Is Glen Beck bad for America?
Seriously, I dunno if I can handle them. They're just so off the walls.
It sure isn't as accurate as the MSNBC poll he goes by is it? But it is exactly what Gallup and Zogby say, how did 3 polls come up with the same numbers? Must be that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy again! Why am I asking you? You're the guy that thought Bush lost the Counts in Florida and asked the Florida Supreme Court to allow the counting to continue, you are not a barometer of accuracy!
Glen has admitted publicly that he is purely entertaiment, and for that reason many people do not take him seriously. Frankly, all the major and cable network news programming are just "news entertainment." All of them are politically slanted to appeal to a base of people. Unfortunately, this is becoming the American Way.
Glen Beck is about as bad for America as America is bad for itself.
What's the embryo count now.....?US population 304,059,724.
Looks like a stupid IP address but it isn't. It's a real number of multi cultured beings living in one sector of a planet somewhere out in the universe.
A sector that the greater god would consider no more or no less than any other piece of real estate in the universe.
USA brought together the differential. White, Red , Yellow, Black.
We have learnt to behave by the holy dollar. But the universe cares shiat about the holy dollar.
Glen Beck is about as bad for America has Suddam Hussein was bad for America.I don't mean to sound rude, it's just that I thought that most of the folks here on Hubpages, especially the professional writers, were savvy about Wikipedia. I hope I didn't offend you. If you really want to learn more, and you should for the sake of your veracity if nothing else, just google "Wikipedia criticism." Some of what you find will shock you. I highly doubt you will ever use it as a source again and take what you read there with a healthy dose of salt.
Wait. . .is that possible? Can a dose of salt be. . . nevermind.It won't shock me. I've seen it. The people who wrote the article didn't understand Wikipedia either. Not that a reporter would though, after all, these are the same people who tried to make all web-masters "bad" right after Heaven's Gate. Always looking for the "dark underbelly" of things.
It's an encyclopedia. Not a bad one at that. And the best thing about it is that if you don't think an article is accurate you can call the author on it.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago
0Actually, I think the concept of simple IQ and the criticism of Wikipedia have much in common,
.
(I know Ralph was making a general and hyperbolic...at that... statement.) About wikipedia....
Well I have often come up on Britanica on the first page in a search engine search and after reading a few lines I am asked to subscribe or "should I say put in to the pass the plate regime".
How good they must be to have me pay for such info that is free from the collective at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia will bury Britannica and other such encyclopedia in the future.
Why ???
Because the collective knows the truth. Ask the webbot about truths. It's an ever changing science.
Nothing stays the same forever.
In a million years from now no one will give a damn about Britannica but the truth will always be what the collective believes.
I would imagine that in a million years from now robots and AI will have consumed electronic sites like this one and like the collective of Wikipedia.
Britannica at that point will be but a bot left to fend for pennies as it seeks followers.So, "the collective" of Wikipedia "knows the truth?" That's fascinating. I have a 27 year old daughter that doesn't know squat, like most people her age, and probably won't until she is in her 30's and has some experience behind her.
May I ask you something? Are you aware that this oh-so-wise Wikipedia "collective" of which you speak, is, on average, 26 year old males who graduated from high school and have no college experience? Furthermore, did you know that half of the contributors to Wikipedia are under the age of 22 and that the "most frequent age" of contributors is EIGHTEEN???????
I'm afraid that the "truth" that this "Wikipedia collective knows" is who Lindsay Lohan is banging this week. But, I may be wrong.
So, tell me again. . .please, tell me so that I understand. . .just what is the truth that this collective knows?????wow, would your daughter's not knowing squat have anything to do with her upbringing?
that would depend on who you ask, and a dipshit like dean doesn't qualify.
looks like it has a question mark after it, like this one: feeling a bit tender?
take it for what it's worth <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
After his gender reassignment he hasn't been able to get the hormone thing right.
please refrain from being an antagonizer <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
I have a set of Britanica, and use Wiki for quick ref, they are both equally good for a quick check.
Beck was good on CNN Headlines, but is better on Fox. He is the only one who covers issues typically ignored by the other media. Even in his crazy ways, he's better than NBc or MSNBC could ever dream.
And His books are good too!- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
* Damer, T. Edward. (2005) Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Edition, Wadsworth. ISBN 0-534-60516-8
* Dauer, Francis Watanabe. Critical thinking: an introduction to reasoning
* Facione, P. 2007. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts - 2007 Update
* Facione, PA, Facione, NC, and Giancarlo, CA. (2000) The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Logic, Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 61–84.
* Hamby, B.W. (2007) The Philosophy of Anything: Critical Thinking in Context. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque Iowa. ISBN 978-0-7575-4724-9
* Fisher, Alec and Scriven, Michael. (1997) Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment, Center for Research in Critical Thinking (UK)/Edgepress (US). ISBN 0-9531796-0-5
* Vincent F. Hendricks. (2005) Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP. ISBN 87-991013-7-8
* Paul, Richard and Elder, Linda. (2006) Critical Thinking Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing. ISBN 0-13-114962-8.
* Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda. (2002) Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Published by Financial Times Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-064760-8.
* Sumner, William (1906, 1940) Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals, New York: Ginn and Co.
* Twardy, Dr. Charles R. (2003) Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27:2 June 2004. Preprints: [1] [2]
* van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2000) 'Critical Thinking for Students', How To Books
* van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2005) 'Critical Thinking for AS Level', How To Books
* van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2006) 'Critical Thinking for A2 Level,' How To Books
* van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2007) 'The Essential Guide to Critical Thinking'
* van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2008) 'Critical Thinking'
* Whyte, J. (2003) Bad Thoughts - A Guide to Clear Thinking, Corvo. ISBN 0-9543255-3-2.
These sources above really don't seem inadequate to me. (Just a personal assessment.) - sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago0
Is the collective planting turnips again this year? Turnips make my feet ich.
- Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
Sigh. Oh, it's ALL so lovely.
Could it be that some of the more 'popular' topics of interest...say on Lindsay Lohan...are written by 18 year olds with little formal secondary education? And maybe other topics are written by others who have more of a background?
