That is the question Time mag. has been asking people across America.
I'm curious to know what YOU think? Is he?
If he isn't right for America, who else would you like to add to that list, and please do tell us why.
The answer, ultimately, is yes. Resounding yes. He has stirred up the wingnuts out there...and yes, there is a contingent who actually believes everything he says. Communist buildings, Obama is like Hitler, Obama is racist, the feds are commin' after everybody and will have access to everything on your computer if you sign up for cars for clunckers (omg). There are several hubbers here who write hubs solely based on the content of his shows. It's over the top.
Beck is not a complete idiot, as he's making money off his schtick, but ya know, there are just better ways to make money, even if it is harder.
On another note, I guess (I guess) he does deflect a certain contingent, again, from contemplating real issues. The "busy giddy minds..." tactic. Who honestly knows who that is genuinely aiding and abetting? However, I would like to believe that all are able, if they had the time and desire, to understand the social/political issues at stake.
What is embarrassing is that people's memories and mindsets seem so easily manipulated. Yeah...the 9/11 thing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/0 … 81673.html
You should know, you're from TX...or the country that wants to separate from the US, so.. And good luck with it.
That is the best way to BBque them, over a open mesquite fire. Damn fine eattin.
The world would be better off with more Walter Cronkhites and fewer Becks, Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys who spread ignorance, hatred, nativism and, as Lita pointedout, stir up the wingnuts.
And the world would really be perfect if everyone just agreed with you, right?
I'd prefer fewer Becks and Limbaughs, but also fewer Olbermanns and Air Americas (although they are far less influential on the left).
Selling pure uncontested opinion is inexpensive and popular (people clearly like to be told what they want to hear) but it's often a disservice to truth and progress.
Agreed, Livelonger. I call Air America "liberal hate radio," lol. It doesn't appeal to me at all. The thing is, the uh, wingnuts about don't believe me...they just seem to need this us vs. them thing.
Strange how few people remember the debt we owe to Edward R. Murrow when he took on McCarthy and the totalitarian nightmare he brought to the fore. I suppose people were somewhat better taught baloney detection as Carl Sagan called it. We could use a few more Murrows in journalism today and fewer Rathers.
That, I think, is the true problem. It's not so much our media personalities, but our inability to sift fact from fancy that is slowly dooming us.
We can agree on that (Murrow).
He's one of the few journalists of any time that I have a great deal of respect for. I've listened to some of his broadcasts from London during the blitz and if you close your eyes, it's almost like you're right there. In many ways I think radio a better medium for news than TV. Of course it's also a great propaganda tool, dictators love the cinema, radio and TV. That's why I love the Internet. No dictator, cabal or authoritarian group can keep control of the signal. It's impossible.
The flipside: a TREMENDOUS amount of noise, and a large segment of the population incapable of distinguishing it from signal.
That holds for the left, just as much as it does the right. I'd say the left is a bit more susceptible to noise, but only a bit.
I'd say the opposite. Compare the number of listeners/viewers of Limbaugh and Hannity/Beck vs Air America and Olbermann/Maddow. No contest. The Republicans have a higher proportion of dittoheads.
Boy is that ever the truth. It's all noise, no signal.
I hear you!
The mass media is bad for America
Beck & Limbaugh are the worst talk show hosts out there for America. Rather than using the platforms they have been blessed with to uplift, educate and promote unity among Americans they choose to encourage hatred, division and ignorance! In a way they are brilliant because if I am foolish enough to let drug addicts and a high schools drop-out be my sole source of information and influence my decisions then the shame is on me. On top of that they get to laugh all the way to the bank on the backs of the poor people who take their word for the GOSPEL. So sad!
Huh, that was weird. I was on another topic and my response posted to this one. Anyway, yeah Sweetie, I find that Hubpages is more interactive than just passively parking my tail on the couch. Still that opens up a whole new can of worms. I suppose that's why I keep coming back.
My mom loves him, and I can't stand him. But in the end, it is just one over-the-top guy with no credibility with composed individuals. He has no real power, so he is not bad for America.
And if he really did have power, the chump would immediately start drifting toward the center. His outrage is merely an act for ratings and is not consistent with intelligent people, which he most certainly is behind the scenes.
Beck sure keeps his intelligence well hidden.
If Glenn Beck does nothing else, If you listen to him through his antics there is a lot of truth there, unless you are an Obama socialist, it at least makes you stop and think, whatever you believe; whether your a commie, pinko, socialist or a true American.
I hate myself for writing on your thread, but I just may survive. Glen Beck is great for America! He helped get rid of Van Jones and maybe other communists will follow.
Beck does great research that the so called "true journalists" won't do.
Even African-American support is going down for Obama. I guess losing a house or a job is the same for everyone.
I don't think is he any worse for America than the mindless commercials we see on television portraying parents as stupid sycophants of their children trying to figure something out and having their children put them down for it. I just hope if there is any alien life out there that they are not drawing conclusions about us by monitoring these transmissions.
Glen Beck feeds a part of our society that has always existed. The sky is falling crowd are the ones who benefit from his tirades and they try to validate it by showing the ratings he enjoys rather than the whole picture surrounding his conspiracy theories. The crying is disturbing to me because his radicalism seems to rate some validity about the truth with his followers.
I think Glenn Beck is doing a service to the American public by revealing the corruption in our government. It isn't that corruption hasn't always existed. It just hasn't been talked about out in the open before.
It would be fine if Beck were "revealing the corruption in our government," but he's not doing that. He's spreading lies, half-truths and ridiculous claims.
Deeds, why don't you point out which things are lies and half truths.........
How Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies
September 17, 2009 4:17 pm ET
Four years ago, Time magazine devoted its cover story to a puff-piece profile of Ann Coulter, the right-wing ideologue best known for serial lies and wishing death upon those she disagrees with (journalists included). Only, Time forgot about the lies and the bloodlust and portrayed Coulter in a remarkably kind light.
Now, it's Glenn Beck's turn.
In its new issue, Time features a cover profile of the Fox demagogue, written by David Von Drehle -- a profile that downplays or ignores Beck's defining qualities, draws false equivalencies between liberals and conservatives, portrays obvious lies as simple differences of perspective, and omits Beck's most shocking and outrageous statements.
In the opening paragraph, Time describes last weekend's Beck-organized, right-wing temper tantrum in Washington, in which conservative activists got together to air a disparate array of sometimes contradictory grievances. Here's how it dealt with the size of the crowd, right in the first paragraph:
If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic.
But here's what Time left out: Those conservative sources are flat-out lying.
Progressive media critics often point out that the media too frequently take a "he-said/she-said" approach to politics that boils down to, "Is the Earth flat or spherical? Opinions differ." That may seem like an exaggeration, but Time's handling of the crowd size dispute is virtually indistinguishable from that caricature.
Actually, in some ways, it's less honest than the caricature. See, the 70,000 estimate didn't come from "liberal sources"; it came from sane sources, such as the Washington, D.C., Fire Department. Time portrayed the disparate estimates as equally-likely-to-be-true products of ideological observers. In fact, the large estimates from conservatives were clearly false, and the lower, accurate estimates came from official, nonpartisan observers -- and even from some conservatives like Beck's colleagues at Fox News.
And the estimates of "as many as a million"? True, they came from conservatives (actually, some conservatives put the crowd size at the 2 million mark. Time has downplayed the dishonesty displayed by one of the very conservatives it later references.) But, more accurately, they came from dishonest conservatives who were lying, lying about how many people were there, lying about where the estimates came from. Lying.
Look: The difference between 70,000 people on the National Mall for a protest and 2 million is huge. Seventy thousand people is a good-sized crowd. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's almost as many as the 85,000 people who attended last Saturday's college football game in Lincoln, Nebraska. But 2 million people? There probably weren't 2 million people in the entire state of Nebraska (population: 1.8 million) last Saturday.
Houston, Texas, is the fourth-largest city in America, with just over 2 million residents. Do you know what happens when you drop the population of Houston, Texas, in the middle of Washington, D.C.? Hotels for miles and miles around are booked far in advance. The Metro system is stretched to the breaking point. Thousands of people get trapped in tunnels. It is, in short, unmistakably different from what happens when Missouri plays Bowling Green.
I dwell on this because the difference between 70,000 and 2 million people is simply not something about which reasonable people of honest motives can disagree. It is not something that can be an innocent mistake. Dishonest people who wanted to misinform you told lies in order to exaggerate the crowd size. There really can be no doubt about that.
But Time not only won't make clear that they are lying, it won't even tell you that they were wrong. Thus, the magazine makes clear right up front that this article is not "journalism"; it is a pathetic attempt to pander to malicious liars.
Here, look at Time's next paragraph:
At any rate, what we can say with confidence is that Deanna Frankowski was there. A cheery woman of 49 from Leeds, Ala., Frankowski said she had come to Washington as part of a group of 100 or more protesters. They filled two buses.
Well, no. What we can say with confidence is that nowhere near 2 million, or 1 million, or 500,000 people were there, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has fallen prey to those who are lying. One of many ways we know this is the case is that if it took two buses to get 100 protesters into the city, it would take 40,000 buses to get 2 million there. Anyone see any evidence of 40,000 buses (or their plane, train, and automobile equivalents) last weekend? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called "the paranoid style" - the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country - is aflame again, fanned from both right and left. Between the liberal fantasies about Brownshirts at town halls and the conservative concoctions of brainwashed children goose-stepping to school, you'd think the Palm in Washington had been replaced with a Munich beer hall.
What in the world is Time talking about? This is a grotesque false equivalence. Conservatives have been yelling about President Obama being a secret Kenyan bent on sending granny to the Death Panel, comparing him to Hitler and Mao and Stalin and who-knows-who-else -- and that, apparently, is matched in intensity and paranoia by liberals pointing out this unhinged behavior? Insane.
