh! I see all is lost. Wow. THAT cynical, even at the grassroots level?
Politics has become a game of take from one group of people and give to those who get you into office. It doesn't matter who you vote for, we as a people lose when that sort of thing happens.
I'll take a look. But just want to say...it is an imperfect process. Nothing is all white, I know that. I still believe through all the noisy complexity that we can and do move forward, though...usually two steps forward, one back, but forward nonetheless.
And fighting and different view points are quite necessary to the equation. As long as the players are non psycho, non stupid and non violent, especially,
Yeah, at least I'm in no way responsible for getting any of the idiots we've put in office elected. You, however, are.
Let me get this straight, you don't ever vote but are giving your opinions on what others are doing wrong in the government? So we should all not vote and just let things roll along as they are? Gee, I almost thought you knew something about our system of government. Well, whoop de do!
so tonite we've learned that you lack responsibility, you think america's the greatest invention since toilet paper, the problems in the middle east are not about oil (they are, however, about churchill and the french, wew!), you have an inalienable right to free speech, and you don't vote.
you're a real piece of work.
I actually have to agree with pothead on this point.
You don't vote? Really? I don't vote either. I feel I need something I really like in order to waste gas and time to go down and stand in a line. I tell everyone when I feel there is something really worth voting for, I will vote. I don't wanna be one of those people who panic about pres G. W. and then rush down and vote him out just because. If you do that, then you don't know what you are getting the next round.
Well, I don't usually much agree with you, but it is clear you are not stupid, , and I think you have honorable intentions (lol, like I hear conservatives think of liberals), so maybe you should consider getting involved politically, LDT.
People have to step up before the crazies take over, you know, over on that side. Just IMHO.
Well since some Presidents have decided not to follow George Washingtons lead , we can assume thats history.
I think as allies though the USA is bound to support some countries and much has been said on the other examples you mentioned.
I agree about domestic issues ,you are right there , other countrys could less about America in that same way you.
My response earlier though was one of initial surprise because peace-keeping for example is important to the whole world !!,and for that reason its very insular to think only of yourselves. When and if (God forbids) the states to war ,you effect other countries too. It is not just Americans who die.
One of the reasons I respect this Presidency because he has gained back respect of other world leaders.
There is also Foreign trade , Amnesty international ,United Nations, Homeland Security.
And I dont get the part where you say about not interfering with other people decisions.
The majority of Americans voted Obama for President. Yet all I hear and see every single day is someone interfering with their decision to live that decision.
Having a healthy opinion is freedom of speech , I was raised under that freedom too, but we just didnt complain or get so uptight about new initatives as much I guess.
I mean just think about it , if an alien landed in America today and listened to some of the people, what would he learn ?
Maybe he would just say ...ET..Call Home
He would get a Free ride on Health Care, and think we're living in a great country!!
It may not be as "history" as you think. There has always been a great impetus for isolation in this country. I imagine that was one of the (many) reasons for opposition to the Iraq war. In fact, that is how I came to oppose that particular war.
Also the majority of Americans didn't vote for him, the majority of voters did. Not quite the same thing. In addition, it would seem that some that voted for him did so because he wasn't a Republican. Those are the ones you see now that regret their decision last November. Next years elections should be interesting to say the least.
What you call peacekeeping, I call meddling in the internal affairs of others. Sure it may keep the killing down, but people who want to kill one another will do so when the opportunity presents itself. As soon as we leave Iraq, they'll start shooting at one another again, even if it's a century from now. Don't believe me? Why haven't we withdrawn forces from Bosnia yet? The groups there hate each other just as much as the groups in Iraq. My point is that if they want peace, they'll have to find it, nobody else can do it for them. How long did it take the IRA to become tired of all the bloodshed, death and murder? Yet even they became tired and gave up the conflict and started acting like civilized folk. So it can be done, but it can't be done through summits or road maps or anything but a sincere desire from both sides to stop the killing.
Actually I tend to agree with you partially , then why did Bush keep increasing numbers ie more n more involvement?
The USA must have invested interests ,what was and is the motivation?
More oil perhaps?
See I think its kinda funny how many of these poorer countries have nothing except oil and drugs yet as you say the USA always seem to be involved...
BTW If you dont vote ,you are in essence giving the vote to the other side so splitting hairs dont ya think
Anway I enjoy your posts ,but time to get some beauty sleep , I will be awhile
To Your Best Life
Well, Bush really didn't have a choice after the insurgency started other than to increase troop presence in Iraq. One of the biggest mistakes the planners made was to use too little force, they tried to do it on the cheap with "shock and awe" and not enough troops. Disbanding the Iraqi army and not confiscating their weapons was an even bigger mistake.
And yeah oil was a major reason for going in there. But consider this, how well would we be able to function as a society without oil. It's easy to demonize it while the pumps are still flowing, but if it ever went away we'd all be hurting.
I don't think you understand the tension between collectivism and libertarianism that has always been fought in this country. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were the two from Greeley set this thing in motion during Washington's first administration. Hamilton basically wanted our country to be set up much like great Britain where as Jefferson wanted a republic. The results of their arguments was the polarization of the body politic into two camps, one that attempted the centralized government power and the other which attempted to decentralize government power.