And of course nobody takes an encyclopedia as a definitive source for any sort of serious writing (don't think they much allowed that past the 8th grade, did they? Not where I went to school, anyway). Mentioning Wikipedia as a quick reference to quick writing on an internet forum, however, doesn't seem to be (or shouldn't be) a huge sin. - Leta Sposted 15 years ago0
Play pen time. Remember not to hit hard, children. And by all means, do NOT fight dirty.
And there's another personal attack. It would be better not to do so.
As it was directed at everyone here I don't think that would qualify.
If we have such a left-swinging media, then how come perfectly good journalists such as Howard Bloom, Paul B. Farrell and Barrie Zwicker are relegated to the 'fringe' media?
Well, back to the main point. Is Glen Beck bad for America? Well, depends on your stand point. In my opinion,in this Twitter, Facebook, X-Box 360, On Demand Movie, 24 hour media enema world, anything or anyone who would make anyone think, (God forbid) is not a bad thing. And as far as the "Fringe Media" is concerned, so what. I listen to fringe radio, and I also listen to free broadcast. To tell you the truth, if the truth is what you seek, then that is where you should be in the first place.
However,that is just one mans opinion, and you know what they say about opinions don't you? (Oh, please don't make me say it, there may be children present.)Glen Beck is a former clown and is in the entertainment business. He appeals to those who do not want to think for themselves. He also appeals to the Rush Limbaugh crowd who is fearful of a Black President.
Quite true! Except he's not a "former" clown. He's still a pathetic clown.
Beck maybe a former clown, but we have active clowns in the White house, I know your thinking another racist, but the last president was a clown and maybe a worse one, history will tell, but this President wants a socialist regime and too fundamentally change the rest of our Constitution, (remember "give them the wealth, give them the wealth" by Horn) and believe me I don't care what color he is, that racist card won't hunt. I will be glad to bear arms against anyone who will change our Constitution, that is why there is that little part in the Constitution that gives us the right to over through a tyrannical government and that is also why they want to take our guns away. He wants to "spread the wealth, he and his socialist, communist, rich friends can lead by example and Obama can lead the way and give their money away, but I as a capitalist will keep as much of my hard earned dollars as I can. Your comments that people who watch and listen to various commentators, "don't want to think for themselves" is your simple minded attempt into bullying others into agreeing with you and your communist agenda.
As a capitalist?
When did you last sink a hundred million into a new venture? Or sack an entire town?
Capitalists are a very rare breed. I reckon you are just a wannabe
ps on the issue of spreading the wealth, why do so many Texans believe that they are not good enough to deserve more than the crumbs from their masters table? This lack of self belief undermines so many genuinely capable people.<snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
I myself don't buy into the racist card as it is a distraction. But what I want you to ponder in your steadfast defense of not changing our constitution is what is it that makes you think it should not be changed? Remove the current dialog that there is a socialist agenda by the left and think more along the lines as far as amendments. Do you believe that the constitution is perfect and should never be changed to address societal and economic crisis? What if it was determined that abortion should be a part of an amendment? Should it be changed then?
Our founding fathers were far more wiser than we know in that they made it a dynamic piece of law and allowed for adjustments along the way to fit our culture.An amendment should be voted on by who the whims of the people at the moment in history? Thank God there is a set constitution in place.
Sounds like you are not about any change what so ever. That may be comforting for you but I think of it as dangerous. Your term "whims" is a little over the top with simplicity and is a false depiction. Have you ever heard the term "It would take an act of congress to change that"? It is as it states, no whim there. The wisdom of the founding fathers was not that the constitution represented no change but a clearly laid out method by which we could govern ourselves. By the way it has a lot of amendments that changed and improved it over the years. I thank God for that.
So you would go along with a congress that tried to abolish gun control?
I mean a congress that would pass a law that would take away our rights to own and keep guns?
To pose a question to you that you ignored, do you believe if congress voted away our rights too own and keep guns, that would be O. K. with you? You know about that little part about the right to bear arms, you know, just encase we were overthrown by a hostile regime. What a stupid act of congress does we the people have the authority to change that. So don't give me that crap about an act of congress they just represent us Damn
No, it wouldn't be okay with me. I got my first gun when I was 12 or 14, a single shot 20 gauge for hunting birds and squirrels with my dad. I currently own three guns one antique shotgun which was my grandfather's, a Model 12 Winchester and a Remington .22 bolt action repeater. For many years I hunted ducks, geese and pheasants, and I strongly support the rights of hunters and target shooters. Assault weapons and handguns have no role in hunting and should be strictly controlled.
We hear a lot about guns in relation to the USA. My teenager is currently covering the subject as a topic in her literacy lessons. I appreciate that hunters and target shooters should have licensed access to guns, but having grown up in a society where personal ownership of guns is very rare and tightly controlled, I find the constant reference to 'the right to bear arms' frankly baffling.
The majority of Americans support more effective gun control, however, massive financial support from gun manufacturers to the NRA and to campaign funds of opponents of gun control frustrates the will of the majority. This produces another unfortunate effect because NRA and gun manufacturer and dealer lobbying results in the election of a certain number of right-wing extremists who vote against health reform and other progressive legislation.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas JeffersonYour use of that quote in our contemporary context is a scare tactic emblematic of the far-right these days. You don't know what tyranny means.
A scare tactic? Why do you say that? Why do you think that government is such a benevolent master? Do you really think we are better off as a society when we are all controlled? When we all submit to the authority of a decider? You shouldn't take lightly the concerns of our founders. You shouldn't dismiss them out of hand simply because we are so "modern". Nothing is more important than individual freedom and it never been more important! There is no place to go to, to seek freedom from oppression, no "new world" awaits with open arms. Now more than ever we must make a stand, and there are those of us that will.
I agree in part that believing that the government is a benevolent master is at best lunacy but you swing so far in one direction that it is hard to discern any answer other than leave us alone and it will be all right. No direction is a bad direction and no compromise is an answer in itself. If Obama was removed from office today who could possibly measure up to your extreme standard and fix this country?
I didn't know individual freedom was such an extreme standard.
Who could fix it? I don't know! The republicans obviously can't! No government, no party has EVER reduced government spending, not even Regan! The best they have done was to cut the RATE of spending. So government has been expanding and both parties have been complicit in this. I think what we really need is a more engaged electorate. We need a better educated populace, in other words not an indoctrinated bunch of zombies weaned on public education! Only then can be begin to turn things around.