Eventually, Time got to its point: Glenn Beck. But even there, Time buried the lede. No, that's not quite right. Actually, Time completely omitted the lede.
See, Glenn Beck's defining characteristic is that he's deeply dishonest. He claimed that 1.7 million people stormed the National Mall last week to protest Obama. And that's just one example; Beck tells lies of such size and obviousness, and with such frequency, that to fail to make his dishonesty clear right up front is, itself, dishonest. But Time didn't even hint at it in its introduction of Beck:
Glenn Beck: the pudgy, buzz-cut, weeping phenomenon of radio, TV and books. ... Beck is 45, tireless, funny, self-deprecating, a recovering alcoholic, a convert to Mormonism, a libertarian and living with ADHD.
Indeed, the closest the Time article ever came -- ever -- to indicating that Beck tells lies and spreads falsehoods is this whopper of an understatement: "[H]e also spins yarns of less substance." Oh, snap! That really exposes him for the fraud that he is!
Instead, Time suggested Beck's rants are reality-based [emphasis added]:
Beck mines the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us. This flexible narrative often contains genuinely uncomfortable truths. Some days "they" are the unconfirmed policy "czars" whom Beck fears Obama is using to subvert constitutional government - and he has some radical-sounding sound bites to back it up. Some days "they" are the network of leftist community organizers known as ACORN - and his indictment of the group is looking stronger every day.
Well, not every day. See, on Tuesday, Beck aired a video of an ACORN worker saying she had killed her ex-husband and then went on a prolonged rant about ACORN employing someone who was guilty of "premeditated murder." Turns out that wasn't quite true. She didn't murder her ex-husband. Nobody murdered her ex-husband. Her ex-husbands are quite alive and well.
That's typical Beck: He rushes to make sensational allegations based on the thinnest of evidence, without bothering to check it out. It's behavior that careens from reckless to dishonest, and it's his calling card. But, to Time, Beck's treatment of ACORN is something to be applauded. It's looking stronger every day (as long as you ignore the fact that he just aired a bogus video in order to falsely suggest an ACORN worker is a murderer)!
It isn't just Beck's dishonesty that got left on the cutting-room floor. It's the extent of his offensiveness. Take a look at Time's portrayal of Beck's emotional recollection of the September 11 terrorist attacks:
On the recent anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Beck grew afraid that Americans may no longer be the sort of people who cross mountain ranges in covered wagons and toss hot rivets around in bold bursts of skyscraper-building. Tears came to his eyes (they often do) as he voiced this last fear. But then he remembered that the fiber of ordinary Americans is the one thing Glenn Beck need never fear. So he squared his quivering chin to the camera and held up a snapshot of ground zero, still empty eight long years after the World Trade Center was destroyed.
It goes on like that for a while. But one thing Time didn't mention? This famous Glenn Beck statement: "You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year."
Seems like if you're going to devote two full paragraphs to Glenn Beck's tearful remembrance of September 11, maybe you should note the contempt -- hatred, even -- he has expressed for the families of the people who died that day. Doesn't it?
Nor did Time mention Beck's 2001 statement that he'd like to "beat" Rep. Charlie Rangel "to death with a shovel"; his comments about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; his comparison of the Holocaust museum shooter to Thomas Jefferson; this little outburst; or his comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler. Let's stop there for a second and go back to Time's opening lines:
On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly - the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."
Gee, where did that "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia" garbage come from? It came from Glenn Beck. But Time won't tell you that.
After whitewashing Beck's dishonesty and borderline-obscene behavior for a while, the magazine returned to the crowd estimates:
We're in a flood stage, and who's to blame? The answer is like the estimates of the size of the crowd in Washington: Whom do you trust? Either the corrupt, communist-loving traitors on the left are causing this, or it's the racist, greedy warmongers on the right, or maybe the dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth about whomever you personally happen to despise.
At this point, you have to wonder if the article was some kind of performance art, designed to prove the very skepticism about the media it seems to lament. See, this very Time article was the product of a "dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth." And not because I happen to despise Glenn Beck, but because there simply were not 1.7 million people at last week's protest. Because Time damn well knows there were not 1.7 million people at last week's protest. And because Time refused to say there were not 1.7 million people there. Not only that -- Time also insisted on pretending that only "liberal sources" say there were 70,000 people there, when, in fact, the D.C. Fire Department said there were 70,000 people. That's a dishonest and incompetent refusal to tell the truth. Actually, it's worse than a refusal to tell the truth: It's a dishonest and incompetent false claim.
At the beginning of his article, Von Drehle referred to a recent poll that found "record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media." Guess what? Articles like this are why nobody trusts the media. When you pretend that obviously false claims about crowd sizes are valid, people won't trust you. When you pretend that only liberals say 70,000 people actually attended last week's protest, people won't trust you. They shouldn't trust you. You aren't trustworthy. You are doing your job dishonestly and incompetently.
And that dishonesty, that incompetence, is what enables Glenn Beck. When Glenn Beck says 1.7 million people were at the protest, and the Washington, D.C., Fire Department says 70,000, and Time runs an article saying conservatives and liberals disagree about the crowd size, that enables Glenn Beck's lies.
No wonder Beck liked the article so much.
Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.
Anyone who spreads fear and hate cannot be good for society. They are crazy makers. Therefore, I don't think he's any good at all of America, although I don't really know who to recommend to take his place.
It just seems to me that we are addicted to the sensationalism of fear, panic, catastrophe, argument, etc. It sell in prime time slots, get advertisers and so much more. We need our rush, and there are several different varieties, and the Beck phenomenom is just one of many.
People hide behind this type of rush because it's socially acceptable as compared to say, an alcohol or drug addiction.
The issue with Beck, Rush and Michael and the others is that they have an unstable base... a foundation that has no stable foundation on which to build... they extract those that have a limited intellect on a variety of subjects... kinda a whose who of pet peeves. That take their issues beyond reality and inflate them to a point where they are unrecognizable as truth in any form. Sarah is the same way. She looks at the issues through fogged glasses fogged by her own limited empowerment where the total picture is obscured.
Who would I add... Well, Thom Hartmann for one. He has a good grasp for our issues and certainly gives solutions that are more broad based than the party of no depicts... a humanist flavor if you will that depicts more of what the founders envisioned. . Rachael Maddow and certainly, John Stewart, who disguises it all with satire, but you quickly see the truth in his vision of things.
Glenn Beck is good for himself. That's the only person he cares about. He is way too "over the top" to not be a complete caricature. He does what FOX pays him to do, and he does it well.
I don't watch him on TV, so can't comment on that, but actually the little book he wrote on Common Sense something or other (can't remember the title) made a lot of sense to me. In the book is also a reprint of Thomas Paine's Common Sense
He is not an idiot. I won't put that on him. He is a very smart man. I have tried to watch him because my uncle loves him. He comes across as insincere. He also made a comment about "hating" the families of the 9/11 victims. I can't get past that.
I guess some people come off better in print than live !
Can you track that down? I'd like to see it. Given what I've seen of him so far, I can see how he'd hate the families that are holding up reconstruction of the Freedom Tower and attempting to keep a perpetual scar in the landscape of one of our great cities. That's not the same thing as hating people because they had relatives who were victims of 9/11. But not having seen the context, I can't comment on it.
I have a lot of respect for him. He reads Thomas Jefferson, which is pretty much a must for anyone who wants to comment on anything political in this country. Jefferson couldn't balance a checkbook to save his life, but he understood the machinations of tyrants in any governmental system.
I think you should listen to all of what he said; not tune into a couple of words and misinterpret. The reality is what he says is true and people just don't want to deal with anything that makes them think or realize that "we are in trouble" as a society and need to take some responsibility.
Our government is taking over this country and not makeing decisions based on our well-being; maybe people should be concerned with that.
You need to do a fact check on the "hating" 9/11 victims part of your comment. I think you will find that is not exactly what was said.
I think you should learn a little more about him before you judge him. He does not need the money from FOX he does just fine with his books.Try reading one.
Actually, I have heard that his books do him proper justice. I think I will read one. I have seen his show a few times. I am not exactly sure I will learn more about him than he wants me, or anyone, to know. As I have said, I don't disagree with everything he says, I just disagree with a lot of it, and I don't like his public persona. Thanks for the suggestion.
Wake up and be an American. Glenn is asking questions that we all should be asking. Out representatives are not living up to their oath - "to supprt and defend the constitution" and we need to turn them out and replace them with those who actually listen to the people. Glenn Beck is a patriot. I suggest you read about Thomas Paine.
Beck certainly is a showman but I doubt many of you have actually watched what it is he does! He went after Bush and called for him to be impeached, he is an equal opportunity pundit! Not that any of you would really know!
Texan- MOST of us have watched Beck. You know, unlike you- MOST people do make educated decisions based off the facts.
Aren't you the guy who said he voted for Bush twice? And you're claiming I don't make educated decisions?
Glenn Beck is irresponsible, and yes irresponsible people go after the left and the right wing nuts, but that's the key, nutz. No not everyone is a nut but beck Is a BOLT and he draws in nutz left and right and stirs them up, and its ok to be stirred up but if you go to a Obama rallies with a gun, If you got to a Bush rallies with a gun then you are going to far, you are poking a hornets nest and your just waiting for the next Oklahoma city bombing, because as they did then they will do again, they get stirred up, fired up and go after government buildings (full of daycare centers at IRS buildings) And that's the problem with Beck, he needs to check him self. Yes going after corruption is good and i applaud but that's 3% of the Beck program.
Whats the other 97%? Does he teach the audience how to build an IED?
"Glenn Beck is irresponsible, and yes irresponsible people go after the left and the right wing nuts, but that's the key, nutz."
What the hell does that mean? Irresponsible people go after the left and right nuts? Who should he go after the sane people in both parties? You ain't making your case here!