That pretty much held true for the next century. In the early 20th century, however, things began to change. Rather than there being a centralized versus decentralized polarity, the argument became one of whom got the spoils of centralized government power. So much so that if today you vote for the Republicans, you vote for corporate welfare. If you vote for the Democrats, you pretty much vote for socialist welfare. There is not room in either ideology for people being free to make their own decisions and to live their lives as they see fit. In the end, that's why I don't vote. Make a choice between two equally bad decisions is not a choice at all. Unlike the early years of the Republic voting for one side or the other makes no difference, the only thing you choose is where the spoils go.
Have a good evening.
OH, LDT. I thought, from my reading, that it was all about the Marxist dialectic that has influenced our ideas and overshadowed any new way of thinking into polarities. Now you tell me this.
Change the parties from within?? Yeah? Don't be so cynical.
Wow! I never realized libertarians do not vote. No wonder their presidential candidates never win.
The reason their candidates never win is because they don't promise to bribe people with federal tax dollars after they win. If you think elections are about anything other than dividing the spoils of federal tax money, you're out of your mind. Whilst you think up to half the population doesn't even bother to vote during a presidential election, much less vote during the "off season" elections? Let me say that again. Half of the population doesn't even vote, what does that tell you? Even your golden boy Obama only has the support of 25% of the population. What do you think is going to happen when he cheeses off the other 75% of the population that live here?
Oooh! Oooooh! I know! I know! The Second American Revolution, right?
I'm sorry, I don't see how you can claim to be a libertarian unless you actively support your candidate. Have empathy for their cause perhaps, but to identify yourself with the name without participation? Nah.
It tells, me, LDT, that most of our 'electorate' are not interested and don't understand such things. And I would estimate that to be a fact...experience tells me so (I'll just say that as a kind of shorthand).
That is why it is important that people who do understand and can make a valid contribution DO get involved... That'll always be my view.
Of course they're not interested, Lita. if you read that link I gave you, the author makes the point that since the early 20th century politics in this country has been about giving up on one group to another. Most people aren't interested in that sort of thing, even today.
The only people who are really interested or those at the very top and those at the very bottom. The ones at the very top want protect their position and power while those at the bottom seek to confiscate power and position from those who are above them.
Meanwhile, everyone else in the middle gets squeezed out. That is exactly what we're seeing today. And that's the problem with getting involved. It doesn't matter which side you get involved with your going to be taking from somebody to give to somebody else. That is inherently dishonest. The only thing were entitled to is what we personally work for.
I called it sucker's game not to be melodramatic, but to illustrate a point. The reason I don't believe that things would change even if the other half the population got involved is because our politicians practice divisive politics. Look at how much guys like Al Sharpton try to whip people up into a frenzy on the one side and guys like Dick Cheney try to whip people up on the other side. You can't accomplish anything when demagogues are splitting the populace up like that. Nor should we honestly have to deal with politicians like that in the first place.
You might find this following letter by Grover Cleveland to be rather interesting: http://mises.org/story/3627
What he said this is true today as it was back then. It's a shame that we should have remembered such things and not forgotten over the course of time.
I only glanced over the article (I'm getting tired), so there is a chance I didn't catch the point, but seems to me this is just about...work.
Yes. It is a dirty process. Anybody who works in a committee (or a marketing dept., ), can tell you this. There is compromise after compromise, and sometimes there are idiots in the process and they drag everything, including the work down. Just need to go around them, I've found. Suck it in, keep going forward. And influence is influence. It's kind of a human art form.
At the end of the day, I will always feel there are those (even in positions of 'power') who aim to be good and do much that is good.
I never meant to claim the opposite, I personally know for a fact that there are a few very good people doing an exceptional job in government agencies. The problem is is that they are vastly outnumbered by people who are just there to collect a check, or even worse, the petty tyrants and dictators were only interested in creating their own little fiefdoms. It's hard enough getting those kind of people out of a corporate environment, it's impossible to get them out of the government bureaucracy.
I just think there's a better way of doing things, then the way we currently do them now. The fact that that view is not shared by most people is unsurprising given the quality, or lack thereof, of education that we get. Most of my true understanding came after I finished college, the only thing college did for me was to show me that there were possibilities, most of my teachers didn't do a very good job of showing what those possibilities were only that they existed.
At any rate, you're correct, it's getting late. I think I'm going to call it an evening. As usual, it's been a great pleasure talking with you. Have a good evening.
When I start talking about politics or the news around some friends they say bye bye, or get to the point. When I share articles I read about politics my friends roll their eyes and look bored. Apathy seems to be a common among many.
Actually everything he is doing is to buy votes for next election. Give 45 million health insurance and you have a bunch of voters. No matter there will not be enough doctors to service them. Put a Hispanic on the Supream Court - more votes
Last election 93% of blacks vote for him because he was "half black" Register a bunch of people that are not intellegent enought to get registered to vote themselves.
The O is nothing but another slick politician that will promise the people anything. In the end it is the big money that buys the politicians.
In the last 20 yrs the bulk of America's wealth has gone to the wealthy , google stats , its a fact uneven distribution of wealth.
The fat cats at the top get the cream ,middle class milk ,bottom new tents to sleep on the street.