Suffice it to say a *majority* of this country elected Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress after years of unending incompetence under Bush and the Republicans. You can scream, moan and whine till the cows come home that your rights are being infringed but a majority (remember how a democracy works?) disagrees with you. For you to throw around a threat of using weapons instead of respecting our democratic process is a scare tactic.
And sadly for you, people who find this sort of jeremiad convincing is an ever-shrinking minority. Though those who do are louder than ever does not change the fact that they are a minority and when you're a minority, your candidates lose.Livelonger - I am glad there are sensible people like you in America, willing and able to speak sensibly and clearly for the moderate majority.
True, Obama was elected by a majority, however, that does not mean that my rights to object to his policies should be unspoken. No one stopped you from voicing your opposition to Bush when he was president, right? At least Bush did not try to inhibit free speech by claiming certain news organizations were not legitimate.
And by the way nowhere did I threaten to use weapons of any kind! I was merely responding to this ridiculous notion of gun control and the real reasons why gun ownership is a constitutional right recently upheld by the Supreme Court as an INDIVIDUAL right as it should be!I find the right-wing hyperventilating about FoxNews being called an opinion/research arm of the GOP amusing, mostly because those really hyperventilating about it is FoxNews, and they influence watchers to have the exact same priorities as they do. It reminds me of teenagers talking about celebrities as if they were their friends.
Besides, WHO is trying to shut you or FoxNews up? Or are you upset that a majority doesn't agree with you?
Your use of the Thomas Jefferson quote, which pertained to the need for arms to rise up against a tyrannical (read: unelected, undemocratic) government seems inappropriate then, doesn't it?Fox isn't the only place to get fair and balanced information, but you must admit the bulk of the media is not raising ANY questions about the Obama administration or it's policies nor is it pursing any. The very purpose of the media is to be skeptical, to question, not promote authority. That in itself should trouble all free thinking people.
Who is trying to shut Fox News up? Well haven't you been paying attention? The Obama administration Axelrod, Dunn, and Emanuel. Don't you remember when the White House tried to keep Fox from interviewing their Pay Czar and the other news organizations protested? If Bus had done that I wonder what you would be saying?
Again, my use of the Jefferson quote was in response to another post questioning why in modern society we should have a "right to bear arms". That's hardly a threat! Do you have something against Thomas Jefferson?Agreed. Why does FoxNews only attack the Democrats then, and use plenty of distortion and innuendo, and treat the Republicans/conservatives with kid gloves? They do nothing but cheerleading for conservatives. Not exactly fair and balanced at all, which is their prerogative if they just peddle opinion.
I honestly would be troubled by this but again, FoxNews doesn't ask "tough questions" at all; they just spread propaganda. Most of the other news networks (except MSNBC, arguably) do a good job of asking tough questions.
Did the Bush administration have a habit of singling out one "bad player" among the news organizations, or did it basically exclude all of them except for FoxNews?I've said this many times but I'll repeat it, all news is biased, it's produced, edited, and presented by people. People have opinions. Fox perhaps leans to the right which I think is fine given that everyone else is leaning left.
My gripe is the press needs to live up to it's responsibility. The press has to hold the feet of authority to the fire. They have to relentlessy question the motives and actions of the powers that be. The press should not ever be a cheeerleader for power! When that happens the people have lost!I agree with you 100% in principle; in practice, not so much. Fox does not lean to the right. It is a PR organization for the GOP. There is no Left equivalent among other news organizations.
When it comes to opinion, the other news organizations post truly fair and balanced material. Right off the front page of CNN moments ago: Overly eager White House is guilty of too much information
MSNBC's headline: New market bubble may be brewing
What cheerleading?!I think you're letting your own bias show now. Pew research does not support your beliefs.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partis … -audiencesThis doesn't seem to show anything except that Republicans prefer FoxNews to all other networks, and Democrats prefer all *except* FoxNews.
Reminds me of that Colbert line, "reality has a liberal bias."Look again, it shows an almost equal amount of democrats and republicans are fox viewers, a more evenly distributed viewership than any of the other networks!
"However, it should be noted that there are more Democrats than independents or Republicans in the general public. In the 2008 news consumption survey on which this analysis is based, 36% identified as Democrats, 29% as independents and 25% as Republicans."
Besides, those who are truly neutral favor MSNBC more than any other. Does that really mean MSNBC is the most unbiased?
We also have another method of protecting ourselves from a tyranical government and it is called the vote.
Perhaps you should moreover blame the American people for making this "horrible" choice in voting in Obama. Perhaps your idea of revolting against a tyranical government voted in by the people is a choice of anarchy against the will of the people and that this type of action is more treasonist than it is rights based. That is something that is dangerous ground my friend.Well that certainly didn't stop the democrats and liberals from trying when Bush was president.
Bush was well received and quite popular in the first year or two after his inauguration. The criticism didn't really start until it became apparent how badly he was screwing America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSfxdnUs_4No he wasn't popular and criticism started even before he was president. His inauguration day there were protesters lined up during his route. You've got selective memory.
Thanks, Ernie. You confirmed my memory that Bush's popularity was high after his inauguration and 9-11.
Let's see, you don't think it's normal for the country to rally round him after September 11? As you can see from the graph it's been downhill ever since. You guys really do have selective memories.
#1 Ralph says he was quite popular during the first year or two.
#2 Then you say, no he wasn't and accuse Ralph of having a selective memory.
#3 Then I post this, which shows that Ralph was correct. His approval rating was over 60% for most of the first 3 years.
#4 When confronted with facts, instead of admitting your mistake and apologizing, your try and construct a lame justification for your uninformed opinion. It's pathetic.You guys really don't remember the controversy regarding his first election. What did you not hear the shouts of he stole the election, did you not see all those people waving signs? Hellooooo! No he wasn't popular. The election was contentious. His "popularity" happened after September 11. Did you not see the spike up after September 11. DUH, DOH!
Please read your own graph, if you are able to.Thanks, Ernie. Some people don't play their cards off the top of the deck. That's their problem. Not ours.
The starting point was between 55 and 60% and went up to 90% or so after 911. The attacks began after the realization spread about what a foolish and costly mistake buit on lies was the invasion of Iraq, his blurring of separation of church and state and the pervasive influence of the oil, mining, drug and insurance industries and Wall Street on his policies became apparent. Until then he'd been regarded as a dumber, lazier version of his father.