It does not mean that beck go's after left an right wing nuts....what are you talking about, read it again a little slower this time, He draws in nuts, it means he attracts nuts that listen to him and take him far to seriously and then go out and do damage. Read a little slower next time. o and as for 97% of the time he tells you whats constitutional even we have a supreme court to decide whats constitutional, personally I'm not getting my info from a man who spent 2 stints in rehab for Alcoholism.
I have to agree with Davinagirl. He's self-serving. Has no loyalties. Is only out to line his pockets no matter who he has to drag through the mud to do it. He'd be a modern day William Randolph Hurst if he had a few brains...but alas he doesn't. He's got good script writers though and he can act sincere.
Real journalism is long gone. Beck is just for entertainment to a select crowd. Something like wrasselin.
Glens fine, alittle over enthusiastic maybe, but harmless. Now if your question is ,"Is Glen right fore a liberal media who wouldn't want their dirty laundry aired?", then the answers hes a menace!
When you have a left swinging media then anyone swinging to the right is in the crosshairs. I think all news broadcasters should post who they are loyal to so you can keep what they say in perspective.
No, he can't be bad for America. He gets people talking. That's a good thing, right?
It's pretty much what I thought. He doesn't hate all the families who had loved ones die on 9/11, he hates the complainers. I can't say that I'm entirely unsympathetic to that point of view. You're always going to have a minority of any group that tries to milk things for all they're worth and that is who he's talking about.
You'll note, I hope, that he says nothing about those that don't complain. After digging some more the remarks came out of a fundraiser where he also criticized Katrina looters as people who profit from tragedy. Those are the people he hates.
How can he judge ANY of them? I don't care if he was just talking about one guy. He also made the statement that "anytime he sees a 9/11 family on TV" he's like "AW, SHUT UP!" That is pretty harsh.
It was four years later and he talked about the ones that were complaining. It was like ten people and we had thousands die that day. I hardly think that's castigating everyone connected with the events of that day. Frankly I'm surprised the number is much smaller than that.
All arguments aside, haven't you ever opened your mouth and inserted your foot, by not fully thinking through what you're going to say? Even if that wasn't the case at the very least he expressed his honest opinion. Much better than the smarmy PC nonsense you get from other people.
For one, I don't have a radio and, or, TV show. Secondly, I would never even get it into my head to insult people who have suffered a tragedy. I don't care who they are.
You don't stop being a person just because you have a TV or radio show. That just means you have a larger audience when you stick your foot in your mouth.
In the seven or eight years he's been on the air that's the only criticism you have of him?
That is just one of the reasons I don't like him. I don't like his personality. He was a completely different person on CNN. He is a personality. I don't know what he is like, as a person, but I don't like his public personality. I am just stating my own opinion. I wouldn't suggest anyone hate him, just because I do.
He's loud and brash, riddled with ADD (in his own words), I suppose that's why I like him. He seems like the kind of guy you can get it straight from and not have to worry about being so PC it feels like you're in a Noh play.
Still it sounds like you come by your dislike honestly, and to be honest you don't have to pay attention to him if you don't like him. To each their own.
To be perfectly honest, and to answer the initial question, I do not believe that Glenn Beck is bad for America. He is only one guy doing what he is paid to do. It is up to the individual to decide whether to agree with him, or not. I have watched him on quite a few occasions, and I disagree with him more than I agree with him.
He probably was different on CNN I have heard him say he was treated as an outsider there. I do not care if anyone likes him or not, I have watched a few times and he always presents points that I never see anywhere else, he exposed Van Jones who else even went after him? ACORN is now being exposed for the truly corrupt organization it is, where are the network people? In bed with the Obama administration, so much for journalism!
Yes I am from Texas, a great and wondrous place, but no Antelope that I know of.
Los Diablos Tejanos
You sure you're from Texas then? 'Cuz that ain't what my Texan tells me: (We got 'em in AZ, too, btw.)
http://www.sportsmansjunction.com/texas … _hunts.htm
I said I didn't know of any, they may have them I don't know.
What kind of Texan are you?! (No wonder you never appreciate my slang when I write that way. Dadgummit.)
I believe you are speaking Iowan! "dadburnit" would be Texan
Nope. That's Texan. He says it whenever he gets mad, forgets himself and starts talking all southern-like. It's funny!
As in, "Dadgummit, you'all are suppose ta be leavin' outa here right now!..."
Yep, that pretty much contains it. "Dadburnit" might be a derivation! The only Midwestern speak I know is that we say "you guys" all the time instead of you'all.
North of here they pronounce wash with an r. It never fails to irritate me. Almost as bad as the Bostonian accent. Of course that could be because they never could pronounce my name right.
You're right! I'm actually a native Nebraskan, so I'm familiar with it. If you ever visit Norfolk, NE, be sure to pronounce a hard "R," as in NorfoRk, lololo.
Huh, must be a Northern/Southern thing. It's kinda funny but the further south you go in Missouri the deeper into the South you go. I knew I kid once from Charleston, MO who talked just like he was from Charleston, SC. He had the slow drawl and everything. It was like listening to a tortoise speak.
Well, we do consider you Ozarkian...so you are like hill billies, yes, . If you are not from St. Louis or Kansas City, that is.
I'm teasing you, LDT. But I do understand that the land down there is pretty wild-ish, still.
You're not kidding. Some places around here look like they were taken from Deliverance. Gave me a turn, it did, when I first moved down here.
So, where are you from then? One of the cities?
Beautiful land there, though...rich, with streams and woods. I'd love to own some of it, maybe.
I'm kind of from all over. My dad was a Marine for 21 years so we did time in a few different places. 11 years in sunny So Cal, 3 years in the bitterly cold Northeast (Cape Cod) and finally in St. Peters/St. Charles, MO where I finished high school and most of my college. Wound up at SEMO to help defray school costs and have been here ever since. My fiance and I are looking to relocate to St. Charles after her and I complete our school programs. Then we're up to the St. Louis area so I can get my Master's degree.
Well, we are hijacking the thread, but what do you think of St. Louis? The town itself, neighborhoods, etc? Is there supposed to be a lot of crime there? I'd heard that...
Depends on where you go. The city has been hemorrhaging population for about a century now. The north of the city isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still bad. That's the strange part, along the Mississippi, it's usually the south part of the towns and cities that are the bad parts. As for the city proper, well downtown is nice, although you have to watch out for panhandlers and the south side of the city is nice too.
There was some talk about gentrifying some of the northern neighborhoods back in the day, but I'm not sure how the current real estate fiasco is impacting those plans. I'm pretty sure the city is still losing population and jobs mostly because of their tax policies. It's just plain cheaper to run a business outside the city than it is in the city limits. If City Hall could figure that out and change it, things would turn around for the city pretty quick.
Out in the county and the St. Charles/St. Peters/O'Fallon areas it's suburbia mostly. Even more so now than when I left. I have to admit a certain nostalgia for St. Charles herself, they have a beautiful Main Street.
Hmmm. They have these beautiful old townhouses in the city proper. Amazing real estate market.
What are we talking about as far as taxes on an average abode for a year? Any idea?
Looks like 19% of assessed value. I think that's for the city. The city and county government's are separate, by the way. I think that holds for the city because they added the 1%income tax for workers and 0.5% tax for employers in the city. (Remember I said that it was cheaper to employ people outside the city, that's why.)
@ Girly, I'd start with Glenn Beck's Common Sense first. It's shorter and a quick but satisfying read.
Hmmm. OK, I'm gonna check it out. And thanks, very much.
You'all? I think what you're looking for is Y'all.
OK! Only thing I'll say you are right about. I'll give you that.
You beat OU, I'm behind y'all. Wasn't dagnabit whhat Gabby Hays ued to say?
Go down to Fort Davis Mountains and you will see antelope. I bet Glenn would go down there with us and do some hunting.
Tex, Texas is not the only state that has brought up leaving the US.
Apparently they are not native to Texas but you can hunt them on stocked ranches. Its called an exotic hunt, I have never been.
A Texan can't speak "all Southern like" we ain't Southern, we're Texan!
I will make one statement about this and one statement only. I know that several of you will automatically read it with the mindset that it absolutely must be wrong or "spun" simply because of my political leanings; that my opinions somehow are not valid because of this. If you think that, you are quite mistaken. What I am about to say applies to each and every person out there, I suppose you could call it....common sense?!?
I am truly getting exhausted of people making PERSONAL attacks on others who do not share their viewpoints. Is this the best you can do...really? The ONLY reason this is EVER done is to simply try to discredit them and by extension, their 'crazy beliefs'. Why can't folks look at what is actually being presented in an argument, rather than looking critically at a person or group of people.
Again (I cannot say it enough) - Analyze and discuss what is being presented; dispute their stance on issues, if necessary and warranted; do not personally attack them.
Personal attacks immediately indicate to anyone trained in debate that the other side doesn't have much else to work with; they've lost the argument the second you make it personal.
Don't like what someone is saying (in this case Glen Beck?)
DISPUTE what he is presenting rather than attacking him personally. You will get a hell of a lot further with building a credible argument. Otherwise, there simply isn't one.
Some examples to ponder:
I do not like President Obama's current health care plan proposal, HOWEVER I do like and respect him as my elected president. In order to get my point across about how I believe his plan is flawed, do I attack him and his character? Of course not. I calmly and respectfully outline my concerns about the flaws of this particular health care plan.
Do you not like Glenn Beck or is it that you don't like his arguments?
It's one thing if you don't like his arguments, but lately no one talks about those - just him. Perhaps people just do not like Glenn Beck as a person...if so, I would say you have some other issues there, just like I would have if I didn't like Mr. Obama as a person.
So, maybe you're making it personal. If so, your arguments are very flawed. Don't waste your days filled with hate and vitriol towards someone you'll never even meet. If it makes you feel better, spend your time arguing WHY you disagree with their ideas or arguments. Anything else is selling yourself short.