Where are all the millionaires USA and Saudi Arabia..hmm funny that
Who has the most homelessness USA...
Those facts didnt emerge in the last 6 mths.
So get behind your President and be a part of the solution!
Yeah! It will be like a revolution in culture, making the nation more pure and united! A cultural revolution, if you will! Don't be left out!
who would you have rather had on the court, another white guy? sounds like you've got issues with hispanics and blacks who vote. if so, tread lightly.
I know he (glenn beck) has some good points, but I have to remember that he is just making a living with a show and all. I really do not get into it so much as I would think that if it was me running his show, I would only be doing it for the money.
Where did the discussion about Glen Beck go?
I used to like watching Glen Beck and also Sean Hannity, but both spend too much time on negative talk, and very little the positive side of things. I think they have great points at times, but they dwell too much on them like a broken record.
No...I am not naive...you on the other hand are paranoid.
You're beyond naive. Did you have the same euphoria over Bush?
"What does he want?"
"He wants what every first term administration wants. A second term."
-Clear and Present Danger. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109444/
Nope, I'm sure I'll have plenty to harp about over the next several years, Heck depending on how the election goes I may have enough to harp about for longer than that.
CNN is a joke in my country! We made a whole comedy based on it that was a top show on Australian TV for a while. It was called CNNNN. I loved it. It was very close to the truth as good satire usually is!
Yeah, I was especially impressed with the 24-7 Michael Jackson coverage... What was THAT supposed to be a cover for, one wonders. Jeez.
We got that show (in NZ) Funny as..
My sons tend to like the Daily Show alot too, hes good..
Beck is offensive and too in yer face ,if I met him in real life ,all that yap would get pretty boring fast.
Like that song , lets talk about me , me me me me ...
This is such hypocricy. Jeneaane Garafolo calls all people who attend the Town Hall meetings racists for disagreeing with the presidents Health Care agenda, and she becomes the hero of the lowest rated Cable news network "MSLSD"
That sounds like a simplistic version of something, just from the way it is phrased, but I haven't seen her show, so?
And yeah, most liberals don't much appreciate shock jock radio and TV, if it is in that mode, . Doesn't surprise me it isn't well rated.
Beck isn't going anywhere. They use to propagate this same nonsense about Limbaugh and Ann Coulter every time they said something controversial. If anything, you should be questioning whether the sponsors were smart to drop him; I predict they are the ones that are going to smart over this, not Beck.
Besides, those that listen to Beck want him to go to the edge. They don't like Obama and they don't like what he's doing to the country. Beck is a voice for their resistance.
If the sponsors of Glenn Beck's show get enough call-in or write-in guff from Beck fans they will reinstate their support of the show. If they see little to no downtick in sales, they will know they made a smart business move.
The main problem with pundits like Beck and Limbaugh is the way they espouse their "opinions" they make it sound like it is gospel truth. Unfortunately, due to the ignorant, lazy nature of their viewers, these opinions ARE taken as gospel truth.
"I heard Glenn Beck say X so X must be true. Now I believe in X too."
Sullivan's kind of my hero, . If I have such a thing. I read his blog The Daily Dish quite often...kind of a Reader's Digest of issues with lots of links to everything out there, from a trusted source.
He's actually a conservative, lol, who is gay, Catholic, and voted by conscience for Obama. Like I said...hero material.
Where is his blog? I am just curious he sounds like a very interesting man.
They are doing some kind of 'guest blog' thing right now...which I don't feel is as good, but you can usually find him & his commentary here.
It's funny how much stock people put into labels. If you say one thing you must be this or if you say the other thing you must be this other. People are individuals. Everyone has their own value system and personal beliefs and that determines the causes they support. So what if he's gay, Catholic, and a Republican. So what if he voted for Obama. He has his own value system by which he makes choices and that's true of all of us. The important thing is that we are allowed to live in accordance with those you systems, so long as living according to them does not keep others from enjoying the same rights.
I did not label him. Where are you getting this from? Please stop making assumptions because that was a big one.
Sigh. That wasn't a shot you Sweetie. It was more of a general observation about how people are labeled. I could've just as easily said why do people consider me on conservative when obviously I tell people over and over on the Libertarian.
Besides it's just a comment, you don't have to get all defensive about it.
Okay, but I can clarify, and that was not defensive. I say many things are interesting, and that is just a mannerism of mine. I know of all people you are not a Conservative, but a Libertarian. You made this very clear to me awhile back .
Thanks for the link Lita, I am reading this .
See, LDT. Those words are not necessarily labels for those who actually admire and have read his words. They are simply what he is....He is very much ALL of that, and writes about these issues, and I've been impressed with almost everything he has said.
I also come from the perspective that there was only one choice in the last election...Sullivan echoes, quite often, the tenets of my own thought, and as editor of The Atlantic, he is in no low place...he saw the same.
You are horribly cynical! I can just tell this by how you write.
I'm horribly cynical because I read a lot of history, you know books from the pre-Kissinger era. I keep trying not to, but I keep coming back to this forum. It's really bad for me, kind of like junk food is bad for you. Timing is fun talking to certain people and you can have some rather interesting conversations, but I never feel good after posting here after so long.
