Is Glenn Beck Nuts????

[sgreger1]

One is free to say anything he wants to make ratings. The other must account for the good of a nation.

I ask again, is Glenn Beck nuts?

No, he is very good at what he set out to do: get high ratings and make good money by antagonizing the status quo.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Is Beck just saying what he is saying to get good ratings and make bucks; or, is some actual journalism mixed in there? And, what does his show tell us about the "status quo" since his ratings are going up?

Is Beck just a political Jerry Springer or is there social merit and value to his outlandish diatribe? I find it very strange that advertisers distance themselves from him yet viewership increases.

Finally, if there is some journalism actually taking place on his program, where is it and how is it separated from commentary? Take his reporting of Van Jones for example. Is it responsible journalism or just an effort to make bucks and increase ratings?

Beck has been saying these things for years, even before he was popular. But either way he is not a journalist, he is a commentator. But he uses news articles from the day, and discusses what he sees going on. People agree and claim to see the same issues he is discussing as major issues to the nation, so his ratings increase and he establishes his bottom line, which is making money.

The advertisers didn't only pull out of his show, they pulled out of all political opinion shows that polarize people, they instead bought timeslots on other FOX shows so Fox says they don't care because they didn't lose any money.

[sgreger1]

that's all beck is, a shit whiffing stirrer of hate.

You can all say the Beetles were a terrible band and that no one likes coca cola, but the facts are that people love some things and they don't like other things.

Who would say the Beatles were a terrible band??

EDIT: Sorry it was worded weird. I ment to say that you can claim the beattles were stupid and no one liked them but the fact is that most people did, so who cares what you think? Just like you can claim glennn beck is a nut who has nothing to say, but it doesnt change the fact that the nation agrees with his program more than any liberal program based on their viewing habits.

My point exactly, any moron can claim nobody likes a certain thing, but when they are an international sensation the fact is that obviousely the majority like him. Just like Glenn Beck

[sgreger1]

Liberals are on the same extreme just at a different end of the spectrum. Like healthcare, they realize people dont want it and that more than half of america is not in favor of it, so they change their words around to sell better.


Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name.

· "Abortion" becomes "choice,"

· "communist" becomes "progressive,"

· "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic"

· and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."


It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

[VBSnus]

Liberals are on the same extreme just at a different end of the spectrum. Like healthcare, they realize people dont want it and that more than half of america is not in favor of it, so they change their words around to sell better.


Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name.

· "Abortion" becomes "choice,"

· "communist" becomes "progressive,"

· "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic"

· and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."


It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Everyone changes names. Name association is one of the top ways to make your ideas stick.

Why do you think every conservative out there is encouraged to call the health bill ObamaCare? It's to associate it with Barack Obama, to make sure that if it fails, they think Barack Obama failed. And to make sure people who dislike Obama would automatically dislike the bill. Obama Care, Death Panels, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Nazis, Teabaggers, Yuppies, Arugula Eaters, Tree Huggers, Birthers, Elitists, Neocons...everyone's got names they throw back and forth.

Your examples are not entirely accurate though. Calling HR3200 ObamaCare is one thing, calling Abortion = Choice is not a play on words, it's an ideal. And just because you believe progressive politics are communist doesn't mean they changed the name to make it better, it means you changed the name based on your ideals.

In other news, I want this shirt:

[sm0ke42o]

I hate that douchebag. He is one of the biggest hypocrites on television. He molds the news to fit whatever stupid psycho-conservative agenda he has for the week. I recall an episode after he had gotten out of the hospital several months back where he ripped the health care system in two saying it was poorly organized and that doctors dont care about patients and that there needed to be major changes. Then a few months later when Obama starts pushing health-care reform all of the sudden our health-care system is the best in the world and there is not a thing wrong or that needs to be changed.


What a tool. I have no respect for people who allow their opinions to sway depending on the political climate and what is popular to speak out against at any given time. This is just a small example of the stupidity that just oozes from this idiot everywhere he goes.

[sgreger1]

Liberals are on the same extreme just at a different end of the spectrum. Like healthcare, they realize people dont want it and that more than half of america is not in favor of it, so they change their words around to sell better.


Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name.

· "Abortion" becomes "choice,"

· "communist" becomes "progressive,"

· "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic"

· and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."


It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Everyone changes names. Name association is one of the top ways to make your ideas stick.

Why do you think every conservative out there is encouraged to call the health bill ObamaCare? It's to associate it with Barack Obama, to make sure that if it fails, they think Barack Obama failed. And to make sure people who dislike Obama would automatically dislike the bill. Obama Care, Death Panels, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Nazis, Fascists, Nazis, Teabaggers, Yuppies, Arugula Eaters, Tree Huggers, Birthers, Elitists, Neocons...everyone's got names they throw back and forth.