Keep in mind, all of our founding fathers were charged with treason.
The vote? Here's something to think about. It was said that Bush stole the election from Gore. Well we all know that both parties engage in manipulation of elections. This administration has taken that to a new level, politicizing the Census Bureau by moving control over it to the White House. The justice department dropping any plans to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation while at the same time overturning the will of the people in a small NJ town to have non partisan ballots changed to reflect party affiliation are 2 more examples of manipulation of the system. I didn't even mention Acorn, another corrupt organization designed to manipulate election outcomes. I don't even want to get into the digital voting machines that don't ahve a paper trail either!
Your posts seem to critisize and not get to the crux of the matter. If you don't like the government you have a means by which you can change it. But you don't like that method either. You promote anarchy as a means to combat it and the only result will be coups and wars if your means are employed.
To not participate in the process and promote that stance is counterproductive and will only promote a conspiracy theory society and in essence gridlock developement.
Hold these organizations accountable and produce solid evidence to effect that action. If your evidence is conclusive then you will have support. By throwing around charges and inuendo results in chaos and invalidates your charges.Don't misunderstand. I am not promoting anarchy nor am I suggesting that change can't be brought about by the people with a vote. The point I am trying to make here in this rush to make a better society for the "common good" is that we should not forget about individual rights. We need to be sure everyone has a voice not just the majority which is why the founders gave every state 2 senators.
That said I don't think any of my posts are "counter productive" at all but instead represent my rights to free speech and dissent, a sharing of ideas, concerns and considerations, and as I long as I have those rights, I know there is hope, not the hope promised to me by some politician, but the hope in my heart that freedom and free men will prevail in spite of the forces that exist to crush us. Be wary, be vigilant. Question power and authority, and speak out, whatever your views.I agree that change has to come from thoughtful reasonable actions and not that of an expediant opportunity. And I too value my freedoms and rights as much as the next guy but I can't rule out ideas for change because they sound bad or they are not presented the way I want to hear them. Part of the voting process is to be ever vigilant of the outcome and adjust it when it goes wrong. And yes you have to be careful when the "people in charge" use emergencies to push their ideas through. I also do not trust the "slime on the hill" and am the first to promote their removal based on incompetence or corupt behaviour through the vote.
We always seem to get off topic and I appologize but the Glen Beck issue is kind of played for me.
Maybe we can come up with a more pointed topic that serves the basis of our disagreements and speak to them there.
Acorn was designed to encourage inner city minorities to register and vote. They have had problems which damaged the organization's reputation beyond the extent of the problems. These issues pale compared to GOP efforts to suppress the minority vote as happened in Florida when Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore.
Oh please! It's funny how the left makes these claims and yet fails to see the connection between ACORN and SEIU president Stern and the fact that he has been to the White House 22 times in the last 3 months or that ACORN is helping the Census while at the same time the Census now reports to the White house instead of commerce. That doesn't seem to bother you? I wonder why? Is election fraud only okay when the democrats engage in it? Or is it justified because Bush "stole" the election, you know, the one where Gore conceded and the courts ruled in Bush's favor?
The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore. In a precedent-breaking split decision the U.S. Supreme Court over-ruled the Florida court's decision. What is it that you think is improper about Andy Stern's visits to the White House? As I recall Cheney met secretly with coal, oil and mining lobbyists and allowed them to write their own rules and proposed legislation. And Cheney refused to release the names of his environmental advisory committee.
I wasn't talking about Cheney's secret meetings. Why bring that up? That's history and there's nothing that can be done about it now, though it was widely reported in the MSM at the time and much was made of it. I'm not going to justify that but where is the outrage in the MSM of Obama's ties to Acorn? It seems non existent.
Obviously, I brought them up in response to your attributing something sinister about Andy Stern's visits to the White House. He obviously has influence in a Democratic administration. He has no formal connection with ACORN, so your claim equating him with ACORN is innacurate.
The topic is Glenn Beck. Why don't you tell us about why your'e such a big Gleen Beck fan?Besides the fact that Andy Stern is president of SEIU, I guess he has no formal connection with Acorn????
You might want to check this out regarding Acorn and SEIU.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10488
I like Glen Beck because he does some good reporting. He's raising questions that really deserve answers. And you do they do because the Administration is so upset by them they tried to shut him up and discredit him. You have to ask yourself, if Glen Beck is crazy and a fool, and a hate monger, or whatever, why is the White House so afraid of him?
I think he's sincere. He's perhaps a little too conservative for me, but then, those questions are troubling. Like I said, I think he took it too far with the Obama being a racist, but as he says you don't have to agree with him, do your own homework. I'm pretty sure a black guy with a with a white mother raised by a white grandmother isn't a racist!Deeds I want to post this again, because you seem to want to ignore any fact except those that neatly fit into your little liberal box. If Stern had no Connection then how do you account for this?
report from the Chicago Sun-Times the SEIU has given ACORN $4 million. Could you clarify to me the extent of your financial and programmatic ties to ACORN a project launched by Leftist multibillionaire financier George Soros and other assorted "partners." In 2008 SEIU paid $190,000 under the category of "Contributions" and in 2009 thus far has paid $25,000. Under the category of "Contracted Services," the respective figures are $1.4 million and $220,000. But these figures barely scratch the surface. Official Labor Department filings show the SEIU contributed more than $4 million to ACORN and various affiliates since 2006. The SEIU hired ACORN founder and now-deposed chief organizer-CEO Wade Rathke to coordinate the union's national organizing programs.
SEIUHealthCare was especially active, in recent years transferring the following sums to ACORN-affiliated outfits: Chicago Organizing and Support Center ($248,000); Illinois ACORN ($60,000); Illinois ACORN WNB ($92,006); Citizens Consulting, Inc. ($191,820); Citizens Consulting Inc. Legal ($31,745); and ACORN Chief Organizer's Fund ($5,894). And there's the Wade Rathke-run SEIU Local 100. The union's 2006 filing with the Labor Department, for example, reveals $5,670 paid to Citizens Consulting, Inc.; $71,899 in "gifts" to the Service Workers Action Team, a political action committee housed at ACORN's New Orleans chapter office; and accounts payable totaling $138,516 to other Rathke-controlled entities.