Actually, I really like what George Carlin used to say. He very much enjoyed talking to individuals, but had no use whatsoever for groups. I'm not quite that bad. I just have no use for most groups. The voluntary associations are one thing, and forced associations are another kettle of fish. One thing I don't trust, in any way shape or form, is government. That's buttressed not only by my personal experiences in dealing with government agencies, but also with what I've read in my historical researches.
Personally, I find that I have a really dry wit and black sense of humor, quite possibly that's what you're picking up on. In most other areas, I find myself fairly content. Mostly what I really like to see is a return to sanity. Not this crazy you have to think a certain way or act a certain way or be a certain way. Everyone should have the freedom to be not only who they are but they can be. We don't have that here today in the United States. Not that I think we ever really had it, but I think in the past we have come far closer to that ideal and we are today. Now that is a cause I would support to the hilt, a cause that would bring us back to a society based on liberty and freedom.
EH, what you are seeing is this stupid, stupid Us vs. Them mentality that is being stoked up all over. I have never seen it so bad, and it is rampant on Hubpages. I get extremely disgusted with it...and sometimes am a little shocked. I have stories of communications with some of these types here I will not make public...but it is amazing.
I completely agree with your summation.
Yeah, because YOU would never sink so low as to be a part of something like that...
Your puppy would be really cute to draw. Such a cute, sweet little puppy .
Yep, you are just the tip of the iceberg, actually, TK. Disappointed?
Wake me up when it starts (the Second American Revolution). I'll get my guns out of the safe and come on down!
I like a variety of topics, but the world has always interested me. I still do not fathom how people cannot even have a basic working knowledge of certain things, if you know what I mean. Before 9/11 some people did not even know what Islam was, and I kid not. My friend said that was all news to her.
Making informed decisions and voting is the only way to voice your opinion. I do not drive and walk everywhere, and I can assure you there are always polling stations within walking distance. The closest one to me was actually less than a block away. By the way Bush's second term was ending in 2009, so in 2008 we were not voting him out. In that election we were choosing a new president.
Don't you think that information was kinda elitist, SP? You should maybe be repentant for that somehow.
I am such a horrible elitist. I guess I better go watch Fox and Glenn Beck to learn about the real news .
Beck is not a reporter. He is a commentator.
Do not depend on a commentator for your news.
The primary problem for TV viewers on both ends of the spectrum is the inability to distinguish between commentator and reporter.
O'Reilly is a commentator.
Beck is a commentator
Olbermann wants to be a reporter but is only a commentator. Unfortunately last year his masters at MSNBC assigned him to cover the Republican and Democrat conventions as a reporter.
Maddow is a commentator.
Matthews is a commentator
Ok, that is interesting. They are all just commentators. Maybe idiots, right? They don't have a clue? They do not do any research? Everything they say is a lie? Yes, they ARE commentators- but don't think that the information on their shows are automatically not trustworthy just because the guys are only "commentators". I do not like Larry King, but he uses real issues and brings them to his show and discusses them usually with several guests. O'Reilly does the same thing, they all do. But Glenn Beck is doing something different this week his show is not commentary, he has been doing alot of research and has discovered some very scary problems and he is revealing those issues to his audience. That is not the typical work of a commentator. My point is, that you cannot just toss these guys into an "idiot bin" because you have a negative opinion on commentators versus reporters. Get a clue yo.
A commentator is like a columnist on the opinion page. They have a certain viewpoint that they are trying to get across. This is opposed to reporting which is supposed to include only facts.
As for research, well sure they do it, but only insofar as the research conforms to their point of view. Not idiocy, but bias certainly. Personally I like Glen Beck, but there are times when his research and methods show that bias. It's always a good idea to keep in mind another person's motives and what they get out of a situation. It allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Problem is most people don't have a baloney detection kit: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Heck I disagreed vehemently with many of Sagan's political views and his attempts to massage the data as concerned nuclear weapons, but his detection kit is useful nonetheless.
Beck's 'research' is pretty poor, LDT. I wouldn't call it bias. I'd call it patently false information, and inflammatory.
"A commentator is like a columnist on the opinion page. They have a certain viewpoint that they are trying to get across. This is opposed to reporting which is supposed to include only facts."
Of course this is true, in theory, but in practice different news agencies provide us with these "facts" with their own spins, and from their own perspectives, which makes their "news" not so different from commentators. The thing is that aside from a story on a car accident of plane crash, the news anchor can put a particular spin on the story as to give the viewers a certain opinion on that particular story or topic. It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to look at the PURE FACTS, and then base our opinions solely on that evidence alone. But a HUGE percentage of people who view a story do not think about that little truth and automatically fall into a stereotypical crowd. We see a story and the way it is told, and there may very well be elements that capture our emotions, and when this happens it is not so easy to just look at pure facts, we want to react to what we BELIEVE happened solely based on what we heard on the "news", from an anchor's or agency's personal perspective. Most people tend to fall into this unfortunate trap. Become a truth SEEKER. Don't just accept what you hear, RESEARCH IT.
Quite true Derrick, some of us actually look for the truth, the difference between Beck and Mathhews is Beck asks questions that are relevant! Like why is their a self described communist involved in the Obama administration at all? I don't think Beck gets that tingling up his leg when Obama speaks!