Now, let me illustrate this same type of situation on the HubPage forums (thankfully, not like the real world)
There is a group of people on this forum that bring personal attacks into their political discussions on a daily basis. Sorry guys, neither 'side' wins. You've all lost your credibility. To me, it appears very, very weak. Argue with facts, respect and civility - then, and only then, will I have the desire to participate in a legitimate, debate.
your words; "How can he judge ANY of them? I don't care if he was just talking about one guy. He also made the statement that "anytime he sees a 9/11 family on TV" he's like "AW, SHUT UP!" That is pretty harsh."
I went and found that show and looked it up, I am sorry but not all of this is true:
anytime I see a 9/11 person, a family on TV. Yes, my heart goes out to them, but I can not help but wanting to scream at the TV, "Just shut up!" No, not at the family, they have gone through so much, but at those responsible, because I know they are being played. They are being used.
From what I did see, I believe He was railing against producers that use people to slant a documentary or a news cast.
He was defending himself against attacks that He and Fox news were out to destroy the Democrats and the President. That night, He, Hannity and also Bill Riley were countering charges against Fox news. Defending their respective stances.
I did not watch the rest, after that. There may have been moore. I usualy do not like to stay with one opinion only, one side. Because there are two sides to a story. The Truth, usualy hidden somewhere in the middle. But your statement is not totaly correct as I saw it.
I will say that if we rely on either Fox or CNN we are all in trouble. They seem to be turning to sensationalisms, and relying on actors to pose as reporters. It is getting harder to really dig out the truths anymore, and that to me is scarry. Like it is planned. We are becomming a nieve nation I believe.
Extreme gets the air time, either side...no good!
As for Glen himself, he is a fighter for American Ideals and he will go after those he thinks are hurting this nation, and its people.
No matter his slant, you still have to admire a person who will stand and declare his beliefes. At least he is not on the fence, of two faces, acting so eclectic that anything goes.
He is standing for what he believes. If we all did that there would be be less confusion and less hidden agenda to worry about in this country. We have to many childish mind game players as it is.
as for Him standing firm; I may not agree totaly with the view or slant, but I salute him for his honesty.
Jon in Tennessee
Journalism has always been prone to exaggerate to get papers sold, listeners to tune in, eyeballs on the set, what have you. Knowing that, it is imperative that we all of us develop what Carl Sagan called a baloney detection kit and what I call something a bit more unprintable. In that Glenn Beck is no different than any other newsperson.
That's why I read what he writes. And he writes like a thoughtful insightful person. Books are a much different venue than newsprint. With a book you really have time and the scope to deal with matters as they should really be dealt with. You can tell a lot about a person by how they write and express themselves through books.
I've never read his books, LDT. Rarely watch the show. I do occasionally tune in when speakers are on that are familiar faces. I greatly appreciate and recognize Beck's recent work re: ACORN and all of its 'splinter cells', as I call them. These groups weren't aggressively pursued/exposed last year for (imo) illogical political concerns. I am glad it is starting to happen!
Anyways, I do not have a lot of time for free reading these days with classes but I might be interested in picking up one of his books. I remember a friend sent me a clip of his show where they interviewed a bunch of self-identified liberals in NYC and asked them if they agreed with statements from one of his books (can't remember which one) almost all of them did agree and they couldn't believe it was Glenn Beck who had made the statements! What book would you recommend to start off with?
Good morning Lita.
KUDOS to Girl_Girl 09 for her words of wisdom and Dutchman1951 for his fairness.
I agree that Beck has sensationalism in his way of delivering the truth, but He is passionate about getting to the bottom of any corruption, and for this I admire him. His Book 'Common Sense" was great, and I'm looking forward to his upcomming book.
MIsha, thanks for the Link...great info!
The question is not is Glenn Beck bad for America but the question is, Is Glenn beck hazardous for you health. I am a Democrat, but I can understand Republicans, and agree with them on some of there points of view, but this does not count Glenn Beck, I do not associate Glenn Beck with the right and i find it sad that a lot of members of the Right wing align themselves with such people as Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck rants against the radical left, all the time unbeknown that he is the radical Right no matter what he preaches to you on the radical right news network Fox News. Now Beck will tell you he's with you people, hes working for the average Joe to show you the way, let you know the corruption, and to find the dirt on every left wing Dick,Jane, and Harry, but it just aint so sister!
Glenn Beck wasn't trying to fix your health care and he dammed the health care on his Television show, saying it was a terrible experiencing when he was in the hospital, but now that someone is trying to fix it now, Now he has an opinion. The Bush Administration had over 20 Carz, and the republicans Championed this, now that its on the other side Glenn Beck is OUTRAGED!
Dont let Beck make you think he's with you, Hes not! What dose Glenn Beck have in common with you, His health care, I think not. Do you both make over 300k a year, probably not huh?
So next time Glenn Beck says we work hard and were in this together, next time your in that picket line to get a raise at your job, to fight for health care, look left.....look right... and tell me if you see Glenn Beck out there since your all in this together.
Glenn Beck, along with all of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc are in it for one thing: Ratings.
Truth, accuracy and good reporting are not important if ratings are up. Glenn Beck is only bad for America when people are basing their opinions on what he says. The same is true for Keith Olbermann and the other dimwits at MSNBC. They just try and say whatever will spark a big reaction and get more viewers. The question of whether or not Glenn Beck is good for America is irrelevant, because he works for the good of himself and Fox, and in that sense he is very very successful.
It's the idiots that watch Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck and think they know something about the world that are bad for America.
The news in general, and especially certain TV and radio personalities are over the top and not particularly enlightening. If you want accurate and reasonable unbiased "news" go to a foreign news source such as the BBC. The fact that our news coverage is so poor goes right back to money. We watch them. They make money. They feel rewarded for poor news reporting filled with platitudes, extreme biases, and lots of emotion. So they give us more of what we are rewarding them for.
Sorry, that sounded a bit rude. Now that I've stopped laughing hysterically, I'll explain. The BBC probably only seems unbiased to you because it's a foreign news source that probably offers a different perspective to the one you get from American news sources. To me as a British person, the BBC seems INCREDIBLY biased.
An example of what I mean: back in 2002/2003 in the run-up to the Iraq war, the BBC TV news was uncritically supportive of Tony Blair/George Bush. It was only when the war actually started that you heard any dissenting points of view.
When it comes to news coverage, even the most intelligent mainstream news sources are at best limited and at worst downright biased. I suspect that applies to ALL mainstream media in all countries, not just the US. In the British media there has been AFAICT no detailed discussion about Obama's healthcare policies, for example. Instead, it's just portrayed as Obama wanting to introduce a universal healthcare system and all these nasty right wing people wanting to stop him. Of course, when I searched on the Internet to find out what these new policies of his actually entailed, I realised it wasn't that simple.
I don't mind Glen Beck too much since I know he is only doing his job. I don't watch him much, but the people that I know that watch his show really like it. It is just entertainment to me if I watch it. I don't really take the stuff seriously that he says since I know he is doing it for money most likely. Now if he was out doing this stuff for free, I may really believe that all of this was serious.
The question itself is really imflammatory. Note how it only posed that one side, the bad I mean and then to ask IS he, is rather puzzling.
Is he? Who is the authority to judge something like that? Wow! That is really a loaded question and loaded with a bunch of crap!
Is he or isn't he? That is what they are asking for us to decide on?
I think the very title Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?
is highly prejudicial and slanderous.
And I think Time magazine should take a step back in time and reflect on what our founders meant in writing our rights to freedom of speech. And then they could take in lesson in law which protects people from this form of slander!
Glen Beck is radio and television personality.
Time might as well as this question of them all then!
To single one out is ridiculous!
I do not agree with Bill Maher, and I think he has incited a great many heated debates as well as said some imflammatory remarks about the powers that be in Washington. And yet do we see Time magazine calling him out?
Now I understand the article was mainly because of the march on Washington and all the grass roots tea parties. And I wish I could of been there!
But I did not wish that because of Glen Beck and whether or not he is good or bad for America is irrelevant since HE is not the one running the show in government!
TIME magazine would do better in asking that kind of question regarding the ones that are!
Um, I think Time Mag. is well aware of rights under the constitution, what free speech is really about, and what the definition of slander actually is.
lol And you bet that Glenn Beck is HAPPY with his feature and this headline on Time....all the way to the bank.
If you believe in wacky conspiracy theories I am sure he is great. At first I thought he was a conservative commentator I could not agree with, but once I heard him talk about the "Communist" and "drug" imagery on the art of Rockerfeller Center I realized he likes to make this stuff up. He wants people to watch his show, and you know he might not even believe half of the stuff he says.
If he really believes half of the stuff he says then all I can say is oh my goodness! Great comedy act though.
The real comedy act is MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and the cute little stories told by Obama and Michelle regarding health care. Beck is funny, and he is in it for ratings, but his ratings reflect what the people want. It's evident from the numbers.
Well many of the programs you mention also have high ratings, but are not really funny. Well Bill Maher is, but he is a comedian. Not sure how you find the stories Michelle and Obama tell about health care as being funny when those are real things that effect real people. Telling everyone something false about the Rockerfeller Center is funny, but not in a good way at all.
High ratings for MSNBC CBS NBC ABC CNN? Fox beats these by a 3 to 1 margin! Do you just say stuff and hope its right?
CNN is still far more popular than Fox. Many of us just do not take that station very seriously. Once again the put downs are abundant. Anyone who says the last line you just said is big on the land of put downs.
For the week, Fox averaged 11.5 million viewers (6.7 rating, 11 share), NBC had 8.9 million (5.5, 9), CBS 8.1 million (5.2, 8), ABC 7 million (4.4, 7), the CW 2.2 million (1.5, 2), My Network TV 1.2 million (0.8, 1) and ION Television 540,000 (0.4, 1).
Where is CNN....Hummmm?