You're right, there is no connectionjiberish, we have discussed this before. I didn't say there is "no connection between SEIU and ACORN." I said there is no FORMAL connection. As I pointed out previously SEIU and ACORN are separate organization. SEIU is a union that represents janitors, window washers, hotel workers, hospital workers and other similar workers. There is an overlap between SEIU members and organizing targets and ACORN constituents. Perhaps it would be say there is a natural community of interest between the two organizations. And I don't have any reason to doubt that, as you pointed out, SEIU contributed money to ACORN. There is nothing sinister about that. They both serve many of the same people most of whom vote Democrat. Nothing sinister about that.
So Acorn who gets money from the government and who was co founded with Stern who is president of SEIU and consults directly with Obama and contributed to his campaign doesn't have the appearance of anything questionable? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was Bush that had those connections?
It is laughable to say that there's no connection. Remember all the quacks of Halliburton every time Cheney's name was mentioned?
Jiberish, can you read? I didn't say there's NO connection. I said NO FORMAL connection. They are separate organizations with some common interests and constituents, basically the poorest people in the country. They are trying to combat GOP well-document efforts to suppress the inner-minority vote and court the redneck vote.
Money certainly talks in the USA. He who puts the most on the table gets to shout loudest it seems.
Hi Ralph sorry to be so long in replying but on this point on guns we agree, although I think some professions require hand guns for protection, for example a diamond dealer.
I don't disagree. I've never advocated a ban on handguns. I don't think we need handguns or semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, however.
And when did they repeal the right to bear arms? I guess I missed that. Oh the constitution got in the way I forgot. You are making a silly argument based on your fears rather than what is already in place. Congress has the power to change the constitution as it states in the constitution. They haven't made the change to prevent your rights to bear arms and I guess if you wish to protect that right you will have to ensure that by voting for the person who most reflects that position. It's in the constitution. Read it.
I remain amazed that with so much information out there, in text and video of actual things people have said, that so many still refuse to see or hear the truth. Glenn Beck showed some things everyone can check out for themselves,but I guess that would be too much to ask of some. The BBC unbiased? Ha!
- Will Apseposted 15 years ago0
Mr Texas-
"Asshole"? "bite my Ass"?
Why so shrill?
Maybe you don't speak for all Texans. I'll have to cling to that hope.
ps everyone works hard for their money and very few are 'sickening wealthy'. Why is that? Ordinary people settle for those crumbs way too easy. And while wealth equals power sickening poverty will be the reward for whole lifetimes of hard labor.As a capitalist?
When did you last sink a hundred million into a new venture? Or sack an entire town?
Capitalists are a very rare breed. I reckon you are just a wannabe
ps on the issue of spreading the wealth, why do so many Texans believe that they are not good enough to deserve more than the crumbs from their masters table? This lack of self belief undermines so many genuinely capable people.
Last time I checked slavery was abolished asshole, I have no masters but the one whom I chose to follow.The only one it undermines are those capable of working, but just are to lazy. If you want to grovel for the crumbs at your masters floor(big government) go ahead and enslave yourself. It is ignorant people like you that keep us from fighting back against big government and the big corporations they sleep with and big banks presiding over the whole thing. Without reform of the way we are shipping all our jobs overseas(Bush) there will be no capitalism. To answer one of your questions, I am sickening wealthy and worked my ass off for it, so bite me. Not a dime of it came from "your masters" table. Have a nice day.
Let me ask you a question would you like to be a slave or called a slave, would you like that or would you fight, you call it shrill but I will die first before being enslaved, as far as spreading the wealth I pay through the nose and also share my money. What have you done, but try and paint me into a corner.What have I done? I made a comment. I don't think you need any help in the painting line.
The issue for me is self respect.
Over the last thirty years the middle classes have seen their incomes stagnate, everyone below them has seen their income shrink and the rich have done very, very well. Why do people allow that kind of thing? The only answer is the loser syndrome. They feel they deserve no better.
Respect for for others is also important and seems in short supply.Stagnation (i.e. going in reverse, relatively) has been the norm for those who still have jobs. Many don't. So the middle classes are truly receding, in numbers, status and influence. In part this is due to low expectation, as you say. But people only have so much energy. And the more they waste fighting the tired old left/right battle, the less they have left for constructive action.
The left vs right battle has become a complete distraction against the reality that a tiny proportion of people are now controlling and owning virtually all the resources.
And since they also control popular information, they find it easy to keep us in this state of bliss!I think that until very recently, people have had *more* expectations than they did - say - forty years ago. The difference between now and then is that people require so much more "stuff" in order to be considered middle class, i.e. gadgets, cars and foreign holidays (much of which we've only been able to pay for by getting ourselves into massive debt). It's only now that the spend now, pay later culture is beginning to catch up with us, due in part to the increasing cost of utilities/petrol and the fact that you can only go so much into debt before people stop lending you money.
Agree with you about the left-versus-right thing being "tired" though. It really is a battle of false opposites. I wish more people would realise that.Where the industrialists have been 'clever' is in creating useless expectations through lifestyle promotion. That, coupled with low quality, fashion and obsolescence.
These consumer expectations have driven out the valuable expectations of security, education, health and contentment. In fact, they deliberately foster discontent.Which came first though, the chicken or the egg? By which I mean, was it consumer demand for low quality and fashion that led industry to supply this demand, or was it industry that led demand as you seem to be suggesting? And what caused the change in the first place? I would love to know the answer to this myself.
Our susceptibility to novelty was always there, but I think it has been exploited to a cynical degree to serve the profit motive.
We hear a lot about exploitation by greedy companies/banks, but perhaps if people showed more independence of thought in the first place, then they wouldn't be exploited. It takes two to tango.
You use your comments in an attempt to paint others in a corner, it is an obvious tactic used by you to curb those whose views and opinions you disagree with . As far as me or others allowing others to "feel" they deserve no better being a syndrome, well you are going to have to back that up with some pertinent points. First point would be where you received your degree in social psychology.
Seems to me you do a pretty good job of painting yourself into a corner.
America take a look at yourself! Beck and the other loonies like him are an American phenomena.
You will not find enough gullible government hating conspiracy loons like this anywhere else in the world! Not because of freedom of speech either, but because his stupid ideas are too low brow for anyone who looks deeper in to it than this mad bunch of haters do.