I bet the lost advertisers were replaced within minutes. Last night he had the highest rates cable talk show ever. The advertisers are not stupid, they will advertise where they get people to see the adds. If people are watching beck, they are not going to upset with the people advertising on the show.
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/c … n_beck.php
Excellent analysis...for reasonable people.
I certainly don't agree with Beck's assessment of Obama. I saw that show and frankly, in spite to the evidence he presented to support his argument that Obama is racists, he ignored or downplayed the fact that Obama himself is half white, his mother and grandparents were also white. Given that, it's hard to imagine Obama is a racist. He does however tend to identify more with his black roots.
All that aside one should not discount everything Beck says because he was wrong on a given point. The questions he raised this week deserve examination and thoughtful consideration by all Americans. Becks basis for his arguments this week are from the words of Obama himself and from Obama's advisers. As a minimum these people need to clarify what they said, what they meant and what they believe.
Obama has said to judge him by the people he associates himself with. Well some of those people are avowed communists, socialists, and radicals, including at least 2 that were former weather underground members and participated in the crafting of the stimulus bill. Does anyone really think it would be prudent or wise to just ignore these questions because of a previously poorly crafted program that proposed a putrid allegation of our President? I don't think so!
Yes it is.
No one worth having a discussion with would defend Beck's statement.
Thats a way out of the discussion! A typical tactic when you have nothing but rhetoric! Obama IS a Racist and has proven it! Unfortunately for you and the whiners Beck will not only stay on the air he will get bonuses for record ratings! Liberals lose again
Beck raises some very interesting questions. Partisanship aside, as a minimum those questions warrant some investigation by the press and some response from the Whitehouse. We ignore them at our peril and the press is derelict in it's public service responsibility if they turn away.
Yes, I do think it wise to ignore him (at least in my estimation). You will know them by their fruits, etc..
And frankly, I get my news and analysis from valid sources which are just as available as Glenn Beck...just perhaps not as accessible...to some (ie, The Atlantic).
And that is across the board, and not partisan. Beck is not a valid or respected news source. This new stuff he's spewing sounds like a revamp of McCarthyism.
So if he is spewing lies what are they? You keep saying he should be ignored and his information is false but you offer no proof, are you going to ignore me also? If you are thats fine, it just shows who is really spreading falsehoods!
It really makes no difference whether I ignore you or not, and I realize that. Producing proof will not change those minds who are not receptive based on partisan identity politics.
But here is some information. I mean, please, the intelligent rightists know he is stoking up fear and dis-information for $$, and to rally the not-so-bright base:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article … r_Computer
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapp … ks_sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eva-pater … 71518.html
The last source is especially damning. Not that, I'm sure, it makes a difference, And you can all ape Glen Beck's words all you want to...believe everything he says, tune in religiously and make him rich. You still won't have his salary. That's the real factor here, you know, with anything he does...and what this brand of 'commentator' does.
lita, just so you know, all texans are not created equal. but then, i know you knew.
Ok, I looked at the evidence you supplied and ask again what is he lying about? I am not going to carsdotgov to see what would happen if I click agree! But I guess its ok that the car dealers computer is treated as property of the US Government? Thats ok with you that the US Government can access files stored on any computer? Thats scary. The blog I read, but give it no credence, its a blog!
and the debate whether Van Jones served time or not is just stupid, Beck made a mistake if he said he had done time, I heard him say "he had been in jail" he had been in jail so whats the problem? And your right not all Texans are created equally, we have some who vote for hopey changey stuff but get bait and switch instead!
Why is it you think I or anyone is hanging on every word Beck says? I just started watching him this week and then only caught 3 shows. I don't care about his money, that is a bizarre statement. And what kind of commentator is Beck? What kind of commentator is Rachel Maddow? Or Kieth Olberman? Chris Matthews obviously has a man crush on Obama but hey, I don't care nor do I want their money!
You can get your news from wherever you wish but you should at least look into the questions he's raised, unless you don't care that a communist or a revolutionary has direct access to the president as his adviser.
Say what you want about McCartyism, but the fact is there were communists trying to infiltrate our government.
There are unfortunately, some morons who would refer to a mixed-race person as a racist. They fail to mention whether it is the race of his own father or mother that he supposedly wants to harm.
Unfortunately, a rabble-rouser can always profit financially by appealing to the lunatic fringe.
Thats your rebuttal? A mixed race person can't be a racist? Thanks for proving that stupid truly is a disease and in your case its terminal!
Oh brother...are you saying a mixed race person cannot be racist? Really?
Typically, the doggie tries to nudge into a conversation way beyond it's feeble abilities. Poor critter has no idea what a racist even is. Let me help you doggie, then you can go back to rolling in your own feces and sniffing other dogs butts. Racists believe in the superiority of a particular RACE. What kind of a moron could possibly believe in the existence of a pure mixed race? Wait, don't tell me.........
You may now resume your regularly scheduled canine activities.
I wonder what Obama checked in the "what race are you" box for that college scholarship or loan. He claims to be the First African American to be President! He has called his white Grandmother a Typical white person, I guess he isn't a typical white person! You are a brilliant analyst, you need to pull your head out of your (check orifice)
So can I take that as a 'yes'? You actually think that because someone is mixed race they cannot be racist ...