Your examples are not entirely accurate though. Calling HR3200 ObamaCare is one thing, calling Abortion = Choice is not a play on words, it's an ideal. And just because you believe progressive politics are communist doesn't mean they changed the name to make it better, it means you changed the name based on your ideals.

In other news, I want this shirt:

Quote: "Why do you think every conservative out there is encouraged to call the health bill ObamaCare? It's to associate it with Barack Obama"


- I think Obama has associated himself with it by multiple conferences and addresses in which he talks about "my healthcare proposal".



When you want re-distribution of wealth
higher taxes
bigger government
gov control of essential markets that were privately owned
etc

this sounds like communism to me.

You can call it a workers paradise all day but Russia was no such thing.

Every dictatorship started out as a "people's republic socialist workers party ..." of some type or another.

[VBSnus]

Yes, and during GWB's presidency everyone said if you want to go to war under false pretenses and escalate oil sales and wiretap citizens and torture people that sounds like fascism to me.

Everyone has their own point of view, and therefore everything is relative. Welcome to our Quantum World.

[sgreger1]

Yes, and during GWB's presidency everyone said if you want to go to war under false pretenses and escalate oil sales and wiretap citizens and torture people that sounds like fascism to me.

Everyone has their own point of view, and therefore everything is relative. Welcome to our Quantum World.

False pretenses claim has been debunked a thousand times. That Bush somehow lied to the world and that we only went there because of WMD's is a long held and often debunked myth.

Torture defined by who? The USA saw it as legal during the time, and nowadays liberals in office are claiming that sleep deprevation and second hand smoke are forms of torture.


But by and large I agree with you, and it is fascism. Now my question is: The republicans showed their hate for GW Bush and all polls across the nation showed that not many DID agree with Bush, so now that Obama is in and has stepped up the fascism effort, why are the liberals not holding their end of the bargain and saying "NO!", like the republicans did to George Bush.

Warrantless wiretapping is fascism, as well as were a lot of his policies. Republicans for the most part agree, but what we are saying is, now that Obama isdoing these same things why are the liberals suddenly "for" all of these programs. Liberals are okay that Obama still wants warrantless wiretapping, why not the protests against him? Because he's a liberal.





So dem's I ask you, how do you explain yourselves?
Have the standards changed since your guy is doing it now instead of the republicans?




What about

[VBSnus]

What about

DUDE, YOU GOT DISCONNECTED BY THE FASCISTS

[sgreger1]

Why the double standard?

What is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive



Tell me again why Socialist liberals thought GWB was so stupid:

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he was?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day," would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, then replaced him with one of his cronies who's college degree is in ballet, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt --which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate -- in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you hace approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive to the Socialist liberals?

[sgreger1]

What about

DUDE, YOU GOT DISCONNECTED BY THE FASCISTS

ROFLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Outstanding. Theyr coming to get me now! :twisted:

[Veganpunk]

Glenn Beck isn't nuts, his followers are!! jk :lol: :lol:

[truthwolf1]

I like Michelle Malkin, in more ways than one.

That would be one angry @#$*!

[VBSnus]

What if times infinity

Dude, I'm not sure where you pulled all those up and I don't have time to pull together every stupid, thoughtless, dangerous, disastrous, or asinine thing Bush did. All I can say is that when he did them, liberals went batshit crazy and republicans tried to deflect, spin, or brush it off. Now that a democrat is in power, the same thing is happening the other way around.

Some of those items on your list are exaggerated, by the way.

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

That's all that was on it, huh? Not footage of her visit? And he didn't give her a rare vintage songbook for her favorite musical, Oklahoma, signed by Richard Rogers? Good thing he got the standard silver-framed picture of her. But she's not a narcissist, just him.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

I wouldn't care, just as I didn't care when he kissed and held hands with the Saudi king.

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

I'm sure all Republicans, including those in Bush's cabinet, paid every bit of their taxes and never took advantage of the system.

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he was?

It was funnier that it was at a spelling bee. It wouldn't have been as big otherwise.

Seriously, calm down. You're going to give yourself an ulcer, man. NONE OF THIS IS ANYTHING NEW. It's just a democrat in power, once again. When Bill was in power, the right went nuts. When Bush was in power, the left went nuts. Now that Obama's in power, the right goes nuts.

If you really want to do something about it, stop posting all the talking points and make a petition. Lobby Congress. Run for Congress. Write for your newspaper. There are a million ways to get your point across, yet everyone seems to be talking about getting the guns, seceding, etc. etc.

[VBSnus]