I hate the government so I can lie and scheme as much as I like seems to be the moto. How does America survive this sort of rot?
Only in America!
I'm puzzled, Earnest.
First, I've got to confess: Until seeing Glenn Beck slammed on these forums a couple of months ago, I'd never even heard his name, had no idea who he was.
Okay, back to this thread: Earnest, I'm really curious as to why you refer to Beck as a loon? I just this week caught his radio show, and what he was saying sounded sensible to me. Then his book popped off the shelf and into my cart at Wal-Mart, and I don't see much "loon" in there, either. I suppose some of his conclusions can be logically argued--anyone's can; that's what debate is for--but what I'm reading so far is well researched and documented. Rot? I don't get it.
You mention "government hating conspiracy loons", and so far I haven't read one word of his that amounts to seeing government as a conspiracy--just that it is what it is, and that is responsive to political rather than business pressures, which is obvious.
If it's "Only in America", though, I'm mighty glad to live there...um..here.Where does this come from? you know, people will always try to put down the other party just because they don't follow their views. Well its O. K., we really are not ignorant I follow all the news from different perspectives and I will have too agree with Glenn I personally don't want my country and my life controlled by big government or Obama's Socialist philosophy of taking more of my money from me or interfering in our lives. It is only an American phenomena as you say for one reason only . He wants a communist society and we don't. Would you call the people who fought for our independence haters because they wanted independence from a tyrannical government. If they had listened to you we would still be owned by the U.K.
Make up your mind, big boy, is Obama a communist or a socialist?
He is a Communist, "big boy" with socialist agendas.
And the spirit of Joseph McCarthy lives on...
Is this where we are supposed to say that Australia is too damn insignificant to give such comments a moment's consideration? That's helpful, right?
jiberish, do you believe Fox News reports the news as "fair and balanced" as they state? If you do then you must believe the same is true with Beck.
I'm real tired of people say that Beck reports lies and half truths but not one person can point them out specifically. The minimal mistakes they make, they usually come back and correct them. Beck is a little dramatic, he is not balanced, he is strictly the bull dog. Is MSNBC then balanced?
Is your counter to the question of fair and balanced that it is okay if Fox News is not fair and balanced then it is okay for MSNBC to not be as well?
Could we then start a forum " Is Keith Olberman Bad for America?"
Yes. and Yes. Those who do not like Fox have alternative channels, as well as those who do not like MSNBC.So based on your answer it is okay to draw conclusions with regard to political and government or societal issues based on bias misinformation rather than factual and proven news reporting.
I think that has already been done by Ralph. I won't belabor the point but I will leave you with this. I applaud your passion and energy but I think that for it to have some effect it should show itself through truth and just handeling of the issues and not misdirected rantings based on half of the information.
More Glenn Beck lies, untruths, disinformation here for jiberish:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 203AAgK2igAll you can post is a blog, someone's one sentence?...what ever Deeds!
jiberish, If you disagree with any of the Beck lies cited in my two posts, please say which ones. You are the one who said nobody's being specific about Beck's many lies. How many more do you want? If you type "Beck lies" into Google search, you can spend the day reading about Beck's lies, half-truths and idiotic statements.
This was for Deeds, and yes the count was well over 70,000
According to whom? Sean Hannity? How much more? The Fire Department estimate was 70,000. Glenn claimed there were 1.7 million. Only a slight exaggeration!
Arent we all glad we have press freedom, where does it end, where does it begin? Sometimes other people abused it to their own advantage. There are almost 300 million Americans and 70 percent of that can vote. All is entitled to their opinion but there should be respect to the office, afterall the people in the office are voted by majority.
I agree with you there should be respect for the office, but not necessarily the person holding the office, when they turn around and do not follow through on their promises to their constituents, but cave into the lobbyist that paid for there way into office. We need to get rid of the special interest groups(lobbyists) like big businesses, banks, wall street, etc. that line the politician pockets of this country. The bribes politicians take from lobbyist should be considered a traitorous act and they should be hung, along with the lobbyist doing the bribing. We would have more politicians working for us if we enforced this agenda.
we are just thankful in America we have press freedom, but as always respect for the position should be there, no personal attacks et. al is ok......
I am ok with his yes for owning a gun----this is behavioral issue--owning or not owning a gun had been proven not to lower random acts of killings---regulation and stricter policies should be put in place----
He supports Obamas health care reform agenda as s form to pay back slavery- no comment on that
but not for his stand on kyoto protocol-- he doesnt think people are responsible for global warming,,,
overall he is still ok!You have press, radio and TV freedom, but you also have media ownership, by some very powerful vested interests. Public misinformation is rife.
hi paraglider, this is capitalism at work.....to protect the status quo and vested interest....hmmmmmm,
Wether you agree with Beck or not, wether you're a Democrat or a Republican or other, I find it a little disturbing that more people are not upset about having radicals like the Mao Tse Tung butt kisser, Valarie Jarret, and other thugs in the White House advising the POTUS. I find it alarming that people are not upset about the threat on freedom of speech, It will affect us all, that a flawed Health Plan, Cap & Trade, Cash for Clunkers, the Stimulus, the Lies are being shoved down our throat, it will affect us all. Has it not occurred to you that we are all about to loose, that higher taxes will affect us all, that your gun rights, your rights period, are in question? The arguments are allowed to continue to mask the real issues. Amazing!
Did you notice that the US came out of recession? Do you have any idea how close the world came to complete economic collapse? Governments were making contingency plans to deal with the riots and social turmoil that would follow a collapse of the banking system.
Are you celebrating? No, you are worried about:
Your gun.
Your neighbors rights to die of a curable illness.
The planets right to become uninhabitable
Someone called Valarie Jarret who apparently kisses the behinds of long dead Chinese people.
Go on, let it all go. Give in to a little optimism.Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! You seem to think your radical name calling and various distortions lends anyone to believe you know what you are warning us all about. The sky is falling has been a good way to get the unknowing public in the past to get into unwinable wars and violations of constitutional habeas corpus through the holding of prisoners without due process. What other rights do you wish us to trample because of your alarmest musings?