I believe you used the word "moron"?
Moron is one word you could use to describe the Obamabot, but functionally retarded may be a better fit!
I believe Obama identifies himself as a black man! So in fact he has chosen his race, to think that a mixed race person could not be a racist is rather a simple way of denying your inability to refute fact! Obama is a racist, he is a black racist, because he chooses to be!
Yes doggie, and quite accurately. You still don't understand the word do you? Perhaps a rolled up newspaper?
What amazes me is that while the racist thing seems absurd (yeah, I'm sure he really hates the white people in his family) it's having a huge impact on Glen Beck. But when he had a guest say that Osama Bin Laden was America's only hope to "save America" from our own government - that went by quietly. How could anyone in any party agree that it would be better now to have Osama Bin Laden set up a nuclear weapon in the U.S. rather than have a Democratic President?
But I guess that's politics. Statements that should drive people nuts go by unopposed and smaller issues get blown up.
Maybe it's because I'm at the computer too much, or maybe it's because I can't be bothered switching my television from the networks to the cable channels (I never learned what channel is what, so it's a pain in the neck); but even though I've been thinking I watch most of the news programs, and even though I listen to talk radio regularly; I don't know Glen Beck. I don't know what he looks like or what he says. Guess I'll look him up online one of these days. Maybe I'm the only one in the world who doesn't know about him? In any case, my point is that he may not be as "big as a cheese" as some people think he is.
I am not a big Glenn Beck fan and I certainly don't think he is a "Big Cheese" But he has been consistent in his opposition to big government and he actually called for Bush to be impeached over his handling of border security. That proves he is not a stooge of the left or right, he simply wants limited government in our lives and he believes Obama is a racist. I do too!
Obama is definitely not a racist. You make not like his policies, but that does not make him a racist. I do not believe there are many hardcore racists on any side of the divide, but I do still have grave concerns about people declaring Obama show his birth certificate. He already has and they are caught up on a technicality. As for small government it is a fallacy that any presidential administration has been pro-small government in the last hundred years. It would be virtually impossible to run a country as massive as ours with as small as a government as some want.
The government is not as big and scary as people make it out to be, but if you do not like who is in office vote differently. That is the contribution you can make. Overall I think the American system has served us well and I like the positive direction we are headed in, but I am concerned by those who are trying to push us back, such as the people protesting with vitriol against health care reform.
I had no clue who Glenn Beck was until a few weeks ago. After I heard some of his commentary I was definitely not his fan. The links Lita has posted give a far more balanced reason as to why you should not rely on Beck for your information source.
Just another 'mouth' to up ratings ,next year they (network) will churn out another brat
Oh how I yearn for the days when Rush Limbaugh wore a suit looked somewhat more professional. It was funny to see him in that open shirt and I could not help but think rock star .
Some folks apparently have a wealth of interesting personal expertise.
Yawn... Yep, see--told you so.
And if you cannot decipher truth from fiction, what matters and what doesn't in a 'blog' by somebody who was the boss of the outrageous "communist, socialist czar whatsit," and cannot use critical thinking skills in analysis, I see why you can believe Beck like the gospel. lol
That's OK, go ahead and spew. That's all you are really interested in, anyway. I already know. It's OK.
edit: You added on to your post... I don't know if you or anyone else is constantly watching him...however, you responded to my post, not the other way around, so you must have some kind of affinity for him. I was actually talking about several well-known Beck spewers on hubpages who just reiterate everything he says over and over.
Anyway! This kind of 'politics' is just stereotyping and dumb blaming. All those commentators you mention are of the same ilk. I don't respect one of them.
You are the only one spewing, Beck can do what he wants, if he lies then he is subject to slander or liable suits. This lame attempt at silencing him is just making him bigger than he was, failed liberal tactic.
I think I will write a blog and tell the world that the moon is made of cheese, everyone will believe me because an opinion is fact now! Good luck with your critical thinking skills!
I've got no problem, lol! Your reading of the whole situation is hardly...temperate. Good luck with your thinking, .
Beck can do what he wants. Nobody serious takes him seriously...THE POINT.
I have no power in "silencing" Beck. All the blue chip advertisers just may, however. I think this was what was being discussed? lololololo. Big sigh. Don't respond to posts and ask to be 'attacked' if that isn't what you want, with a 'lil teaser, "don't ignore me." Just funny....
You can attack all you want but your thinking is flawed, you saw it on the internet so it must be true, genius! What serious people would you be referring to? You? Beck wont be taken off the air, he will receive large bonuses for big ratings, and no one will file suit against him because Fox is the serious player! Now go curl your hair or something!
Any hacker can access files on your computer if it is compromised. I would be worried more about actual hacking attacks by kids playing around on the Internet as opposed to some of these fantastical monitoring schemes some people are dreaming up.
He misread the information, or is deliberately obfuscating. (Like Beck!). The section of the bill was not very well written...which seems to be a common thing regarding this kind of document. What Beck claims: That the Govt can access any private citizen's computer and play Big Brother is way over the top conspiracy theory nuts.