It is funny someone would bring up Bill Maher. I think he is the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck. He has some good points, but he is full of sh**, too. I think it's an ego problem. They have both had an audience for so long, they think everyone wants to hear every thought that passes through their minds. I watch Bill Maher occasionally when he has a good guest, but he, as a comedian, takes himself way too seriously.
I actually do not think Bill Maher is like Glenn Beck at all. Unlike Beck Maher actually interviews people from a wide variety of view points, and he makes some common sense points. Maher has never claimed to be anything but an entertainer. Beck on the other hand makes some very dangerous and false points, and it scares me so many people think his show is good for the American dialogue on politics. I admire Maher's intelligence and fairness, and his books are pretty funny too!
I felt the same way you do, until he made a statement about sexism vs. racism. I do think his guests are great and I watch the show when I want to see who he is interviewing. He is a bit of an overzealous atheist. I think he is, and I am not even a "believer". I think he touts his drug use a bit too much. I am comparing his ego to Glenn Beck's.
Not sure why that would change your mind about him. I do not agree with everything he says about religion for instance because I am Christian, but I also understand his being turned off by it. I do not see him as an over zealous atheist at all because some religionists are way too on the preachy side. He is pretty funny, and I do not take him seriously. As for egos I could care less whether Bill Maher or Glenn Beck has one really, but I guess this bothers some people. What bothers me about Glenn Beck are the policies he supports, which I will never agree with. I feel more comfortable listening to Bill Maher because I am a liberal and make no apologies for it.
I am a liberal, as well, so I see where you are coming from. He is a comedian who presents himself as a newsman. He lets people know, like Jon Stewart, that he is just a comedian. Glenn Beck expects people to believe he is a newsman. Bill Maher made a sexist comment that I think went too far. He wasn't joking. I was chastised last night for making "personal attacks" on these public figures, so I won't just say I don't like them. Bill Maher is more watchable than Beck, but I would still rather watch Jon Stewart.
Davina you are very fair and kind, I highly doubt anything you have ever said on here would be a personal attack.
Come on Davina, "I like / dislike him" is perfectly OK!
The problem starts when somebody is saying Bush is idiot or Obama is liar. That's what GG meant I am sure
Like I said, I was chastised for making a "personal attack" on Glenn Beck for saying I hate him. I do not like Bill Maher. His show is more watchable than Beck's... but I don't like Bill Maher. Personally, I think he is a slimeball! There I said it! Actually, I feel better for having said it.
LOL You go girl!
Yet I do think that you will be better off when you exhaust the need to judge public figures.
I know you are right, but I am afraid I will always be the idiot yelling at the TV.
Nah, it will subside eventually. Been there, done that, not anymore
That does not make someone an idiot, it just means you have an opinion. Our opinions are ours after all. Who is to say anyone's opinion is less valid than another. Just like several people have poked fun of me being happy with my education on several hubs and forum, I just do not care anymore. I have the right to be happy and sparkly about my life, and not sure how that takes away from them.
You should be happy about your education... You worked your a** off to get it. Anyone who would complain about you being content with your education is just jealous.
I do not think they are jealous, I just find I am the common butt of jokes sometimes . Anyway, since when are people not supposed to express themselves the way they like. There is nothing wrong with saying you hate Glenn Beck or Bill Maher. Hey I like Bill Maher, but I just find Glenn Beck not very relevant in my life. Jon Stewart, I have never watched him, so I have no opinion.
My personal opinion of Jon Stewart... I love him. I can't help but love him. His show is great. I suggest you check it out, sometime.
I will check him out. Thanks for sharing .
I have to address something you have written. You are the common butt of jokes because of your education and you don't think those people are jealous of you?.. They are, at least, intimidated. I have to admit, sometimes I am intimidated by really great posts. Sometimes, I don't respond, when I really want to, because I think my post will pale in comparison.
You are very nice Davina. Maybe the people who were making those jokes were jealous, but I just did not see it. You are probably right.
I don't care for a lot of what Glen Beck has to say. He coats everything with a crisis mentality and no suggestions as to how things should proceed to change it. The sycophants on Fox feed into him and try to make him relavent to the latest rant.
I too don't care for Bill Maher much but I watch his show to hear his guests and their slant on the issues. I have found many times I agree with him but sometimes I believe he tries to fufill his own topical agendas. Sometimes his humor is lost from me and then sometimes I laugh my but off with some of the realizations he pokes fun at.
The few times I have watched Jon Stewart I have enjoyed what he reports but I have a schedule where I miss his show too much to make a judgement.
There's nothing wrong with that, I do it all the time. I even argue with the History Channel, my fiance laughs at me when I do.
Well, when I bother to watch TV anymore. A mentor of mine suggested I turn the TV off and I've been amazed with the results. I have to confess that I do watch Glenn Beck but I only found out about him after hearing about him on the Internet. I suppose the main reason I don't watch the news anymore is because you can find out more about a topic on the Internet than you can watching any news program.
I am not sure if I have ever had the urge to yell at the History Channel, but I may have. I use to watch much more TV than I do now. I TiVo Jeopardy!, though. I can't miss that.
I'm high on Wikipedia crack. Oh my Lord, can I while away the hours clicking on the largest hyperlinked encyclopedia in the world.
Public figures are open game, Davina. There's a great art form about it...usually called satire. Centuries old.
Oh, I should note for the definition challenged on here...inciting violence and Saturday Night Live and/or political cartoons are very different animals.
I know what satire is, but thanks for the sarcasm. I can always use some form of abuse at the end of a long day.
It was not meant as sarcasm. Just you shouldn't have been chastised for a "personal attack."
My apologies for being defensive. I normally don't go so far as to say I hate someone, but I said it about Glenn Beck. If I was the musical type, I would sing about how much I dislike him. Again, sorry for misinterpreting your comment. It has been quite a day.
For the week, Fox averaged 11.5 million viewers (6.7 rating, 11 share), NBC had 8.9 million (5.5, 9), CBS 8.1 million (5.2, 8), ABC 7 million (4.4, 7), the CW 2.2 million (1.5, 2), My Network TV 1.2 million (0.8, 1) and ION Television 540,000 (0.4, 1).
I still don't see CNN...
Well with many of us evil moderates and liberals it is. Anyway, CNN will continue to be more credible than either MSNBC or Fox. Their coverage is very good, and FOX plays on the dramatics of shows like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. I think Anderson Cooper talks about Michael Jackson too much, but at least he is a bit more balanced. I actually prefer the BBC website over all of these.
I was actually just talking about the news services and CNN is not even a blip on the radar! Sorry Sweetiepie I wasn't attacking your intelligence just your desire to hope things are true.
Sorry but I do not think saying "I hate Glenn Beck" is a personal attack. Since when? People say they hate pasta, and is that a personal attack on pasta? I hate lima beans with a passion by the way!
My previous comment about Michelle's take on Health Plan came from : http://www.drudgereport.com/
From her own words.
Michelle is not quite the quiet woman behine her man?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/18/ol … are-up-to/
I just "YouTube"d him. I don't think I've ever seen him before.
Beck can be annoying but he is exercising his right to free speech! So, in that regard, I would say he is good for America. If you don't like him, turn the channel. That's your right.
I agree that anybody has a right to speak his mind but what bothers me is the gulibility of some people to hear the bumper sticker answers and then follow blindly into the night.
I have not watched the History Channel in about a decade, but I know some of their programs have made people mad. One guy I know used to critique many of their programs, and I remember they used to call it the Hitler channel because they started showing so many documentaries about Nazi Germany. Has the History Channel evolved past showing so many programs on this topic? I am just curious.
I'm not sure if I started arguing because the programming changed or because I started reading more. It's probably a little of both. While I disagree with some of their historical stuff, I find that I enjoy their reality programming like Ice Road Truckers much more. I suppose it's because I spend less time arguing with the TV and more time listening.
National Geographic is worse, they're almost a shill for the Green Party. Although I really enjoy their shows like Gangland and Locked Up Abroad. And yes, I like the Dog Whisperer too. Most of that is reality programming too. The funny thing is that I hate network TV and never watch any of their reality stuff, same thing goes for the so-called video music channels.
I hate network TV myself. I have heard the Dog Whisperer is a helpful show though from several people that own dogs. When I watch TV I like to watch movies and compare these to novels, or I just enjoy some of the very interesting series on HBO. Personally I do not believe TV is evil, but all things in moderation. I tend to think the people who watch no TV might be a little extreme, or for me anyway.
I actually used his techniques for training my bassadauch. Everyone is always impressed with how well he behaves. Well when he's on the leash anyway. He can be a bit stubborn off the leash. Wonder where he gets that from?
Honestly, I find most of TV to be beneath me, maybe that's not the right word. Hackneyed, yes that's better. It sound horrible and elitist, but I find that I learn so much more from reading, and more importantly rereading, books. I'm rereading Noble House for example and have uncovered several threads in the book I missed the first few times around. I just don't get that sort of complexity from TV.
Personally I do not care if people sound elitist or not. If you feel TV is beneath you that is fine, many people do. Of course you can learn more from reading, no question about that. Sometimes, however, it is just fun to watch TV to relax and have fun. Although, my TV viewing has gone way down since I discovered Hubpages, which I use for that.
Kind of like the way this guy uses his pulpit to uplift, educate and promote unity?
So I see, and so Sweetiepie said. And believe me, I completely understand. Seems they kicked a few outa here for a while, but some are still on.
Glenn Beck has a following like a congregation. My uncle almost slapped me for calling Beck a fruitcake. I was prepared for some backlash.
lol We LIKE making fun of Glenn Beck fruitcakes in this house. !
Really, how could anyone take him seriously? (In public, we don't say anything at all, just give each other glances, lol.)
My husband and I watched him, for a while, thinking he was being satirical. When he only showed his eyes for the entire program, we thought he was joking.
I've only watched snippets, or occasionally. Way enough for me. I read about all the insanities he puts out there and see him dissected on the Daily Show, etc.