The higher taxes rantings do not take into consideration the ignoring of the sins of the past. Wars, unfunded programs, subsidies and loop holes all play into the mix and passing on raising taxes because of the new administrations programs, ignores the fact that we have to begin to pay for our overlooking the wrong things we have done in the past.You're talking about Bush and Reagan I assume? It's called voodoo economics (an accurate descriptive phrase coined by Geoge H.W.Bush, as I recall.)
I have never resorted to name calling, and I believe I know a little about History. Maybe you could read my latest Hub on the Hungarian revolution, it's a constant reminder of where this country is headed. Scare tactics is what THIS administration is using.
No, scare tactics are what the far-right is employing. Most of what they're complaining about in Obama Bush was 100% guilty of as well (and he spent like crazy during an economic *boom*!). They were absolutely silent then, so they really don't have any credibility outside their echo chamber.
My personal opinion of Glen Beck and whether or not he is bad for America? is quite simple- he is an A$$.
I think the fact that anyone who promotes disharmony and the strong emotion of hate has any kind of following shows how far done the slippery slope we (as a society,as a tribe and a global citizen) has gotten. What needs to change is our attitudes.
Beck is dramatic and a little over the top and aside from the program where he claimed Obama was a racist, I think he raises legitimate questions. You might not like them, but they are legitimate and I don't view them as a promotion of hate or disharmony. Would you feel the same about Letterman, Bill Mahr, or Keith Olberman, or Rachel Maddow? Or is it only hate and disharmony when it's directed at progressive views?
Glen who?LOL(that's how relevant He is to anything)!
report from the Chicago Sun-Times the SEIU has given ACORN $4 million. Could you clarify to me the extent of your financial and programmatic ties to ACORN a project launched by Leftist multibillionaire financier George Soros and other assorted "partners." In 2008 SEIU paid $190,000 under the category of "Contributions" and in 2009 thus far has paid $25,000. Under the category of "Contracted Services," the respective figures are $1.4 million and $220,000. But these figures barely scratch the surface. Official Labor Department filings show the SEIU contributed more than $4 million to ACORN and various affiliates since 2006. The SEIU hired ACORN founder and now-deposed chief organizer-CEO Wade Rathke to coordinate the union's national organizing programs.
SEIUHealthCare was especially active, in recent years transferring the following sums to ACORN-affiliated outfits: Chicago Organizing and Support Center ($248,000); Illinois ACORN ($60,000); Illinois ACORN WNB ($92,006); Citizens Consulting, Inc. ($191,820); Citizens Consulting Inc. Legal ($31,745); and ACORN Chief Organizer's Fund ($5,894). And there's the Wade Rathke-run SEIU Local 100. The union's 2006 filing with the Labor Department, for example, reveals $5,670 paid to Citizens Consulting, Inc.; $71,899 in "gifts" to the Service Workers Action Team, a political action committee housed at ACORN's New Orleans chapter office; and accounts payable totaling $138,516 to other Rathke-controlled entities.
You're right, there is no connection!P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,323,000 viewers
CNN – 440,000 viewers
MSNBC –382,000 viewers
CNBC – 182,000 viewers
HLN –315,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,325,000viewers
CNN— 570,000 viewers
MSNBC –810,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/124,000 viewers
HLN – 616,000 viewersWhat are these numbers meant to demonstrate?
No, Glen Beck isn't bad for America, Haven't watched him in a while,and while I may not agree with everything he says, he's a great entertainer, and if he gets a little "out there" once in a while , use your own good sense to sort the chaff from the wheat.
He's a college drop-out and former alcoholic. I hear he's on the short list for Sarah Palin's cabinet when she and Rush are elected in 2012.
Now, who's talking about somebody who doesn't play their cards off the top of the deck?
Did anybody ever tell you that a sense of humor isn't your strong suit?
Just think of the press copy if he takes over the press sectretary job. Get out the tissues.
Now, here's a pair!
Palin-Beck Ticket? Sarah Doesn't Rule it Out
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:36 PM
By: David A. Patten
It's no secret that former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck share great respect and admiration — so their fans can be forgiven for wondering: Is a "dream ticket" of Palin-Beck ticket completely out of the question?
Perhaps not.
Palin initially chuckled when Newsmax broached the idea. But then she had some serious words of praise for the popular Fox personality.
"I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin tells Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he's so bold — I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."- Robert Denteposted 15 years ago0
Just what America needs now -- playing the sideshow game of who's-more-irresponsiblly provocative?. Palin & Beck can become the GOP's new go-to tag team for haters and opportunists, helping befuddle the imbecilic dupes who'll vote them back into power. Yeah, that's the ticket!!!
Ha! Ha! Great stuff, Robert. Remarkable likenesses.
Wow! After reading the responses and discussion on Glen Beck I feel like I stumbled into a 60's pot smoking bunch of hippies who forgot what their brain was supposed to be used for ...thinking! Such depth and perception! I wonder what it will take for the far left to wake up, when they don't have a "Bush" or Reagan to blame for what happens to our country; when the only people who have guns are the criminals and the cops, and the crime rate has risen to astronomical heights; when marriage between man and woman is an anomoly and kids are handed off to the state run school system which imprints their brain with mind-numbing leftist novocaine; when more than 50% of the workforce consists of government employees who are protected by civil service regulations and the SEIU; when we jail people because they don;t buy health insurance while we give free health insurance to the really poor illegal immigrants and when ACORN runs all the elections with non-citizens and dead people voting(Chicago style); when Obama becomes a self-proclaimed "permanent President" when the law is changed prohibiting more than two terms for a President; when the depression of the 30's which I grew up in the midst of, is re-enacted by the "peoples" government, replete with soup lines, the WPA (workers program thru the government for those who do not know), and the other wonderful government programs we will have in the Socialist/Communist USA, where free speech and free speech will be past memories.
Just look for a mili-second at China's brand of freedom; after all they will own us after Obama spends us into bankruptcy!The Bush recession and skyrocketing health care costs are putting us into bankruptcy. Obama is spending us out of the recession.
The Obama is going to extend and probably double-dip the recession.
That could happen but if it does it will be because the stimulus program was insufficient and not well targeted, more the fault of Congress's economic ignorance and pork and the GOP's efforts to "break" Obama however they can. The most probable eventuality, from what I've been reading, is a very slow employment recovery.
From NYTimes 11-21-09
WASHINGTON — Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.