How can anyone take someone like this seriously, on that point alone? And there are SO many other things. I do think the Beck supporters are slightly crazy, yes. IMHO, and given free speech,
This particular poster is not capable of seeing the truth because this is the type of person that thinks everything Ronald Reagan said was true, and that No Child Left Behind was a real achievement. They probably act the same way Glenn Beck does, so that is why he is their idol .
Glenn Beck is not a journalist or a serious thinker. Nobody serious takes him seriously. He is a clown. Validity is not the same as ratings or a paycheck.
President Obama is the serious player we voted into office, and I'm sure that pisses you off.
These are simple truths I'm sure you grasp at some level.
lol And I don't have to curl my hair--it is naturally wavy! hahaa!
edit: Lol...I just had a look at the stuff you write. All reiterations from Beck. So I guess you lied about not being that influenced by him? You use the exact same words and references. Do you work for Mr. Beck?
Obama is the "serious player?" Thats the fun thing about girls like you, you get a crush on the cool guy who turns out to be a jerk, but because your insecurity or your daddy issues never leave you the cool guy walks all over you!
Obama certainly was elected but it wasn't by people on the left. It was that middle ground that put him in office, the same ones turning on him now!
His being elected does not make me mad, the fact that no one in his administration can do math makes me mad. "Miscalculating" by two trillion dollars tends to make incompetents one term Presidents, ask Jimmy Carter!
Glenn Beck is a commentator, nobody ever said he was a journalist, now Dan Rather is a journalist who lied and was fired for it!
Don't think ya know me, but I'm beginning to know you, lol. Pls. see above *edit.
Sounds like you like Limbaugh, too, yawn. Wow...you 'guys' (who like these hard right commentators) all seem to have some of the same qualities. Funny!
And I've been with a COOL Texan for 5 years now....Obama supporter, too. Pretty egalitarian relationship, I'd say. You know women don't like men with insecurity problems,
Got you a little flustered do I? Figured I could, isn't that want you wanted? Yes! I saw your edit and I admit that the Jones thing created a Hub for me, is that wrong?
Insecurity problems, thats a quaint little concept where have I heard that before?
By qualities I assume you mean misogyny? Of course you do, another failed tactic, I love women and they love me!
I'm sure you have a good ol boy from Texas, all women should! And I am glad he is an Obama supporter, you're gonna need all the help you can get in 2012, but it wont work! Obama is done now!
Wow Tex you got a wild one. they are so easy to manipulate, and so predictable....Misogyny..Priceless
No. I've just noticed you types all are so similar it is hard to tell you apart by this point. The viewpoints are directly taken from these talk shows.
And what I'm saying is that you are a bit insecure...it is obvious. Using other people's views to substitute for your own thoughts, etc., no photo, etc., etc. Talking about how women go for the 'cool' guys (and yes, we do, lol).
And btw, Mitch who-ever, been here two days, you obviously don't know a thing about me. Check the political posts, etc. before you 'figure it out.' That's the joke.
Anyway, yawn... You have a good night, gentlemen.
Stupid? Don't think ya know me! You understand that I don't use "other peoples views" Their views and mine just happen to be the same, its an ideology that we share, get it? Doubt it!
When you understand that I pulled you around by your nose and got the response that I wanted, then you can understand that your ideology is someone elses, you don't have the mind to think for yourself or you would have known what happened to you!
And Mitch just spotted your obvious insecurities about your gender! Goodnight, Lita, you are just too easy and boring!
Stupid, Tex, and stupid, Mitch.
You speak in stereotypes. There have been exactly 4 conservative/libertarian types on this forum in 10 months who have decent arguments. The rest of you bore me to tears, aping talk show shock jock's 'thoughts' and thinking/writing in such a predictable (and ungrammatical, lol) way it is a farce. You don't have the chops, the education, or the curiosity necessary. You're boring, IMHO. Enough said.
Do you really think it's appropriate for you to be calling other members stupid?
Yep that would be a bad case of insecurity!
How old are you? 12? Calling people names and belittling what you disagree with is childish, so you must be ignored, its obvious you can't ignore us...
"You types" ...
The most amusing part is that you don't even realize...
How long does someone have to be here before they can be considered capable of spotting insecurity? Just wondering
OMG! I forget about the grammatically challenged. (Showing again, the deeeeeeep insecurities inherent in your interpretation.). When one writes: "Mitch, stupid," the comma stands in for a "that was," as in "Mitch, that was stupid." Meaning: What you wrote I consider stupid.
Better now? ...of course giving Mitch the benefit of the doubt that he is not obfuscating the situation. TK is a known troll who'd prey on anybody.
Here's the thing: I used to enjoy these political forums. There used to be a couple intelligent and well versed people on here who knew how to debate. I find I haven't been able to break myself from them completely.... None of you here present, in all honesty, any sort of challenge. You are just kind of rude and angry.
AS this just gets dumber and dumber, I'm afraid I am going to have to quit them. And many, many other people think this way, too.
TK, we've tracked you down on I don't know how many sites, doing the same act...inciting people with obvious trolling. Sometimes you say you are a 19 year old girl...sometimes from different parts of the country. All sorts of forums...history, martial arts, gaming.