I've got to say I've never seen such a 'congregation' of supporters until hubpages, and just recently, however. It seems to me it is the nonpolitical types who watch him (in real life, at least around me) who want some kind of shorthand so they can discuss politics and be entertaining or provocative over dinner.
I am a Daily Show fanatic, and I had heard that Jon Stewart clipped Beck to make him look stupid. I am a member of the "Stewart" party, so I watched Beck to see if it was true. End of story, it's not true. Beck is really only a giant ego with crazy eyes.
It's funny, but I feel just the same way about Jon Stewart. I've tried to watch his show, but he comes off as too trite and flippant. I'm sure some of that is because of the fact that his show is satirical, but he claims the Smothers Brothers to be icons of his, but I found their show to be much more enjoyable and relevant than Jon.
I suppose it's Beck's ADD that turns some people off to him. I worked with ADD kids, PTSD kids, Bipolar kids, so his antics don't really bother me. What I see behind the showman, especially when I read his writings, is a logical, yes even consistent, if somewhat ADD personality that understands the difference between what people say they are and what they do. He also seems to understand that all talk aside, it's our actions that determine who we really are.
Like today for instance. He ended his show talking about Pelosi attempting to shift blame to right wing shows for "inciting violence". She mentioned San Francisco in the late 1970's and all the craziness that went on at the time. Mayor Moscone and several other people were killed by Dan White. He used the Twinkie defense to try to keep from gong to jail for murder. Oddly he only served about five years, then served probation for one year. The whole upshot was that there are always crazies out there. Tim McVeigh being another example of a nutjob, this time from the far right. The question is simple. Do we censor ourselves because of what a crazy might do? I can tell you that if a nutjob doesn't use one excuse for their actions, they'll just us another.
It's just another example of how politicians set things up so they can distract us from the really important things. I'd like to say I'm surprised to see Pelosi stoop to such tactics, but I'm not.
Jon Stewart can only hope to be like the Smothers Brothers. Stewart is too smirky and comes off as arrogant. The Brothers really did say things that no one expected them to say but people were thinking and they did it while being genuinely funny.
Thank you. I kept thinking smarmy when I saw Jon's show, but yes, you're right, condescending and smirky.
He was right about Acorn, but he complains about everything. With buckshot, you're bound to hit something.
Glen may look like the buffoon to many lefties but he sure knows how to galvanize the conservatives. He's help spawn the TEA parties, he "outed" that Van guy. Obama should be careful, Beck might be the one to find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
Back to the question, Is Glen Beck bad for America?
Freedom of speech is always a good thing. However, in Beck's case there is a danger of him fueling the mind of an even bigger nut than he is. Beck's only worried about padding his bank account and knows the more bizarre he gets, the more money he'll make. The concern is for those who take every thing he says literally, and the possibility that a very few of these nuts might get violent. So even though Beck has every right to make a VERY GOOD living as shamefully as he does, he is of course bad for America.
Couldn't quite get to sleep, yet. I guess I couldn't get you off my mind, Misha.
Thank God, you noticed it too, I thought I was seeing things. Again.
Well, it's september 19th already where I am now, my father's birthday, Rosh Ashana, and Pirate's day
Well, may be not exactly Rosh Ashana cause i don't know if it starts sunset of 18 or 19 this year. but I did not put a jew avatar, so I am good.
Glen Beck makes me anxious. And I don't know why anybody wants to watch TV just to have someone they don't know, yell at them for at least a hour. Why? I think we have enough screaming idiots out in the world already, we don't need to add to them by supporting Glen Beck's hate mongering. He is clearly a "troll."
This settles it. Mark Levin says Glenn is "pathetic."
LEVIN: How can you day after day and night after night correctly rail against Obama's radicalism, how he's undermining the Constitution, how he's nationalizing our basic industries, how he has Marxists all around him, and then say in an interview with Katie Couric, I think John McCain would have been worse than Obama? Quote: "How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How's that?" That's not good. McCain is no conservative, in fact in many respects he's a progressive. Which is why I fought him. Day in and day out. Day in and day out behind this microphone. Not only fought him behind this microphone but wrote article after article -- go ahead and Google it -- rejecting his candidacy. But to say that he'd be worse than a president that's a Marxist, who's running around the country -- I'm sorry, the world -- apologizing for our nation, who's slashing our defense budget, who's nationalizing our health care system? To say he would be worse is mindless, mindless, incoherent as a matter of fact. There's our 5-PMer, on Fox ... I don't know who certain people are playing to, I don't know why they are playing to certain people ... I think there's enormous confusion and positioning and pandering. It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it's not. It's pathetic."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 … 94786.html
That's very simple Ralph. McCain was Obama-lite and he ran his campaign as such. He'd have done much of what Obama has done, but he would have done it slower. The reason Obama's plans are faltering right now is due, in part, to the speed in which he is pursing them. He want's to present the nation with a fiat accompli. McCain would have been worse because he changes would have been more insidious and gradual. There would have been less initial resistance and thus more would have been accomplished by this time in a McCain administration.
Also, since he's nominally a "Republican" he would have been seen as pro-business and fewer of the rank and file Republicans would have opposed him. Sine he also would be pursing many programs near and dear to the Democratic party, he would have faced much less resistance from then than Bush did. All in all, that would have been a very bad thing for the US.
McCain's worst enemies were his own vocal and radical supporters.
You wish, he tried to out-Obama, Obama, and failed.
Or, he picked an utter idiot as a running mate who tried to upstage him while not knowing enough to run a village, and lost the respect of many of the people who would have supported him.
He took a gamble. Had she been more in line with his rhetoric it might have worked.
I just never quite got over the feeling that McCain wasn't running his own campaign. And I've got to tell you, and I'll probably catch hell for this, but of all the Republicans running it was McCain I liked and could identify with...not that I was going to vote Republican after Bush.
I think she did very well by not supporting his rhetoric. I think the next couple of elections are going to surprise people who only see the Red/Blue divide. The two groups together make up about 80% of the voting public, but only 40% of the population.
Come on it wasn't even a contest. An Inconvenient Truth, indeed. Obama only got in because he wasn't a Republican. Anyone the Dems put up for office would have won against almost any Republican after the last 8 years.
Em, No. He won that baby fair and square...and also came out "of nowhere," lol. As some wingnuts would say for other reasons. I believe him to be something of a transformational figure, . Enormously motivational speaker, very smooth politically, extremely calm, filling stadiums full of people.
Yes. And does his popularity overseas lie, LDT?
I don't care what his popularity is, his movie is filled with junk science. That I care about.
I also disagree. If it has been McCain with a competent running mate against Hillary Clinton, the former might have won. Hillary remains a very, very polarizing figure, even more than Obama (especially among the Jacksonians, who don't seem to like female politicians who don't look like beauty queens).
Ya! I think that's true too. She is a very polarizing figure. And oddly enough, I don't think she's trying to be.
I hate her because she's an elitist power hungry....well that's unprintable. Most of the radical Dems are like that and I think more and more people are seeing that from the radical left.
Whoa, LDT. The Clintons are far from "radical" dems. Where are you getting this stuff?
Even there way of campaigning was to borrow from the opposition. Indeed...partially this was the way Hillary ultimately didn't make it...too old school.
I said elitist not radical. You're right they're not like ACORN or SEIU, but they still think they know how to tell people live better than people can decide for themselves. I remember when Billy said he wasn't going to return the budget surplus because we weren't going to be responsible in spending it.
I'd have a hard time believing that. I've seen the man speak 3 times in person. Just doesn't seem like it would be part of his rhetoric. In one speech, he talked about giving money overseas (in programs, etc.) as an antidote to terrorism, I recall.
Ask him to provide a link where Clinton says he won't return the surplus because "we weren't going to be responsible (in) spending it." Bet he can't...unless its a conservative blog.
Clinton's surplus was nothing more than an accounting gimmick. He didn't increase spending that much, but he never decreased it either.
Break down of Clinton's second term -
1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 - $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
$261B in debt was added during Clinton's second term. You cannot add debt and have a surplus. A true surplus means a reduction in the overall national debt.
The challenge was to find a quote where Clinton said 'we weren't responsible enough to spend a returned surplus.'
Where is that?
Who cares? There was no surplus so who cares about a link to his lies?
Looking for it. It may not even exist anymore, it's been ten years. Why don't you consider it a memory and not a verified fact. If I can find a link to verify, I'll post it.
That's all right. There were far, far worse presidents than Clinton. The last one very much included.
Clinton wasn't so bad. He was benignly neglectful, which should be a trait of all of our presidents. If he would have reined in Greenspan, we'd not be in the mess we are today. Still he could have been like Nixon or shudder FDR or JFK.
In constant dollars, he barely grew the debt over the course of both of his terms (in his second term, there was a constant-dollar surplus).
As measured by % of GDP, his record was excellent: national debt dropped on his watch, from about 66.2% to 57.4%.
No matter which way you cut it, lambasting Clinton's stewardship of the budget while ignoring Bush's is laughable. Keep in mind the state of the economy during spending changes, and what the party's nominal affiliation with fiscal responsibility is - it gets even more laughable.
Check this out. It lists our outstanding debt by year - which is where I got my figures.
http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ … histo4.htm
Yes, those are nominal dollar figures. Factor in inflation to pull it into constant-dollar terms and you see a flat line.
The Wikipedia page shows a lot of detail by presidential term.
Flat line. Yup, that's the state of the entire economy right now. The recession's over!
Yeah, Wiki is FARRR more reliable than the government.
It was on MSNBC about ten years ago. Hang on I'm looking to see if it's archived anywhere. It was during the debates on what to do with the surplus, one of the suggestions was a tax rebate and Clinton nixed it, claiming that we wouldn't be responsible with the money.
Sad isn't it? What happened to the old conservatives? Actually, I think I answered that in another forum. Libertarians.