No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/busin … r=1&hp
Sounds like someone caught a contact high.
The real question is Rush Limbaugh good for America??? My opinion....HELL NO!
One person can have a tremendous effect you either love em, or hate em. Sad but true!
I like some of his views but not all, but I dont think he has a tremendous effect on swaying economic or political trends etc
Is the KKK bad for America? It's alive and well in Mississippi. The White Knights are gathering at the LSU-Ole Miss game today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/2 … 65332.htmlHard to tell who's under those white sheets!
They must spend a fortune on laundry services!
The turnout was poor--only 12 showed up. Apparently the pharmaceutical and insurance industries didn't provide financing!
12 Klansmen rally briefly before LSU-Ole Miss game
OXFORD, Miss. (AP) — About a dozen hooded Ku Klux Klan members rallied briefly at the University of Mississippi before Saturday's football game with No. 10 LSU.
The members of the Mississippi White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan spent about 10 minutes waving flags, displaying Nazi-style salutes and occasionally gesturing at a group of about 250 hecklers that included young children. They were protesting the school's decision to drop a pep song that included ``Dixie.''
Some fans had been ending the song by chanting, ``The South will rise again.'' Chancellor Dan Jones asked the band to stop playing the song after fans ignored a request to drop the chant.
The Klan said it was protesting over lost Southern symbolism at Ole Miss, which has been rocked by racial strife before.Inbreeding does tend to result in diminishing returns.
I live in the south Ralph, now why do you want to go mud slinging, my wife(cousin) resent that. LOL Glen is a court jester holding up a mirror to us and some of us don't like what we see. O.K. Ralph I'm dying for you reply, please be gentle.
Well, I grew up in the Baton Rouge, and I have fond memories of Louisiana. I still consider myself a fan of LSU footbal and basketball. However, I also have not-so-fond memories of strict segregation and prejudice. My comment about the GOP in the South was made in relation to the reports of the KKK rally at a football game in Mississippi. The KKK and racial prejudice are not confined to the South. There is plenty of it here in Michigan where I now live, and I heard several years ago that the largest KKK chapter (klavern?) was/is in Indiana.
He's just a TV personality like Oprah, Limbaugh, Dr. Phil, or whomever. If you get your news from the Television Media you are likely to be misguided.
What is bad for America is people who do not question and think about the dribble the media twists, distorts, and spoon feeds.Glen Beck is in no way as bad for America as Obama and his merry radicals...Glen Beck only voices his opinions and values(some of which make sense)Obama is attempting to rule and/or destroy the country with his values.I do not fear Glen Beck, I fear the rule of the Three Stooges Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
the talk show people who are primarily performers really are just performers and it is irritating that they set themselves up as being authorities! If you enjoy their kind of theater - fine. I think they can be malicious and destructive and there is no one reining them in when they need it. Not just Beck I just wrote a hub about talk show hosts and tried to laugh a little about their methods but while I was really thinking about it more deeply I found that they really can be dangerous!
Some are better than others, e.g. Rachel Maddow. Beck is the worst on television, IMHO.
What I don’t quite understand about the liberals is that they’ve got it all right now.
--Liberals run the White House (Rahm Israel Emanuel and his side-kick Mr. Obama),
--Liberals run both houses of Congress - a super majority to get ANY legislation they want thru Congress
--Liberals run all the big cities - Los Angeles, New York City, Detroit, Chicago (they’re all in financial straits at present - becuz of bloated bureaucracies)
--Liberals run the most populated states: New York, California, Illinois and Michigan (all in financial straits at present - becuz of bloated bureaucracies)
--Liberals have a friendly media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) plus Hollywood
--Academia is soundly liberal (paradoxically, jobs still keep vanishing- I thought ‘education was the key’?)
Liberals (Democrats) have it all. However, instead of liberals touting the successes of all their dependency programs and their cradle-to-grave entitlement gratuities (programs conservatives feel do really nothing in the long term but rob people of their vigor), they go after the now marginalized conservative pundits (e.g. Limbaugh, Beck, O’Neil, etc.). In fact, the only ones giving these conservative talking-heads publicity ... are the liberals.
I don’t get it. Liberals should be the happiest people on earth right now. Oh, they also have a magic printing press at the U.S. Treasury. There should be nothing but complete euphoria right now from the left.
What will be good for America would be the media to report the news not to make the news
So here we go with the usual liberal mantra and name-calling like "wingnuts." Problem here, folks, is that Beck is a highly-rated program watched by millions EVERY DAY. I haven't read every post on this thread, but Beck serves a serious purpose in the media. During the Presidential campaign, it seems the mainstream media could find absolutely nothing wrong with Obama and his agenda -- even though Obama was not supplying details to his smooth delivery. So considering the media was liberal in its coverage, Fox News -- and Beck -- took a stand. I admire them for that. I think Beck is a bit too much into himself with "GB" plastered everywhere. But I don't trust Obama -- haven't trusted a President since JFK -- and Beck serves as a check and balance between Obama's leftist agenda and what I feel a conservative America wants. I really don't see how Beck can maintain this frenetic pace day after day. But he has an excellent research team and, as mentioned, is the most highly-rated program of its kind airing today. That, by itself, speaks volumes about Beck, his program, and a very frustrated and angry middle class America.
Related Discussions
- 20
Is President Obama Trying To Become A Dictator?
by leeberttea 15 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...
- 130
Glenn Beck and Many of the Tea Partiers are Neo-Birchers
by Ralph Deeds 14 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...
- 43
The maturity and intelligence of O'Donnell
by Jimbo'daNimbo 12 years ago
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lawrenc … -anywhere/I sure am glad Lawrence O'Donnell did this so everyone can see maturity and intelligence in action. He after all holds forth nightly for all things Liberal and Socialist so it is nice when they do this so you can see the proof in the...
- 9
Does Glen Beck deserve the protection of free speech guaranteed him by the Unite
by Ravaged Nation 14 years ago
Does Glen Beck deserve the protection of free speech guaranteed him by the United States...Constitution?
- 100
Limbaugh or Beck: Who's the Bigger Idiot?
by Paul Wingert 14 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...
- 17
Glenn Beck Jokes
by bphee 15 years ago
On the October 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Glenn Beck stated, "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." Beck continued: "There are a few people that...