Obviously, you're not very technically proficient...I know what & where you are, ie. And just because management doesn't feel you are a troll, doesn't mean that other members here (they grow in number daily) don't know.
Wow, your stalking sure is flattering, and not at all creepy and disturbing. Don't stop taking your meds on my behalf...
"19 year old girl"???
"different parts of the country"???
Is this a continuation of the 'pot' thread?
I guess you didn't make it to 'appeal to popularity' when researching logical fallacies
Lita, I have to confess that I intentionally ignored your links to proof of Glenn Becks lies because you said I would. It was a little game designed to get you excited to see how you would respond.
I got the reaction I knew I would and left, I was just playing the fool you think we all are. I never expected this however.
"we've tracked you down"
"Obviously, you're not very technically proficient...I know what & where you are,"
WTF?? You tracked a person posting on the internet? What kind of nutcase does that?
What do you do with this kind of information? Do you send it to Obama and the gang? Do you hack into this persons computer? Do you sabotage their finances? What?
You can track me if you like and you can even come by with a multitude of people and knock on my door, you won't be surprised by my reaction I bet. You need help!
I agree, your reaction would probably not be surprising.
actually, quite predictable. in a rather redneck way.
You better believe that Redneck would come out, care to give it a try? I think the yellow streak running down your back would show now!
Yeah I have an address, you gonna drive from Georgia? Email me and I will give it to you!
Nope, I'd rather fly. Besides, I have business to attend to in Texas in the next few weeks.
How about you Blue Dog, the Georgia Peach is craw fishing, and your real close, you wanta see a real redneck?
You said it Bluedog, not all Texans are created equally! Just because you live here does not make you a Texan, you and your cohort Randy play stupid games but can't back your alligator mouth with your hummingbird asses! That is all!
Given the tenor of your posts, the way you write, and the fact that your stuff is filled with Glenn Beckisms...I doubt anything has to do with any 'expectations' or any, lol, predictable reaction. That would require planning. Also, that would be your assumption--that all operate on the same level you do, lol, and I assure you that is not the case.
To think you provoked something is also quite fitting with your connection to Beck and the shock jocks...which I've got to say, I have learned about through interactions such as this (I don't usually travel in such circles, ie). The fact is these guys 'provoke' and are @ssholes, and believe they are successful in some way doing it...and they certainly are, to some extent, especially monetarily. It DOESN'T work so well for the wannabe, aping Becks (and there seem to be so many of you here lately)--not so much on the internet, and certainly not, I'd be wiling to place a very large bet, in real life. It's not going to allow you to, lol, win friends, influence people, or make you more $$, no matter how you slice it. It's just against certain universal laws, .
The disenfranchised and angry are JUST the disenfranchised and angry in reality, sorry.
The rest of this stuff doesn't concern you. I'm sure you are familiar with the word 'troll?' Or maybe have heard of something called IP addresses? They are listed on everybody's hubs when anybody makes a comment. And I can assure you I'm NOT even mildly interested or even curious (you've just impressed me that way) in tracking you, so don't be scared now, there in TX, OK? lol
How about the word 'stalker'? Heard of that one? What about 'psycho'?
An IP address provides very little information these days. The vast majority of internet users gain access through an Internet Provider such as AT&T or Verizon. These providers *do not* provide a unique IP address for each customer. IP addresses are duplicated across customers and routed properly by the Internet Provider in order to get the correct information back to each subscriber.
Yes, you can capture an IP address from a TCP/IP packet (translation: when someone posts a message to a HubPages forum, an associated IP address can be recorded).
The captured IP address will lead back to the Internet Provider. No more detailed information is available unless you're the FBI.
I use DnsStuff.com to find the owner of an IP address. Try it. Grab an IP address from a comment posted to a Hub and plug it into the site. You won't get the street address of the writer.
Thats all interesting but how do you "grab an IP address?"
Okay now that thread from about page 8 or 9 was funny. Good job tex.
The whole thing is rather absurd and childish, but I can't stand people who try and bully others on the internet. I'm pretty much an open book and easy to understand, I tweak a little bit to get a reaction, I admit that. But tracking someone on the internet is just wrong! If that person bothers you ignore them, don't play 007 and look for info! I put out the offer because I am serious and I will not play games with someone who wants to prove they are a tough guy, it will be a hard lesson learned!
by BJC7 years ago
The mainstream liberal media can't handle anyone who isn't politically correct. Yes, Beck gave his opinion and that is his right. People are treating Obama like he's God, he's not.How on earth can Obama...
by lady_love1586 years ago
So is anyone here going?http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
by William R. Wilson6 years ago
Why does he hate America?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20 … s-UPDATED-
by Stacie L3 years ago
Conservative radio host Glenn Beck is at it again. Beck, known for his outrages comments on American political life, is now saying that he plans to expose what he calls a government cover-up and conspiracy involving the...
by DTR00056 years ago
Is this guy a plant, a sociology experiment gone awry? What are his motivations? Who IS Glenn Beck really? I invite your commentary.
by Stacie L6 years ago
Glenn Beck Losing It. Glenn Beck was a target Friday when Joe Scarborough claims he is losing it before our eyes. The “Morning Joe” host said the Fox commentator has gone “out of control” and is “bad for the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.