And yes, I voted for Obama and am STILL happy that I did. But I've got to tell you. If he can do ANYTHING to drag us out of the current economic situation it will be a miracle. I'd expect him to walk on water before accomplishing that feat.
I miss the old republican party though. And I can still admire Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. I didn't always agree with them, but they had a ton of integrity.
They got taken over by the Progressives, that's what happened. I hate to say it but Obama's economic plan is straight out of FDR's and that kept us in a depression for about a decade and a half. No Obama can't save us unless he gets out of the way.
I'm not sure FDR did keep us in a depression. I can't really speak to that time, but I have spoken to my parents about it and they both felt he did as much as he could do.
Truth be told (and 'truth' in this case is opinion) I think a war got us out of the depression. Not the efforts of any politician.
I see credit as something similar to electricity. Especially in this country. If it isn't flowing then the economy isn't running.
The Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard. Give it a read. At one time he confiscated up to 90% of the income of the top 10%. How do you start new companies and create new jobs when you have 90% of your income taken away? That kind of thinking is what kept us in the Great Depression.
Were you aware that many government economists thought that after WW II there was going to be another massive depression? They thought that with falling government spending, the economy would go straight down the toilet. Boy, where they wrong. After a slight recession due to the boys coming home, the economy took off.
@livelonger, the Nobel Prize in Economics was set up by the Swedish Central Bank, it's rare for a free market economist to get a fair shake from those guys. I can think of only 2. Believe me most economists are horrified at what Obama is doing. Look up Paul Volker.
I'll check it out.
No, but it makes sense. At least from an economists point of view.
And why did the economy take off? Credit. All the stuff Americans couldn't get during the war was suddenly available again. Homes being built, new car models hitting showrooms, all these products were being manufactured again, but bigger & "better." There had to be credit for the average American to afford these things.
I'll check that out too.
Actually it was due to the enforced savings of the war years. Think about it, with rationing there was nothing to spend your money on. Either that or you were fighting a war and you can't very well spend your wages during it. You didn't start to see the rise in household credit until the 1970's.
That's the only thing I give Cater credit for is appointing him to the Fed. He got us out of stagflation.
Sorry, but a libertarian turn would turn the US into Columbia: those with money living behind bars in gated, armed communities, while the majority of the country lives in squalor.
A solid half of economists agree with Obama's policies, including one I respect a lot (Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate).
Libertarianism. I just can't wrap my head around privately owned highways. And there are other planks in the platform that I just can't see working.
Government is at it's best when it can fund gargantuan projects that no one else in their right mind would attempt.
A highway system that was supposed to provide a defense network turned into an interstate commerce engine. Did Eisenhower see that when he signed the bill? I don't know.
One thing for certain. The Jacksonian concept of democracy it taking a real beating.
As to economists I don't know that I trust them no matter who's side they are on.
If you own a road, aren't you going to make it as useful as possible so you make more money? Aren't you going to keep it up so that people don't choose other routes? Aren't you going to try to make it as safe as possible so you don't get sued?
Government produces goods that cost more and have less quality than the private sector provides.
I used to have a hard time wrapping my head around private roads too, then I started questioning some of the assumptions about private vs public that I had been making.
Not sure about that. Read on.
Like the Space Shuttle? It was only supposed to last five years. How about the mars rovers? They were only supposed to last nine months tops. Both are still going WAY beyond their expected lifes. There are many more examples. All of which are government funded. So no, I don't agree. And by the way, these projects may be government funded, but private companies build the machines and parts. Whenever someone quotes me "and imagine, this was built by the lowest bidder." I think about what I just said.
I used to be part of and contribute to the Libertarian party. Not any more.
Those are exceptions, true, but look at how outdated the stuff is now and how much it's going to take to replace them. Not to mention that the Shuttle failed in it's primary mission which was to make launching less expensive and take the place of rocket launches. It did neither.
Personally I find the concept of political parties very distasteful. All of them really work for their own power and give only crumbs to their supporters. I think that with a strict constructionist view on the Constitution, you'd the the political party start to go away,at least on the national level.
I completely agree, however, they are still working and running. When congress approved the funds for this program they KNEW it was going to have a finite life. That they were slow to fund a replacement is also no surprise. They haven't really been into NASA since John Kennedy.
In his farewell address George Washington issued a strong warning against political parties. Very similar to the warning Eisenhower issued in his farewell address about the "military/industrial complex."
Check it out;
Starting at the fifteenth paragraph. He's pointing out how "parties" are attempting to divide citizens with the idea that their region needs better representation than the other guy's...thereby putting the needs of the entire nation at risk.
How many have exploded?
Heh, Eisenhower had it listed as military/industrial/Congressional complex in his first draft. He should have kept that part in.
One. One disintegrated in the atmosphere, but you knew that. Again, that wasn't my point. There are still three flying. They weren't supposed to last nearly this long. Is it any wonder some of them were destroyed?
By the way the Challenger disaster was directly related to the construction techniques of the solid rocket booster. Had they been shipped by sea and been one solid piece the Challenger disaster wouldn't have happened. Thiokol had another way to build them, in sections, which allowed the boosters to be shipped by rail. Of course the sections had to be joined and one of the parts of the joint was a large rubber o-ring. The very thing that failed. That everyone chose to ignore Thiokol's engineer's warnings about the lack of malleability of the rubber o-rings under certain temperatures was the seed of that mess.
Columbia was a similar engineering disaster. Too many people who should have known better insisted that foam could not break a carbon-on-carbon wing panel. It could and did.
Considering it was an exit speech he probably should have.
I dunno know about that. There was a poll taken and a majority of the economists polled by the Wall Street Journal stated they "are dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies."
And your pal Krugman has come out AGAINST several of Obama's policies.
Don't know where you get your info. . .you might wanna check out this Newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393
I wonder what your respected economists were saying in March 2000, and in February 2009.
here's a good place to start:
feel free to expand from there.
This caught my eye.
In the Nixon era, leaders in both political parties were capable of speaking rationally, and decisions weren’t as warped by corporate cash as they are now.
Is that really true!?!?!? Yes, (and I can't believe I'm saying this) it's true.
Agreed. Libertarians are fewer than a million, and republican politicians with integrity is a serious oxymoron nowadays. I would regret not having a strong, credible opposition party, except I think we've drifted far too much to the right and that needs correction.
LDT...Despite your scholarly-ish sounding verbiage, I don't think you make any sense here. McCain's campaign was absolutely nothing like Obama's. His campaign was a MESS. Perhaps, as I have heard it termed, it is more aptly described as a "shadow" campaign...reactive at best.
Sarah Palin, her supporters, the "base" and all the hate spewing was McCain's HUGE mistake. A mistake I actually take great pleasure in, I might say as well, for what she represented....a pretty empty headed Barbi designed to attract the female vote (how presumptive & stupid)and turn on the old guy male conservatives (how limiting to men, for that matter).
I also think, from what I've researched on McCain, that his entire presidency would have been governed by his outlook on war, lol, Kissinger/Vietnam era. Not to mention, he simply is NOT presidential material temperament-wise. That was obvious during every single pre-election debate.
I agree 100%, his campaign was pathetic. The only reason he brought Palin on board was to try to keep rank and file Republican support while he attempted to get the Democratic vote. To be honest, I like Palin far more than I do someone like Hillary Clinton and I think the left wingnuts fear her. Why go through so much trouble to make up lies and try to discredit her otherwise?
I thin McCain would have surprised you. He was a POW after all and they often have very different views on war than what you otherwise might think. I do think that a former POW would think long and hard before committing troops to something, because he knows something of the cost of failure. That's never a bad trait in a commander-in-chief.
Come on Lita, he's a Republican and you don't think any Republican is Presidential material do you?
Because she's blissfully ignorant, doesn't feel facts or measured judgment matter, and would've been a hair's breadth from the presidency?
Now, of course, it's a different matter. America knows a lot more about her. I would LOVE for her to get the GOP nomination.
I cannot say that's the truth...to your last statement, LDT. Ron Paul looked OK..ish, and Mike Huckabee, although not presidential (uh, religion), seemed like a sincerely decent man. Despite absolute opposite ideas, I thought Mitt Romney had an at least presidential air...probably most of all the Republicans.
As far as McCain...I researched him well. (lol...altercation with and ex-boyfriend mixed in there, haha, you guessed me well). His background was not presidential as far as I am concerned, and his temperament was that of a spoiled brat through life (have you heard the wife story...among others?), and disrespectful (unbecoming) towards Obama during the debates.
Despite all that, I do recognize he has served as a (our--AZ) senator, his views in other areas lean towards moderate, and he is to be commended for his stance on torture and for standing up and calling out Joe Wilson in regards to house rules.
I completely agree with you. Palin was chosen to appeal to the Jacksonian and religious right segments, but she ended up being far too stupid to appeal to the thinking conservatives.
And yes, the military was all that McCain knew or cared about. That's dangerous.
Which goes to show you don't know much about the military. They're much less likely to go to war than anyone else because they know the cost. Look at Eisenhower. If all military men were warmongers, he'd have been a happy little war-god in the White House. Yet we were not involved in one war, police action or conflict during his Presidency. Contrast that with Johnson, who saw only 13 minutes of combat.
That contrasts sharply with McCain's own campaign rhetoric. Analogies with previous presidents can only go so far.
As to your first point, I suppose your average soldier would be for gun control, since they know how dangerous a gun can be in the wrong hands, right?
That analogy would be incorrect in most cases. The military, given training in gun safety, among other things would have a different opinion than someone who had never used a gun in their life. Now they might agree that people with no training do not deserve guns, a view that I am sympathetic to, but generally speaking that analogy would be a poor one.
Lita, Ron Paul would have been awesome, he'd have been a president in the mold of a Grover Cleveland, I think. I didn't like McCain and was glad to see him go, but I'm horrified at what Obama is doing.
The GOP coalition is seriously fractured. I laugh thinking about the divergent candidates that pundits keep thinking about for 2012 and how a substantial portion of the base will refuse to vote to him/her. As much as they foam at the mouth about Obama, they will lose 2012.
The GOP coalition is no longer conservative. They are a conglomeration of divergent interests. Like a team of horses pulling in different directions. That they sold out to the religious right was a death knell. Unfortunately the only seriously fiscally conservative started the Libertarian party. And their ideas (many of them anyway) are completely unworkable.
What is left is different people with different ideas all trying to play house together. Sad since they can't really stand each other.
It's amusing taking a look at the right-wing standard-bearers in the blogosphere (Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, Red State, etc) and see how much animosity they have for each other and how each site has a different favorite candidate and another they loathe.
I don't know how they're going to emerge from where they are now. Small but impassioned won't win enough elections since you can only pull that lever once.
Ever see "The Life of Brian?"
There was the "Jewish Liberation Front" and the "Front for Jewish Liberation" or some such. They had exactly the same goals and killed each other off.
Quite funny really.
Yes, hilarious! But the Republicans don't have the same goals. You have the paleocons, the neocons, the Palin/Jacksonians and the religious right often pulling in different directions. GWB could pretend to cater to all of them best; none of the '12 frontrunners can even manage that.
The same thing holds for the Dems. Right now, because they're in power, the Dems are somewhat united, but even in that party you have people like ACORN and SEIU on the one hand and Blue Dog Democrats on the other and who knows how many splinters in between.
As people become more and more disillusioned with both current parties, we might actually see a viable third party arise from all of this. That might be for the best, all things considered.
Yep, there definitely should be a single best party
Three parties, Misha, heck I hope for 300, they'd never get anything done then!
Yes, that's possible but under our system, that's unlikely to last long. Coalition building happens before the election here, not after. The Dixiecrats broke off from the Democrats and within a generation or so merged in with the Republicans (and have been creating a mess for them since - good riddance!).
Besides, there are far fewer differences between Democratic factions than between Republican ones.
Normally I'd agree, but the loyalty to a party has always been a multi-generational thing. In fact,with few exceptions it was rare pre-WW II to have the opposition of the party in the White House in control of Congress. Since WW II that's almost always been the case.
While Republican politicians alienated many people over the last eight years, I think the hard core Dems underestimate the supposed mandate they've been given. There seems to be a growing disenchantment with bigger government, which is a welcome change. Still, nobody can see the future and know what it holds, so we'll have to see what we'll see.
True. A lot of the anxiety is being fanned by the Republicans and Fox News, but once health care reform passes, I suspect that will subside. That's my guess.
Don't kid yourself, it'll only get worse. The protests are not only against health care "reform", but against big government. That's a different kettle of fish.
At Commentary, Peter Wehner, who worked in the past three Republican administrations, lays it out plainly in his headline: “Glenn Beck: Harmful to the Conservative Movement” :
[Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements — for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people” — are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger — the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now — and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.
Palin pretty much self-destructed without any help from liberals. (What left wingnuts?)
ACORN, SEIU, eco-terrorists, you know the crazies.
Don't forget the commies, the pinkos, the Marxists, and the raw vegan foodists.
Collectively they must amount to at least 50,000 people.
As an outsider, with a vested interest in how Obama fairs with the world economy hanging round his neck, I think that the negative input from the likes of Paul Krugman are valuable to an administration providing it hears what is said loud and clear.
Paul Krugman is an asset. He provides an opposing view that is not partisan.
I met him when I was 6 not that that means anything. But I've always been proud to say I met a President.
This was after he was president, at the U of Iowa...there was a bunch who followed him after the address in a mob to shake hands, but, lol, I wasn't one of them.
I met him at the Fallen Officers Memorial Address in D.C. after he spoke he met all of the families. I was super cool when I went back to my first grade class!
Cool! lol Well, we staked out on the lawn on at the auditorium and watched the limos go by, lol. I also remember some kid from the audience heckled him about what's her face...cigar girl. He said, "And I suppose you are perfect." That wasn't cool, but he handled it well...just went on.
My dad served under Admiral Rickover at the Navy Department, on 14th street, in DC. I honestly had the privelage of standing between Him and the Admiral, when the Navy gave President Kennedy his Birthday Dinner. The same day they presented him with his re-built rocking chair. Right after he returned from His Mid East Trip.
I was in the reception line and met him face to face, shook hands. I remember it to this day, can visualise it all still. I was 12 at the time. Have never forgotten it. I am sure he was brief'd, but he new every name in the room and some facts on each person. I was amazed.
Can we all at least agree that there's no such thing as a "perfect" president?
And that Glen Beck is a tool?
Recently,on the Keith Olberman show; he mentioned Glen Beck. He said the man wanted to do something with an amendment in the Constitution. It was a very old amendment from back in the 1800s. Glen Beck thought it had something to do with Imigration Policies. It was actually an amendment to legalize Slavery. So he doesn't sound like a very careful or smart man. I also hear he gets very emotional and turns on the waterworks. I guess passion over intelligence is ok for some people. Give me Ed Shultz and Keith Olberman. Ed Shultz should have his name on the Healthcare Bill when it passes. It's all he talks about on his radio and TV show. And Keith Olberman does not let any inaccurate statements from the people on Fox News go unchallenged. I think they do alot more for the public good than Glen Beck.
http://hubpages.com/_1hkrq7dndiwfj/hub/ … n-Politics
So you're one of the 12 that watches MSNBC? I was wondering who they were.
No no. I watch all three Cable News Shows. That's why I thought I could offer a well thought out opinion. How about a well thought out response?
I left that on your hub if you care to read it.
Thank you for your response, but your wrong about a few things. Read all my comments first. And then I think we can talk.
http://hubpages.com/_1hkrq7dndiwfj/hub/ … n-Politics
Don't hold your breath!
Suuuurrreeee. Olbermann NEVER gets emotional. He never feigns indignation or affects a smug self-righteous attitude. He's always fair and balanced.
And Rachel Maddow is the Queen of England.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Mindset-of- … Impact-You
While I am extremely anti-Glenn Beck and his buddies over at Fox, those at MSNBC are equally stupid. I want to punch Olberman in the face every time he tries to make himself seem better than everyone by ranting about how Bill O'Riley is stupid (whether I agree with this or not). He, along with Maddow, Beck, and others, don't contribute anything. All they do is try to make the other side look stupid, without talking about real issues. Like I said before, it's all about ratings. Nobody should get their news from Fox OR MSNBC.
O'Reilly and Maddow are not reporters. Olbermann and Matthews have played reporters now and then, but that only served to reduce their credibility even more.
I agree...and I'm solidly Left and know Rachel Maddow personally (I think she's far better than Olbermann IMHO...but not a newswoman, regardless).
Maddow, Olbermann, and Mathews are not "equally stupid." They all have 50 IQ points on Beck and Hannity and nearly as many on O'Reilly. Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar for Christ sake. Beck was diagnosed as ADHD, is a former alcoholic and completed only one college religion course, in a "non-traditional student" program at Yale for which he was recommended by none other than Joe Lieberman. (According to Wikipedia). These are not news programs, nor are they intended to be. They are partisan political commentary which apparently attracts a lot of viewers. CNN is no great shakes either although it provides more news and less commentary.
Really? Do you have a source for their comparative IQs?
How hilarious! Someone talking about IQ who gets his or her information from WIKIPEDIA!! Tell me you're kidding, please.
What, exactly, do you have against wikipedia?
First of all, I am a professional writer. Not one editor I know will allow Wikipedia to be used as a source. Second, do you know anything at all about Wikipedia? If you did you would know that for someone to seriously quote anything written on that site is more than funny and downright pathetic.
Much like Fox News
I use Wikipedia if I know nothing about a topic. But I would never use it as my one source. I always double check what I read on there.
Professional writer. What do you write.
I'd say you don't know "squat" about wikipedia. It has been compared (favorably) to Britannica and in some cases was actually considered better than Britannica.
Maybe you don't understand WHY editors don't want that used as a source.
Come on! Wiki is definitely NOT an authoritative source, but it is definitely quite good for a quick look up on a topic you don't have any idea about
Do you prefer Glenn Beck as a source?
Wikipedia is a convenient and usually accurate source of current information. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of anything I posted above? If so spit it out?
The 'typical liberal to <something unrelated to liberalism at all>' comments are so last week.
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
A long article in this week's "The New Yorker" by Sean Wilentz entitled "Confounding Fathers" traces the antecedents of Glenn Beck's rants and the Tea Party's hysteria to two individuals who spouted much of the nonsense now being repeated Beck and the Teatards. Unfortunately...
by leeberttea 12 years ago
This may be a bit over the top, but we must remain vigilant, especially when we see years of case law, and constitutional law circumvented with each new crisis an excuse to pass more laws restricting freedom or concentrating power in the executive branch of government, or the federal government...
by Paul Wingert 12 years ago
These two clowns have a combined IQ that equals a small light bulb and yet they have a following. Limbaugh radio show boasts that it's the most trusted news source. Right wing Republicans rate him about 24% as trustworthy. Everyone else rates him at less than 2%. Beck is just a plain jerk who likes...
by TMMason 12 years ago
This is not a bash Beck thread, nor is it a rant about Beck thread. This thread has only one intent.And that is prove what Beck says, is wrong. The FACTS and QUOTES he uses on his shows. I hear alot of people on here complaining and bitching that Beck is this, or Beck is that... but I have never...
by qwark 13 years ago
Glenn's "chat" today was about "god" as being the foundation of "morality" in the USA. Might he be the "2nd Coming?" :-)ok.ok it's Glenn..jeez
by Ravaged Nation 12 years ago
Does Glen Beck deserve the protection of free speech guaranteed him by the United States...Constitution?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|